Mock Trial - The People vs. Hewitt
This year for mock trial we had a more free rein method of going about the case. We were split into groups for defense or prosecution. In these groups you had a partner which you’d split the work with. The case was about the murder of Jennifer White, who’s parachute chords were cut and resulted in her death during sky diving. The city of San Diego was prosecuting Monica Hewitt, who had been believed to be in love with Jennifer’s boyfriend. We started off our process with our trial manuals.
The manual was a thick packet that held the contents of the case. It had the depositions of our four witnesses, evidence, jury instructions, etc. It was an extremely vital part of each sides platform. Though intimidating at first, once you read your way through it, you got the basic idea of what you needed in favor of your case. Though this made this years trial more work, it was all so worth it. With the script taken away, we were able to use our liberties to have a say in what was going to go down in the courtroom, which individualized each trial. We had to create our questions for two witnesses, and an opening or closing statement, as well as develop the skills to deliver them properly in court.
I was on the prosecution side, so my mentor was John Fraher. For three days of the week he worked with our side, helping us with the fundamentals of our case, and how to present them in court. Though overwhelming at times, he knew how to get the job done and pushed us through our babbling discomfort to more efficient strategies. The days were full of stress but at the same time entertaining. There was a lot of repetition in our work, revising, and it seemed that no matter how long or how hard you looked into the case, your work was never done. I could have probably continued to prepare to this day, and that was a new twist for an assignment, more realistic.
I worked with Taelon as a partner, and created the examinations of Martin Imbramovich (The manager at the skydiving club) and Monica Hewitt, as well as the closing argument. I believed that we worked efficiently and his positive attitude was always a nice influence. Even through our work though, we ended up with a unanimous not guilty verdict when it came to the trial. It was definitely a painful blow after the week of preparation, and I still don’t know how to interpret it. At first I was relieved due to the fact that the other prosecution team that had been in trial at the time also lost their case, until the second half went by and both prosecution pairs won . Even with the burden of proof prosecution carried, it was clearly still possible for our side to win, and in the end only made me wish I worked harder.
Our opponents were Charlie and Maxx, and we went in with confidence that we had a chance. But by the middle of the trial, I knew what our fate was. Charlie and Maxx did deserve their win though, especially after their closing argument. I just remember Taelon and I looking at each other as he passed me a note that read “We’re screwed”.
Even though my trial ended on a sour note, overall I was a lot more keen on this years work. There are only a couple of things I would want to change. The first would be to have a more balanced case (though keep in mind I do have a bias of being on a losing prosecution team).
I think that even though it was possible for prosecution to win, it would have been nice to have been given at least one fact that was a bit more solid. Each piece of evidence seemed to have a strong contradiction to it. The finger print we had was partial and indefinite. Our one eye witness needed glasses, had an error in his testimony, and his claims seemed almost geographically impossible. The scientist that tested for fingerprints on the parachute had only worked for six months in criminal justice and had missed other possible candidates fingerprints on the pack. There was an error in the chain of custody. Monica’s Facebook page status was pushed as lack of maintenance. Her psychological evaluation saying she was a narcissist and manipulative was over looked due to her being a nurse for children with cancer, and there were at least two other candidates that could have cut the chords on Jennifer’s parachute.
Secondly, I think we should try and find a way to have different jurors each time. No matter how unbiased the jury promised they’d be, I find it extremely hard to believe that the 10 and 11 year olds didn’t carry anything from the first trial they saw to the next. They already new what happened and most of the facts, and I could see their attention slipping as it was all relayed out for them a second time around. I’m not sure as to who might else be able to do it, but I’m sure the eighth grade would be willing to do it next year. Either have more jurors, or have two different cases, which was proposed in our meeting post trials. All in all though, it was a great experience.
