Mock Trial

midlifeflyer

midlifeflyer

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
17,191
Display Name
Display name:
Fly
Yesterday I played the role of the presiding judge in a round of a mock trial competition. Some of you may be familiar with the program. The American Mock Trial Association is the governing body of an annual collegiate mock trial competition. It's not just for potential lawyers. Both lawyers and witnesses are also scored on the quality of their presentation. So we get a fair share of budding actors as well. One witness in the round I heard, a simple fact witness, created the backstory of being of a fortune teller. The competition also attracts students who find this more valuable for developing certain skills than debating teams.

So, what's the aviation connection?

Well, this year's case is Felder v. Koller Campbell Air, LLC. It's a wrongful death case brought by a surviving spouse. In the scenario, Morgan Felder joined VFR-only private pilot Reese Campbell (one of the owners of Koller Campbell Air) for an evening flight over a lake. The airplane ended up crashing into a nearby mountain, killing both pilot and passenger. The primary issue as presented by the teams in the round I judged, was whether the accident was caused by Reese flying in deteriorating weather conditions or by a catastrophic engine failure.

It was fun watching the teams deal with the aviation issues. None of them (not even the "experts") were pilots so there were gaps even a newbie private pilot could fill in but an excellent job overall. I was particularly impressed with an argument between the attorneys about the scope of the NTSB report exclusionary rule.

Best witness was D.B. Gelfand, a show pilot, who testified for the plaintiff that Reese made bad weather decisions which led to the crash. The student who played the role came complete with flight suit and the swagger of the self-styled greatest pilot and remained in character throughout.
 
Do they basically recreate the arguments that were made in the original trial?
 
MauleSkinner said:
So is it a totally made-up case?
Click to expand...
I suppose that like TV and movies, some of the scenarios are recognizable, but basically, it's a made up case.

There's a lot of student work that goes into these, including strategy. There were a dozen potential witnesses, including a human representative for each party. Some are identified as plaintiff witnesses; others as defendant witnesses; a third group of witnesses that either party might use. The teams are limited to a total of three witnesses each. There are also multiple potential issues. So the selection of which witnesses to use is also a plaintiff decision about the theory to go on. For example, the case materials raise a potential medical issue that never came up in the case I heard.
 
flyingron said:
It's totally fictitious. They have their own "rules of evidence" and provide basic case materials to be used.
Click to expand...
Fortunately the Midland Rules of Evidence are basically the Federal Rules of Evidence.

And yeah, the case materials was a packet almost 200 pages long. Complaint, answer, relevant statutes and case law, exhibits, pretrial affidavits and deposition testimony...
 
It may have been a made up case, but there was a similar case in Washington State I believe. If I recall correctly a Cessna 182 flew into a mountainside on a foggy, low overcast kind of day. NTSB concluded Flight into IMC conditions led to the Controlled Flight into Terrain. The family of the passengers sued Textron and Lycoming stating an engine failure was the cause of the accident.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yesterday I played the role of the presiding judge in a round of a mock trial competition. Some of you may be familiar with the program. The American Mock Trial Association is the governing body of an annual collegiate mock trial competition. It's not just for potential lawyers. Both lawyers and witnesses are also scored on the quality of their presentation. So we get a fair share of budding actors as well. One witness in the round I heard, a simple fact witness, created the backstory of being of a fortune teller. The competition also attracts students who find this more valuable for developing certain skills than debating teams.

So, what's the aviation connection?

Well, this year's case is Felder v. Koller Campbell Air, LLC. It's a wrongful death case brought by a surviving spouse. In the scenario, Morgan Felder joined VFR-only private pilot Reese Campbell (one of the owners of Koller Campbell Air) for an evening flight over a lake. The airplane ended up crashing into a nearby mountain, killing both pilot and passenger. The primary issue as presented by the teams in the round I judged, was whether the accident was caused by Reese flying in deteriorating weather conditions or by a catastrophic engine failure.

It was fun watching the teams deal with the aviation issues. None of them (not even the "experts") were pilots so there were gaps even a newbie private pilot could fill in but an excellent job overall. I was particularly impressed with an argument between the attorneys about the scope of the NTSB report exclusionary rule.

Best witness was D.B. Gelfand, a show pilot, who testified for the plaintiff that Reese made bad weather decisions which led to the crash. The student who played the role came complete with flight suit and the swagger of the self-styled greatest pilot and remained in character throughout.
Click to expand...
Sounds like fun. Gotta think about that 75 bucks tho. I assume you are the one that 'created' the case? Was it modeled after an existing case? If so, can you share?
https://www.collegemocktrial.org/re...ller-campbell-air-first-case-changes-released
 
midlifeflyer said:
I suppose that like TV and movies, some of the scenarios are recognizable, but basically, it's a made up case.

There's a lot of student work that goes into these, including strategy. There were a dozen potential witnesses, including a human representative for each party. Some are identified as plaintiff witnesses; others as defendant witnesses; a third group of witnesses that either party might use. The teams are limited to a total of three witnesses each. There are also multiple potential issues. So the selection of which witnesses to use is also a plaintiff decision about the theory to go on. For example, the case materials raise a potential medical issue that never came up in the case I heard.
Click to expand...
Are there Juries? Voir Dire? Has a Jury ever done the nullification thing?
 
I am happy to see this kind of training in your schools, it seems to be lacking in my area.

In my High School Civics class and Political Science, I debated on gun registration, birth control, and mandatory draft registration. The teams were formed by those who felt strongly volunteering, then the teacher filled out the team from others who might have been opposed to both sides.

Hitler forced mandatory registration for public safety, then when that was completed, Confiscation followed for non party faithful in the later 1930's. England had restricted ownership, particularly hand guns, for many years, and in the 1940's, found that the had a gunless population about to be invaded.

Nothing controversial or emotionally charged for the early post war times. We were expected to be tough, and were. We also had a Debate club, which had more members than the Chess club.

Some of my classmates attended college on the other version of the GI Bill, paid for in blood by their fathers.


My two sons had no such formal adversarial training, there was no debate club, and debates in class were not a part of any class.

There were informal discussions of political candidates as elections approached, but they were more of a sharing of information that advocating for a specific candidate or platform issue.
 
midwestpa24 said:
It may have been a made up case, but there was a similar case in Washington State I believe. If I recall correctly a Cessna 182 flew into a mountainside on a foggy, low overcast kind of day. NTSB concluded Flight into IMC conditions led to the Controlled Flight into Terrain. The family of the passengers sued Textron and Lycoming stating an engine failure was the cause of the accident.
Click to expand...
Has there been an outcome of that one?
 
Judge: Answer the question or I will hold you in contempt of court.

Me: I don't think you know how full of contempt I am.

Me, later on, sitting in a jail cell: Red jello, couldn't they have served green jello for dessert.??
 
luvflyin said:
Has there been an outcome of that one?
Click to expand...

I am not sure. My Google-fu is not sharp today and I haven't been able to find the case online. I just recall reading about it and couldn't believe it was serious.

Granted I was once involved in a crash, and saw a family do much of the same. They and their attorney took one part of a sentence out of a 100 page report out of context, and used that to try to build a case against the operator and manufacturer for an accident that was similar. I remember seeing the widow and her attorney on the local news espousing about how the crash was caused by maintenance, which was the farthest from the truth.
 
luvflyin said:
Sounds like fun. Gotta think about that 75 bucks tho. I assume you are the one that 'created' the case? Was it modeled after an existing case? If so, can you share?
https://www.collegemocktrial.org/re...ller-campbell-air-first-case-changes-released
Click to expand...
No, I didn't create it. The national association creates the case for the nationwide competition. I don't know whether they modeled it after a real case but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I was pleasantly surprised it was an aviation scenario.

I'm not at liberty to share their copyrighted case materials.
 
geezer said:
I am happy to see this kind of training in your schools, it seems to be lacking in my area.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? This is a collegiate competition with about 400 schools participating. I think there are schools in every state.

There is also a national high school mock trial program. I was a team coach for a school when I lived in Colorado. I don't know whether there is a high school in your area participating.
 
flyingron said:
"Everything that man just said is bullsh-t" is the ultimate opening statement.
Click to expand...
There is a famous case where that happened (or a great myth). The case had to do with bull semen used to impregnate cows. At the end of the plaintiff's opening, the defense opened with:

defense: what kind of semen was that?
Plaintiff: bull.
Defense: right. Bull. Now let's talk about the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top