Difference between revisions of "Evidence 2007"

From CyberOne Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 21: Line 21:
[[Snapshots from the trial]]
[[Snapshots from the trial]]
[[Image:DSC 0176.JPG|200px]]
'''Announcement:''' For Jan. 17th the following groups gave opening statements: "Menacer's Thrill on Vainness" (Bragg) and "Einsel Lesnie" (Linden). Assignments for the remainder of the trial are as follows: "Superlawyer" - Bragg's direct and Rosedale cross-examination; "Necker" - Rosedale direct and Bragg cross-examination;  "Sasy Drum" - Bragg Closing; "Nesson Redgrave" - Linden Labs Closing. Witness examinations began last night and will be concluded tonight (Jan. 18th), followed by closings. If you have any questions please email the Hearo Nakamura Group at EvidNesson1@gmail.com.
*[[Sasy Drum]]
*[[Sasy Drum]]

Revision as of 19:54, 22 January 2007

Welcome to the Evidence 2007 Course Wiki

Class Group Work

SL meeting transcript for Jan. 16th

transcript for Jan. 17th

transcript for Jan. 18th

Snapshots from the trial

Lecture Videos

Click here for a one-click install/subscribe with Democracy Player (basically, you automatically get your Evidence videos delivered and ready to watch).

Archived Audio Files (Evidence of Winter '06)

  • Winter 2006 Evidence Audio Files - here you can find segments ranging from 1 minute 15 minutes on rules, problems, historical figures, evidence concepts, and more. You can right click on the files to download them, or just listen to them streaming.


January 2:

Nesson: Introduction to Course

  • Discussion of syllabus, class plan and requirements, group work, laptops in class, the Question Tool
  • introduction to the law lord, jury process
  • introduction of Martin Levin and Levin Lectures

Levin: Introduction to Trial Law and Pre-Trial Procedure

  • Overview discussion of trial process, terminology and roles
  • Initial Pleadings—Complaint, Answer, Reply
  • Discovery—Generally, Interrogatories, Requests to Produce, Requests to Admit, Non-Party Production, Depositions, Electronic Discovery
  • Pre-Trial Conference--Pre-Trial Memorandum, Motions in Limine, Witness & Exhibit List, Jury Instructions, Verdict Form, Trial Briefs
  • Initial Trial Preparation--File Organization, Trial Subpoenas, Venire List, Jury Instructions, Verdict Form, Examination Preparation, Deposition Readings and Videos, Stipulated Facts, Interrogatory Publication, Request to Admit Publication, Demonstrative Aids and Exhibits, Order of Proof, Opening Statement, Closing Argument, Voir Dire, Directed Verdict


  • Familiarize yourself with the pleadings in Bragg v. Linden Labs.
  • Log In to Second Life, choose an avatar, orient yourself, come to Berkman Island.

A page for those who would like to engage in a Discussion of the Bragg. v. Linden Labs Pleadings.

Levin's Reading on Pre-Trial Procedure

Nesson: audio journal 3jan07

January 3:

Nesson: Reaction and feedback on day one,

Levin: Trial Presentation

  • Theme of Case
  • Stylistic Issues
  • Exhibits and Demonstrative Aid Tools—Adobe Photoshop, Aerial Photography, Computer Animations, Diagnostic Scans, Medical Exhibits, Microsoft PowerPoint, Roxio Complete Media Creator, Scanners, Sympodium, Timelines, Trial Director, Vacuum Mounted Boards, Verdict Systems Sanction Software, Video Projectors, Visual Presenters
  • Motions in Limine

Nesson: Division of Function between Judge and Jury

  • The Rim
  • Procedure for handling issues of fact relating to proof of the complaint
  • Procedure for handling issues of fact relating to issues of law
  • Procedure for handling issues of law


Nesson, "The Evidence or the Event? On Judicial Proof and the Acceptability of Verdicts"
American Jury

Levin's Reading on Trial Presentation

Questions from the Question Tool 1/03/07

Thoughts Provoked:

January 4:

Nesson: The Rules

Levin: Voir Dire

  • Theory
  • Focus Groups
  • Electronic Juries
  • Mock Trials
  • Venire Lists
  • Seating Charts
  • Juror Questionnaires
  • Venire Questioning
  • Jury Selection Software
  • Legal Doctrine

Levin's Reading on Voir Dire

Nesson: Burden of Proof

  • Concepts - Persuasion, Reasonable Doubt, Proof to a Preponderance
  • Constitutional grounding
  • Inferential Proof and the problem of the Blue Bus
  • Statistical Proof and the problem of the Prison Yard


Amar, The Bill of Rights and our Posterity (particularly "story eight")
Duncan v.Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)
J.E.B. v.Alabama, 511 U.S. 127(1994)


January 5:

Nesson: Character as Relevant/Prejudicial Evidence

People v. Zackowitz, 254 N.Y. 192, 172 N.E. 466 (1930)
Return to the Scene of the Crime
"Money or Death"
Huddleston v U.S., 485 U.S. 681 (1988)
United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978)
Proof of Defendant's Good Character
Proof of Defendant's Violent Character
The Mayor
Careless Smoker
Tanford & Bocchino, Rape Shield Laws and the Sixth Amendment
Prostitution, Rape or Both?
Explanation for Pregnancy
State v. Jacques, 558 A.2d 706 (Me. 1989)

Levin: Opening Statements

  • Fundamentals
  • Format
  • Issues
  • Law

Nesson: Power of Narrative

  • Lawyer Credibility

Thoughts Provoked:

January 8:

Levin: Examinations 1

  • Direct Examination
  • Redirect Examination
  • Expert Examination
  • Confrontation
  • From Raleigh to Crawford
The Treason Trial of Walter Raleigh
Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895)
Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004)
Davis v. Washington(2006)

Jan 8 Feedback

January 9:

Nesson: Experts

Daubert v. Merrell Dow 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)
General Electric Co. v. Joiner,522 U.S. 136 (1997)
Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow (on remand),43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)

Jan 9 Feedback

January 10:

Jury Instructions & Verdict Form

Nesson: Hearsay in Theory

Definition of Hearsay
L. Tribe, Triangulating Hearsay
J. Falknor, Evidence of Conduct
R. Park, McCormick on Evidence and the Concept of Hearsay
Arsenic and Hors d'Oeuvres
Murder at the Seaside Bistro
Assault on Massachusetts Avenue
Murder in the Ajax Building
Corn Crib Case
Captain Cook and Davey Jones
Black Crepe
Hot Pursuit?
The Stolen BMW
The Forgetful Witness

Jan 10 Feedback

January 11:

Closing Arguments and Summation

  • Fundamentals of Closing Argument
  • Stylistics Issues Specific to Closing Argument
  • Addressing Issues Head-On in Closing Argument
  • The Law on Closing Argument

Levin Readings: Fundamentals of Closing Argument


  • Attorney-Client Privilege
Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence
Proposed Rule 503
The Blackacre Fraud
The Eavesdropper
The Energetic Investigator
Hit and Run
D.C.Bar on Ethics of Evidence Destruction
Smoking Gun
Clark v. State
Hitch v. Arizona
Upjohn v. United States

Jan 11 Feedback

January 12:

January 16

'We meet as usual in Austin North.'

Hearsay Exceptions
Stolen BMW
Forgetful Witness
He who Laughs Last...
Stage Fright (p. 474)
Stagger P (p. 475)
Snowmobile Crash (p. 475)
Strong Feelings and Future Plans (p. 476)
Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892)(pp. 476-480)
Shepard v. United States (II), 290 U.S. 96 (1933)(pp. 481-483)
Negligent Entrustment (pp. 484-485)
Window Washers
Accident Reports (p. 487)
Palmer v. Hoffman , 318 U.S. 109 (1943)(pp. 487-490)
Hospital Reports (p. 490)
Computer Records (p. 490)
Giving Them the Business (p. 491)
Police Reports (p. 495)
Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N.Y. 124, 170 N.E. 517 (1930)(pp. 495-497)


late thursday afternoon


question tool as organizing force for class, for social gatherings, for web focal point of our activity,

we wish to organize a confernece in the shape of a cone through time with the conference days themselves just slices.

January 19

elements for question tool

  • best evidence
  • vinny
  • second life
  • digital discovery
  • other to be nominated

Useful Links

January 20

now the challenge begins
does the wiki stay alive
come alive
we have a format
what is it
what are its component parts stated at a meta level such that others could produce it
can we feedback, tweak it, reiterate it
just like programming from scratch
here's from andy, ska phil rosedale

Hi Becca/Eon

Feedback (as requested at the end of the meeting yesterday).

1. I don't need to highlight the positive. You drew large crowds of enthusiastic people all 3 days. Format works.

2. Fitting everything in to 3 days is certainly difficult. Its starts out slow, and ends at breakneck pace. Don't think you want to add another day.

The only change I would suggest would to be include the opening arguments, straight after jury selection on day 1. And give the sides fixed amounts of time for their direct and cross so that they can rehearse and make sure they can fit their arguments in

Each side could have.. for example 40 mins for their directs and 20 for their crosses. They could use that as they choose. Maybe call 2 witnesses for 20 mins each or only one for 40. Their choice. Like a chess game, their clock stops when the other side does their cross. I'm sure there must be a chess clock in SL already that someone sells.

And to get it right, the teams could do a dry run with their witnesses beforehand. If they have not done this before in SL, they won't know whether their lines of questioning are too slow for SL audiences. particularly as they have to factor in the lag. What looks good on paper rarely translates to SL, and won't cut and paste effectively.

3. One of the law students on each side could be "director/co- ordinator" and be involved with all the groups on his/her side to make sure that they make a consistent presentation, and (for example) make sure that those who cross or close will pick up on issues that have come before. It felt like a number of disjoint scenes, rather than a consistent argument that was being developed. The closings, for example, did not summarize and draw conclusions from what had been heard before.

4. It might be worth having a "client" role as well as witness roles. Maybe one of the students. So they have to answer to someone, and maybe talk through their strategy in advance to an outsider.

5. Sitting on one side of the amphitheater I never heard the verdict. It would be good to mark a circle at the center of the amphitheater so, "if you stand here everyone can hear you".

6. Lag is a huge issue. Maybe close the sandbox (or the island itself) for an hour or so while the event is happening. When I was on the witness stand, SecondLife itself was almost completely unresponsive, and it was extremely difficult just to get a reply typed in (cut and paste was impossible). Maybe I need to discard my powerbook and buy a bigger computer.

7. Maybe allow a "not empathic" objection :-) Wasn't much empathy out there.

I hope it was a useful exercise for the law students. The one I spoke with did seem to really enjoy it.

Thanks for allowing me to get involved to the extent I did.

best regards


and here is my reply

andy, your contribution once again is wonderful and very much appreciated. i heard in your testimony the winning line for linden labs. may i have your permission to post your suggestions to our wiki? -c

Hi from GeoffMcG Xi (the infamous Bragg):

I'm excited that this excercise is not "out of sight, out of mind," and that the project continues with feedback and comments on how to proceed into an uncharted and promising future. I'll follow Andy's inspired lead and offer some ideas from a participant perspective;

1) Despite some of the snafus of using SL for a mock trial, I thought this was a tremedous success. Whether or not the success came from the synergy between the case facts itself (i.e., would a non-SL case be as successful in SL?) I can't say. But since Eon's committment to open access drove the move into SL, I think it is the right format to get outside, non-HLS perspectives (am I a non-HLS perspective???).

2) Wow, trials move slowly. Even more so in a text-based format. How can we trim the time yet boost the content?

  • Meet with the witnesses before hand. Andy and I put lots of time into preparing our testimony--reading the court filings, finding blog posts to flesh out the facts of the case, putting it all together into a presentable whole. As such, I think we can be seen as delegates for the case specifics. This is an enormous resource to more fully employ in the future. I had a blast doing it, and wouldn't hesitate to put the effort into another run. But I felt removed from the attorneys. At times, I felt there were arguments made to the jury that I could have suggested wouldn't fly at all. Now, granted I know most of the jurors through this and the Cy1 experience. But the knowledge that we at-large participants have about SL could have been used more effectively.
  • Attorneys need to spend time in SL to understand how the system works, the speed of chat, the role of typed communication. There is room for rhetorical subtlety in SL, but you need to know your audience. Long, double barrel questions don't work well. If you spend more time in-world, I think you'll pick up the flow of conversation and be a more effective in-world advocate.
  • Cross examinations seemed a bit scattered. The questions were more open ended than I expected, and I often time think the attorneys lost their main points.

3) Use we participants more. I know that most of the jurors were/are willing to debrief on what was effective, chat about the experience, and give feedback. This is the real strength of open-access programming from the enrolled student's perspective. We are the court of public opinion and we can give you more than a verdict. So please, use us!