COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v.

MADDOX HALE

Sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Association

Dear Mock Trial Participants:

On behalf of all of the members of the Host Committee, we sincerely hope that you enjoy this years national problem, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Maddox Hale. As you will see in the pages that follow, this problem blends issues as old as our country with modern technology that has changed the way that we organize and communicate. As it has been since our founding and before, the American response to political dissent is unique in world history. We sincerely hope that you enjoy exploring these issues with us. Writing this case has taken more than eighteen months, and during that time, this problem has gone through many, many drafts. As time has gone on, the case has developed a peculiarly Colonial feeling. There are several layers of historical references and allusions to enjoy as you unpack the material. However, as stated above, the case has always revolved around a uniquely modern form of communication and action, the flash mob, in which a text message instantaneously summons dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people to a single cause with little or no warning to those who are not members of the network. As we have seen vividly both at home and abroad in the past year and a half, social networks can be leveraged to organize mass political or social protest, spun into exceptional performance art, and manipulated to perpetrate criminal violence. Like any tool, then, the flash mob multiplies its users power, for good and for bad. One of our goals in Commonwealth v. Hale is to demonstrate not only the flash mobs possibilities, but also its limitations. We welcome you to Pennsylvania with open arms and hope that you and your counterparts from around the country and across the globe will come to love Philadelphia as much we do. We particularly hope that you will enjoy trying this problem as much as we have enjoyed writing it. The Pennsylvania Case Writing Committee

Jon Grode

Jane Meyer

Paul Kaufman

Alan Boynton

David Trevaskis

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. The Case: Commonwealth v. Maddox Hale Case Summary . i Miscellany .. iii Criminal Complaint and Probable Cause Affidavit .. 1 Transcript of Proceedings ... 3 Information . 4 Arraignment ... 5 Pre-Trial Memorandum and Order 6 Stipulations 10 Witness List 13 Carter Braxton . 14 Jo Bartlett . 18 Fran Lee 22 Maddox Hale 26 Capt. Sam Huntington 30 Button Gwinnett 34 Exhibit List . 38 Exhibit 1: COL Jitter Website (Screenshot) .. 39 Exhibit 2: Graffiti Wall 42 Exhibit 3: Maddox Hale Campaign Poster 43 Exhibit 4: Protest Poster .. 44 Exhibit 5: Maddox Hale Rally E-Mail .. 45 Exhibit 6: Principal Braxton Memo to Faculty ... 46 Exhibit 7: Principal Braxton Rsum . 47 Exhibit 8: Captain Huntington Rsum . 49 Exhibit 9: Spray Paint Can Fingerprint Analysis .. 51 Exhibit 10: Jo Bartletts Classroom .. 52 Exhibit 11: COLHQ E-Mail . 53 Exhibit 12: Maddox Hale Speech . 54 Exhibit 13: LibertyPole.net Blog (Screenshot) ... 57 Applicable Law .. 58 Jury Instructions ... 59 II. Competition Rules Rules of the Competition . 65 Rules of Evidence 74 III. Competition Forms Code of Ethical Conduct Form Team Roster Form Prosecution .. Team Roster Form Defense . Timekeeping Sheet ... Team Dispute Form (Inside the Bar) .. Team Dispute Form (Outside the Bar) ... Criteria for Scoring & Performance Ratings .. Sample Score Sheet .

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 90

SECTION I
The Case: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MADDOX HALE

Created by: Jon Grode (Primary Author), Jane Meyer (Primary Editor), Paul Kaufman (Author/Editor), Alan Boynton and David Trevaskis (Editors)

CASE SUMMARY
This summary is background material for informational purposes only. It is not to be considered evidence. On February 27, 2009, a snow covered rock flung at the head of Corporal Caesar Rodney left him lying in a pool of his own blood. In response, the security guards of John Peter Zenger High School in Philadelphia rushed a flash mob of students that had gathered across the street at Independence Mall. When the mle finally subsided, Defendant Maddox Hale was in the custody of the local police. Hale was later charged with a number of crimes including Aggravated Assault and Solicitation to Commit Aggravated Assault. John Peter Zenger High School (J.P. Zenger) was a troubled inner city school, marred for years by gang violence, graffiti, poor test scores, and general apathy from the administration all the way down to the students. The troubles were so severe that only J.P. Zengers most tenured teacher, Jo Bartlett, remembered the old days, when the school was very different. On April 17, 2007, around the anniversary of the Columbine shooting and a few days after the Virginia Tech massacre, gun shots rang out in J.P. Zengers halls. Though no one was hurt, the School Reform Commission feared that J.P. Zenger would be labeled a Persistently Dangerous School under the No Child Left Behind Act. Drastic action was required, and the School Reform Commission fired J.P. Zengers principal and commenced a nationwide search for a replacement. The Commission was looking for a principal with a strong disciplinary track record and was pleased to locate and hire Carter G. Braxton. Braxton, a 1971 graduate of J.P. Zenger and self-proclaimed expert at turning failing schools into success stories, seemed like the perfect choice. Braxtons changes to the school were immediate and far-reaching. Metal detectors were installed at all of the entrances to the building. Security cameras were strategically placed. A fleet of security guards was hired. A strict dress code was implemented and detentions, suspensions and expulsions were issued by the dozens. The gangs disbanded and order returned to the wounded school. Below the surface, though, tension among the student body was percolating. The students began to direct their resentment at Principal Braxton, and a new type of gang emerged the Children of Liberty, or COL. The COL was not a gang in the traditional sense, but was a collection of students who were organized by social networking technology. During the 2008 2009 school year, the COL was able to mobilize through a website called Jitter. The hallmark of the COL was its ability to send communications lambasting Principal Braxton and organizing flash mobs. For the first time in years, the student body began to outwardly express its frustrations. No one knew for sure who was behind the COL and the Jitter messages, but it was widely suspected that Maddox Hale, star of the schools debate team and an adamant Braxton detractor, was responsible. Maddox denied any and all involvement with the COL, though Maddox never denied a deep hostility to Principal Braxton and her/his draconian tactics. In late January 2009, when J.P. Zengers student body president moved out of town and an emergency election was held to find his replacement, Maddox saw an opportunity to bring her/his opposition to Braxton public by running for the position. Using a series of campaign posters eliciting the Colonial message of Benjamin Franklins political cartoon, Unite or Die, Maddox sought to unite the school against its common enemy. However, Braxton, in the name of protecting the educational mission of the school, felt that the campaign posters encouraged violence and had them removed. This move outraged Maddox, and in return s/he decided to
i

organize a rally on Independence Mall for February 27, 2009. During the week leading up to the protest, Maddox practiced her/his speech, which was littered with Revolutionary War quotes, before the eager ears of her/his debate club compatriots. Early in the morning on the day of the protest rally, the COL sent a message through Jitter encouraging COL members to participate in a flash mob. The message directed that students attending the rally were to throw rock filled snow balls at Braxtons guards when Maddox uttered the immortal words of John Paul Jones. The temperature that day was freezing and the winds were howling; very few of J.P. Zengers nearly 1,200 students showed up for the rally. In fact, there were more students involved in a snowball fight elsewhere on the Mall, but Maddox soldiered on. On cue, when Maddox uttered the words I have not yet begun to fight!, mayhem broke out as a number of students began to throw snowballs at the school security guards. The guards stood by stoically until Cpl. Rodney was struck with a rock filled snowball that fractured his skull. There is some question as to who threw the snowball that struck the victim, though Maddox and fellow students Button Gwinnett and Fran Lee were all charged with the assault. Button, still a juvenile, was later found to have committed aggravated assault and committed to a juvenile facility, while Fran pled guilty in adult court to a reduced charge of simple assault in exchange for her/his testimony against Maddox. The Commonwealth will attempt to prove Maddox Hale guilty of aggravated assault and solicitation to commit aggravated assault. These charges rely on very different sets of facts. The aggravated assault charge is based upon the allegation that Maddox threw one or more rock filled snowballs in the victims direction with the intent of causing him serious bodily injury. It matters not for the purpose of proving this crime whether Maddox actually struck the victim even if s/he did not, s/he can still be guilty as an accomplice. The solicitation to commit aggravated assault charge is based upon the allegation that it was Maddox who was the mastermind behind the COL and solicited subscribers to the COLs website (www.jitter.COLiberty) to commit aggravated assault upon the victim by posting a message on that site directing them to throw rock filled snowballs when s/he cued them to do so at the February 27, 2009 rally. Testifying for the Commonwealth are Carter Braxton (principal), Jo Bartlett (teacher) and Fran Lee (student and alleged accomplice). Testifying for the Defense are Maddox Hale (the accused), Capt. Sam Huntington (security guard) and Button Gwinnett (student and alleged accomplice).

ii

MISCELLANY

Case Questions and Final Case Posting Please follow the directions on the Case Updates portion of the national website on how to submit your questions. An updated, clean copy of Case Materials will be published on the website by the end of the day on Monday, April 26, 2010. All teams are required to use clean, updated copies of the case materials in all trial rounds. Disclaimer All persons and names used in this case are meant to be fictitious. While the names may bear a relation to certain Colonial and modern American personalities, any further similarity to those persons or to any other actual persons is strictly coincidental.

Issues Concerning Flash Mobs Although we hope that you bring your immeasurable creativity to bear in this competition, we urge you not to attempt to organize any kind of flash mob activity while in Philadelphia, even just among the members of the mock trial community. We began drafting this case long before Philadelphia fell prey to flash mob violence, but in recent months, there have been injuries and arrests in several high-profile incidents. In light of that, we urge you to use your common sense in this matter and refrain from any flash mob activity or the like.

Copyright 2010 by the Pennsylvania Bar Association

All rights reserved. Permission to duplicate portions of these materials for non-profit educational purposes is hereby granted, provided attribution is given to the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Pennsylvania Case Writing Committee members. The COL logo is Copyright 2010 by Jon Grode. Mr. Grode has given permission for the organizers and participants to use the COL logo in competition materials, promotional materials, and in other non-commercial materials related to the competition (such as team shirts, giveaways, etc.).

iii

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : MUNICIPAL COURT OF PHILADELPHIA : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : Docket No.: MC-51-CR-011230-2009 : : Charges : Aggravated Assault MADDOX HALE, : Criminal Solicitation (Aggravated Assault) Defendant : Criminal Conspiracy (Aggravated Assault)

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT

I, Detective William Ellery, Badge 1995, of the Philadelphia Police Department, 6th Patrol District, do hereby state: 1. I accuse:
Maddox Hale, who resides at 1215 Heyward Ave., Philadelphia PA.

2. The acts committed by the accused were: ** AGGRAVATED ASSAULT COUNT 1

The accused did cause serious bodily injury to another intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life (18 Pa.C.S.A. 2702(a)(1)) . . . in that the accused did throw a rock filled snowball on or about February 27, 2009, at or near the John Peter Zenger High School, Philadelphia Pa., at the victim Cpl. Caesar Rodney. The accused struck the victim in the head or, alternatively, threw rock filled snowballs while acting as an accomplice with others, including Button Gwinnett and Fran Lee, during which one rock filled snowball struck Cpl. Rodney in the head while Cpl Rodney stood on school property.

**

CRIMINAL SOLICITATION TO COMMIT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT

COUNT 2

The accused did commit the crime of solicitation to commit aggravated assault whereby with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission the accused commanded, encouraged or requested other persons to engage in specific conduct which would constitute aggravated assault or an attempt to commit aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. 902) . . . in that the accused posted a message on the website www.Jitter.com/COLiberty, on or about February 27, 2009, which message was sent electronically to all registered subscribers/members thereof at 2:15 a.m., commanding, encouraging and requesting said subscribers to throw rock filled snowballs at security guards of Zenger High School during a rally on February 27, 2009.

**

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT

COUNT 3

The accused did commit the crime of criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated assault whereby with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission, the accused agreed with another person or persons that they or one or more of them would engage in conduct which constitutes aggravated assault or of an attempt or solicitation to commit aggravated assault; or agreed to aid another person or persons in the planning or commission of aggravated assault or of an attempt or solicitation to commit aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. 903) . . . in that the accused intentionally joined a group called the Children of Liberty, a criminal conspiracy that engaged in aggravated assault, solicited aggravated assault, and attempted to commit aggravated assault, by signing up with the Children of Liberty webpage, monitoring Children of Liberty internet postings, and participating in one or more Children of Liberty activities, including the flash mob message posted on the groups website, www.Jitter.com/COLiberty, on or about February 27, 2009, which message was sent electronically to all registered subscribers/members thereof at 2:15 a.m., commanding, encouraging and requesting said subscribers to throw rock filled snowballs at security guards of Zenger High School during a rally on February 27, 2009.

3. The accused committed these acts against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and contrary to the Acts of the General Assembly,
18 Pa.C.S.A. 2702(a)(1), 18 Pa.C.S.A. 902, and 18 Pa.C.S.A. 903.

4. I ask that a warrant of arrest or a summons be issued and that the accused be required to answer the charges I have made. 5. I verify that the facts set forth in this Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Date:

March 23, 2009

(signature of the complainant)

AND NOW, on this date, March 23, 2009 I certify the Complaint has been properly completed and verify that there is probable cause for the issuance of process.

George Read, Municipal Court Judge Issuing Authority

Clerk of Courts Original

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : MUNICIPAL COURT OF PHILADELPHIA : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : Docket No.: MC-51-CR-011230-2009 : : Charges : Aggravated Assault MADDOX HALE, : Criminal Solicitation (Aggravated Assault) Defendant : Criminal Conspiracy (Aggravated Assault)

Transcript of Proceedings before Issuing Authority

1. Defendant Maddox Hale, who resides at 1215 Heyward Ave., Philadelphia PA., was arrested on March 24, 2009 and charged by Complaint with the crimes of Aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2702, Criminal Solicitation, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 902, and Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 903. 2. A preliminary arraignment for Defendant Maddox Hale was held before the undersigned at 1301 Filbert St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on March 24, 2009. 3. At the preliminary arraignment, the Defendant was advised of her/his right to apply for assignment of counsel and was given a copy of the Criminal Complaint. 4. At the preliminary arraignment, bail was set at $50,000 based on the evidence presented at that time and the Criminal Complaint previously filed with the Court. The request for 10% bail posting made by the Defendant was granted. 5. On March 30, 2009, a preliminary hearing was held before undersigned at 1301 Filbert St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Defendant was present and was represented by counsel. The Commonwealth was represented by the assigned Assistant District Attorney. Detective William Ellery was sworn and testified for the Commonwealth. 6. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the Defendant was held for court on the charges of Aggravated Assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2702, Criminal Solicitation to Commit Aggravated Assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 902, and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 903. 7. Bail was continued in the amount of $50,000. AND NOW, on this date, April 2, 2009 authority has been properly completed. I certify the transcript of proceedings before issuing

George Read, Municipal Court Judge Issuing Authority

Clerk of Courts Original

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : Docket No.: CP-51-CR-011230-2009 : : Charges : Aggravated Assault MADDOX HALE, : Criminal Solicitation (Aggravated Assault) Defendant : Criminal Conspiracy (Aggravated Assault)

INFORMATION
The charge(s) having been bound over for court by the Municipal Court Judge following a Preliminary Hearing, the District Attorney of Philadelphia County by this Information charges that, on (or about) Maddox Hale First Count: did intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life, or while engaged as an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony, cause serious bodily injury to Cpl. Caesar Rodney. Second Count: did, with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of a crime, command, encourage or request other persons to engage in specific conduct which would constitute aggravated assault or an attempt to commit aggravated assault. Third Count: did, with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of a crime, agreed with another person or persons that they or one or more of them would engage in conduct which would constitute aggravated assault or an attempt or solicitation to commit aggravated assault; or agreed to aid another person or persons in the planning or commission of aggravated assault or of an attempt or solicitation to commit aggravated assault. All of which are against the Act of Assembly and the Peace and Dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. , February 27, 2009 , in said County,

R. Treat Paine, District Attorney Citation(s):

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2702(a)(1); 18 Pa.C.S.A. 306(a) CRIMINAL SOLICITATION, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 902 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 903

Clerk of Courts Original

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : Docket No.: CP-51-CR-011230-2009 : : Charges : Aggravated Assault MADDOX HALE, : Criminal Solicitation (Aggravated Assault) Defendant : Criminal Conspiracy (Aggravated Assault)

ARRAIGNMENT
I, Maddox Hale, have been advised by the District Attorney of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania that I am charged by Information with Aggravated Assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. 2702), Criminal Solicitation (18 Pa.C.S.A. 902), and Criminal Conspiracy (18 Pa.C.S.A. 903). I have been advised of my right to have an attorney represent me at all hearings and the trial of these charges. I have been advised and fully understand that I/my lawyer have/has the right to request discovery or disclosure from the District Attorney within fourteen (14) days of todays date. I have been advised and I fully understand that I/my lawyer have/has the right to file with the Court any pre-trial application for relief in the form of a single omnibus pre-trial motion within thirty (30) days of todays arraignment date. I hereby enter a plea of request a trial by Criminal Court.

Not Guilty

to

the

above

charges

and

Jury

. Trial is scheduled for the May 2010 Term of

Date: April 10, 2009

Maddox Hale
Defendant Attorney for Defendant

Attorney for the Commonwealth

Clerk of Courts Original

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : v. : : : : MADDOX HALE, : Defendant : :

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Docket No.: CP-51-CR-011230-2009

Charges Aggravated Assault Criminal Solicitation (Aggravated Assault) Criminal Conspiracy (Aggravated Assault)

PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM
Upon consideration of the Defendants Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion and the Commonwealths Response in opposition thereto, this Court directs as follows: 1. The Defendant has been charged with three Counts: (1) aggravated assault; (2)

criminal solicitation to commit aggravated assault; and (3) criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. As charged, Defendant is alleged to have committed aggravated assault by throwing one or more rock filled snowballs at high school security officers on February 27, 2009, one of which struck a security guard in the head, causing serious bodily injury, including a fractured skull. As charged, Defendant is alleged to have either directly struck the victim with the snowball, or to have been an accomplice to the individual whose projectile stuck the victim. While Defendant denies throwing any snowballs/rocks, for the purpose of this motion, s/he argues that even if it s/he is found to have thrown one or more rock filled snowballs, s/he cannot, as a matter of law, be found to have committed aggravated assault. Defendant argues that the throwing of rock filled snowballs, under the circumstances alleged, cannot rise to the level of intent necessary to prove aggravated assault. Defendant further argues that the mere fact that the victim suffered serious bodily injury does not raise what would otherwise be a simple assault to an aggravated assault. In order to prove aggravated assault, as charged in this case, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that Defendant caused serious bodily injury to another intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2702(a)(1). "Serious Bodily Injury" is defined as bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2301.
6

This Court agrees with Defendant that what would otherwise be characterized as a simple assault does not automatically become an aggravated assault just because the victim suffers serious bodily injury, as opposed to bodily injury. Commonwealth v. Roche, 783 A.2d 766, 770 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). The Commonwealth must prove that the Defendant caused the serious bodily injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. Id. at 771-72. In this case, the parties stipulate that the rock that struck the victim and which was recovered from the scene weighed 1.2 pounds and measured 2 inches in diameter at its widest point. Under these facts, and upon the weight of legal authority, this Court finds, as a matter of law, that a reasonable person would know when throwing that rock or a snowball filled with it that such projectile was capable of and risked causing serious bodily injury as that term is used in the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Commonwealth may pursue the aggravated assault charges on those grounds. 2. Alternatively, the Defendant has filed a Motion seeking to limit the scope of the

Commonwealths prosecution of Count 1 at trial. Defendant argues that as a matter of law, Defendant cannot be found to have acted with the requisite intent of causing serious bodily injury from throwing snowballs containing only snow and no foreign projectiles. This Court agrees, and will so instruct the jury that, to the extent that the Commonwealth is able to prove only that the Defendant threw snowballs with no foreign objects and is not able to prove that Defendant directly aided or abetted others in throwing snowballs with foreign objects, that it cannot obtain a verdict for aggravated assault. 3. Defendant further moves to preclude the Commonwealth from attempting to

prove solicitation to commit aggravated assault based only upon Defendant allegedly yelling do it during the snowball fight. The Commonwealth has charged that the solicitation arose from a February 27, 2009 posting on the website www.Jitter.com/COLiberty. Accordingly, the

Commonwealth does not oppose this motion, and this Court finds that Count 2 may be proven only by demonstrating that Defendant solicited the aggravated assault through the internet posting. This Court denies Defendants motion in limine regarding this evidence, however; to the extent that the alleged statements are otherwise admissible, the Commonwealth is entitled to introduce evidence of Defendants statements during the snowball fight as evidence of Defendants alleged criminal intent in posting the alleged internet solicitation and/or knowledge of that solicitation. Accordingly, the parties may introduce evidence of Defendants behavior during the snowball fight, but the Commonwealth may not rely solely upon that behavior to prove Count 2. Nothing in this paragraph should be construed to limit the Commonwealths
7

ability to demonstrate direct liability for throwing the rock filled snowball in question or aiding and abetting others in doing so, as alleged in Count 1. 4. Defendant further moves that even if Defendant wrote the February 27, 2009

internet post, Defendant cannot be liable because it was not reasonably foreseeable that, when placed in snowballs, rocks & stones would cause serious bodily injury. This Court disagrees. Rocks and stones have been used as weapons throughout human history and have, during that time, many times caused serious bodily injury and even death. The internet post did not call for the use of pebbles or some such word specifically indicating that a very small rock or stone was intended. A jury could conclude that it was therefore reasonably foreseeable that an individual reading that internet post might use a rock or stone that would pose the risk of serious bodily injury. Although the jury could also reach the contrary conclusion, that is a matter for trial, not for pre-trial motions. This Court therefore denies Defendants motion. Defendant remains free to offer the argument as a factual matter at trial. 5. Finally, Defendant moves to dismiss Count 3 on the grounds that that the alleged

affirmative acts are wholly duplicative of the acts charged in Counts 1 and 2 and that merely joining the COL group on the Jitter website cannot constitute criminal conspiracy. For the reasons stated in the separate Supplemental Memorandum of the Court filed this date, this motion is granted.

Accordingly, this Court enters the following:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : v. : : : : MADDOX HALE, : Defendant : :

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Docket No.: CP-51-CR-011230-2009

Charges Aggravated Assault Criminal Solicitation (Aggravated Assault) Criminal Conspiracy (Aggravated Assault)

PRE-TRIAL ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of August , 2009, Defendants motions are decided as follows: 1. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Count 1, aggravated assault, is DENIED. 2. Defendants Motion to preclude the Commonwealth from attempting to prove at trial that the Defendant committed aggravated assault by throwing snowballs that did not contain any foreign objects, absent proof that s/he aided or abetted others in throwing rock filled snowballs, is GRANTED. 3. Defendants unopposed Motion to preclude the Commonwealth from attempting to prove at trial that the Defendant committed criminal solicitation (aggravated assault) in Count 2, solely upon Defendant allegedly yelling do it at the snowball fight, is GRANTED. 4. Defendants Motion to dismiss Count 2, solicitation, is DENIED. 5. Defendants Motion in Limine regarding Defendants alleged statements during the snowball fight is DENIED. 6. Defendants Motion to dismiss Count 3, conspiracy, is GRANTED. This case is scheduled for a one-day trial during the May 2010 Criminal Trial Term. BY THE COURT:

Marion Gebhart
Marion Gebhart, Judge
Clerk of Courts Original

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : v. : : : : MADDOX HALE, : Defendant :

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Docket No.: CP-51-CR-011230-2009

Charges Aggravated Assault Criminal Solicitation (Aggravated Assault)

STIPULATIONS
1. All documents, signatures and exhibits, including pre-markings, included in the case materials are authentic and accurate in all respects; no objections to the authenticity of the documents or exhibits will be entertained. The parties reserve the right to dispute any legal or factual conclusions based on these items and to make objections other than to authenticity. 2. Jurisdiction, venue and chain of custody of the evidence are proper and may not be challenged. 3. All statements made by witnesses and all physical evidence and exhibits were constitutionally obtained and may not be challenged on this basis. 4. Once identified by a witness, Exhibits 1 (website screenshot), 11 (e-mail) and 13 (website screenshot) are admissible by any party without further foundation. 5. Before either party may solicit expert testimony from a witness, it must first tender that witness to the court as an expert. 6. Detective William Ellery is a member of the First Troop Philadelphia City Cavalry (now known as the 1st Squadron, 104th Cavalry of the Pennsylvania National Guard), the oldest continuously serving unit in the United States military. His unit was mustered into federal service and deployed to Iraq in 2009. It hopes to return in late 2010. Detective Ellery is unavailable for any purpose at this trial. 7. The projectile that injured Caesar Rodney was thrown from federal property (Independence Mall) and struck Cpl. Rodney on land owned by the City of Philadelphia and operated as a school. This incident was investigated jointly by National Park Police and the Philadelphia Police Department. 8. Caesar Rodneys skull was fractured when he was struck by a rock packed in a snowball on February 27, 2009. Cpl. Rodney suffers lingering effects from this injury, including memory loss, vertigo and migraine headaches. He is unable to recall any events occurring shortly before and after the date of his injury. The rock that struck Cpl. Rodney was recovered from the scene; it weighed 1.2 pounds, was generally round in shape and measured 2 inches in diameter at its widest point.
10

9. (a) Jitter is a public social networking / microblogging service accessible for free on the Internet. Any person who connects to www.Jitter.com and wishes to view Jitter accounts must create a pseudonym by which he or she will be identified on Jitter posts (called bugs), whether posting (bugging) individually or tracking anothers bugs. Jitter is an anonymous site, and no personal information except an email address is required to create a Jitter account. Jitters hosts maintain servers outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and do not track the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of those who sign up for Jitter. (b) At all relevant times, persons posting messages to their Jitter accounts could do so from the Jitter website or electronically from personal digital assistants, wi-fi devices, or internet enabled cellular phones. At all relevant times, Jitter could also be set to post messages at pre-programmed times specified by the user up to 48 hours in advance of the time specified. Messages posted from a cellular telecommunications device are listed on Jitter as from cell, while messages sent while logged in to the internet, whether immediate or timedelayed, are listed on Jitter as from the web. (c) The account known by the pseudonym COLiberty (www.Jitter.com/COLiberty) was created in September 2008. The account was password protected and only the person or persons with knowledge of the password could post messages on the account. All postings on the COLiberty account were made from the web. The hosts of the Jitter service have ignored subpoenas issued by the National Park Service pursuant to the Hague Convention. Accordingly, no account data can be retrieved regarding the COLiberty Jitter account. (d) Persons interested in tracking messages posted on www.Jitter.com/COLiberty could do so by directly viewing the messages on the website or signing up on Jitter to receive, in real time, COLiberty messages sent to an electronic account specified by the user, such as an email address or cellular device account (cell phones or personal digital assistants). (e) Jitter presently hosts over fifteen million accounts. Of these, approximately one million have bugged on Jitter in the last year and approximately one-half million have posted a message on Jitter in the last week. Approximately three million Jitter bugs are posted every day. 10. Despite diligent investigative efforts, the owner of the account COLHQ@qmail.com could not be identified. The account was last accessed on February 27, 2009. 11. Police executed a warrant on March 6, 2009 to seize and search any personal computer, cellular phone and/or personal digital assistant possessed by the Defendant. Police found that the Defendant did not possess a personal computer or personal digital assistant. Defendant was found to possess a cellular phone. The cell phone did not contain any text messages and Defendant's cellular phone plan did not permit the sending or receiving of text messages between September 1, 2008 and March 6, 2009. 12. (a) At all relevant times, Defendant was a member of the Barbara Reilly Public Library (RPL), located at 3rd and Chestnut Streets in Philadelphia. Computer activity sheets obtained by police from the RPL pursuant to a search warrant show that between September 1, 2008 and March 6, 2009, Defendants library account logged in to the public personal computers with Internet access available at the RPL on most weekday evenings and on occasional Saturdays. The regular business hours for RPL are 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and Noon to 6 p.m. on Saturdays.
11

(b) The RPL utilizes its own centralized network server, which handles internet requests from the RPL public computers collectively. The RPL server does not log which individual computer requests access to which web pages. Between September 1, 2008 and March 6, 2009, the RPL server has been used to log on to www.Jitter.com/COLiberty after 3:00 p.m. on weekdays and during library hours on Saturday a total of 1787 occasions. (c) The RPL server does not log whether information is posted to websites from the RPLs public computers. Accordingly, there is no way to tell from the records on the RPL server whether the RPL computers were used to post information to www.Jitter.com/COLiberty or any other website. (d) Police sought a warrant to seize and forensically search the network server, but the Reilly Public Library objected that such a broad search could invade the privacy of other library patrons. Judge Eileen Wilkinson of the Philadelphia Municipal Court refused to issue that warrant. The District Attorney's Office did not appeal her decision. 13. On March 23, 2009, Fran Lee was charged as an adult with one Count of Aggravated Assault. The Criminal Complaint alleged that Lee had either directly struck the victim or acted as an accomplice with others, including the Defendant Maddox Hale and Button Gwinnett. On May 26, 2009, Lee entered a negotiated guilty plea whereby s/he agreed to plead guilty to the reduced charge of simple assault and to testify against Maddox Hale. In exchange, the agreement provided that Lee would receive an 18 month probationary sentence. Judge B. Wasik of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas accepted the terms of Lees plea and deferred imposition of the sentence pending Lees compliance with those terms. The simple assault charge to which Lee pled guilty was a second degree misdemeanor. Under Pennsylvania law, the maximum sentence for this crime is two years. 14. On March 23, 2009, Button Gwinnett was charged as a juvenile with committing the delinquent act of aggravated assault for directly causing the victims injury or acting as an accomplice of others, including Defendant Hale and Fran Lee. On June 15, 2009, following a hearing before a juvenile court judge, Gwinnett was adjudicated delinquent for committing aggravated assault and directed to be placed in a juvenile facility. The aggravated assault charge asserted against Gwinnett, if charged in adult court, would be classified as a first degree felony. The maximum sentence for this crime is twenty years. 15. To the extent the Commonwealth seeks to present evidence under Rule of Evidence 404(b), it is considered to have complied with the Rule 404(b) requirement that it provide reasonable advance (pre-trial) notice to the defense of the evidence it intends to produce at trial and of the general nature of such evidence. March 30, 2010 Attorney for Defendant

Attorney for the Commonwealth

Clerk of Courts Original

12

WITNESS LIST

FOR THE PROSECUTION Carter Braxton (Principal) Jo Bartlett (Teacher) Fran Lee (Student)

FOR THE DEFENSE Maddox Hale (Student) Capt. Sam Huntington (Security guard) Button Gwinnett (Student)

13

STATEMENT OF CARTER BRAXTON Witness for the Prosecution

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

My name is Carter Braxton. Im 57 years old. From May 2007 through June 2009, I was Principal of John Peter Zenger High School at 4th and Chestnut Streets, in Philadelphia, next to Independence Hall. After being terminated, I was unemployed for an academic year. Next year, Ill be the assistant principal at Benjamin Rush Elementary School in Bensalem, PA. I received bachelors degrees in Sociology, with honors, and Psychology from Temple University. I received a Masters Degree in Sociology in 1977 and Rhetoric in 1978, and a Ph.D. in Education in 1983, all from Drexel University. My doctoral thesis applied the penal theories of Michel Foucault and Jeremy Bentham to public education in failed schools. Failed schools are those where discipline has broken down, authority is absent, absenteeism is high, and/or academic performance is far below minimally acceptable levels. My professional breakthrough came with the publication of my thesis, Old-School Discipline for Our New School Problems. My landmark book is often cited by leading academic theorists, and it established me as an expert in the field of school discipline. I initially earned a reputation as a radical who thought that all schools should follow my model. I was unfairly accused of seeking to turn public schools into prisons. By the mid-80s, however, educators began to realize that public schools had spared the rod for too long, and my career took off. I quickly rose through the ranks, from teacher to various administrative positions where I was able to apply my methods of school discipline. No doubt I stepped on a lot of toes over the years and was often accused of violating students civil rights, but I got results. I generally dont stay more than a couple of years in any one school, because my methods are so successful. I was excited to interview to be Principal at Zenger since I had graduated from it in 1971. It was more than my homecoming; it was the perfect place to show off my theory. The School District Superintendent, who had read my book, made it clear that the School Reform Commission wanted discipline imposed fast and that I would receive the resources I needed to implement my plan. With one more violent incident before the end of the school year, the school would be designated as Persistently Dangerous under the No Child Left Behind Act. This was unacceptable. Make no mistake: Zenger was a failed school, and I was hired to restore order and regain control over a rogue student body. Studies show that academics improve when clear rules are communicated, discipline is swift, punishment is stern, and, most importantly, students know that they will be constantly observed. My first priority was to deal with the gangs. I started at Zenger on a Friday and that same weekend, maintenance staff worked overtime to chain most of the doors, within the provisions of the fire code, of course, and scrub away the gang graffiti. The centerpiece of my tenure was an increase in security. I needed to present an overwhelming show of force. I had the funds, so I replaced six ineffective school district police officers with eighteen new security guards from the private Hessian Security firm. I also doubled the number of metal detectors and installed new xray machines at the entrances. Every person who entered the building was subject to search. I installed cameras in all public spaces. There wasnt enough money to man the monitors at all times, but I had security turn on all of the cameras red lights so the students would think they were always being watched. Finally, I had lines painted down the center of the hallways and we enforced strict traffic flow rules. I also made several changes in policy. We required school uniforms which consisted of navy blue slacks or skirts and a red, white or blue polo shirt with school insignia. I enforced tight antiloitering rules and limited bathroom breaks to the first five minutes of any period. Anyone in the
14

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

hallways after that time was given detention, and repeat offenders received in-school suspensions. The rule was also in effect with respect to after-school activities. I outlawed gang signals, which the guards were trained to recognize. I tried to ban all mobile phones, but the Commission wouldnt permit it after hearing complaints from parents and guardians. During my first week alone, there were over a hundred detentions handed out. There were so many that we had to schedule detention in the cafeteria. In addition, any student who could possibly be suspended was, and a number of trouble makers were expelled, most of them gang bangers. Not surprisingly, by the end of the school year, the hallways were clear. Of course, my methods got a lot of attention, and rightly so! There were a number of positive articles and editorials commenting on my progress. The community wanted action, and I gave it to them. The 2007-08 school year, my first full year, was my crowning achievement. Test scores improved and, most importantly, violent incidents decreased. Students knew that any infraction would be swiftly punished. More importantly, we stayed off the Persistently Dangerous Schools List. One reporter called it the Miracle at Independence Hall. There were a few dissenters, as always. Some teachers complained that my methods were too oppressive to the learning environment. Fortunately, at a staff meeting near the end of the school year, one of our most trusted veteran teachers, Jo Bartlett, who coached the renowned debate team, openly supported me. Bartlett was popular with the faculty. When s/he backed me, the rest of the faculty followed suit. I was surprised at Bartletts support since s/he had also interviewed for the principal job. I guess a few years of relentless school violence can change ones perspective. The 2008-09 school year was an entirely different, and ultimately tragic, story. The first indication of a growing problem occurred in September, when a group of students just stopped moving during lunch. Cafeteria lines backed up and we lost eighteen minutes of educational time. I learned much later that it was called a flash mob, some new wave social commentary. I discussed the incident with Capt. Huntington, my Chief of Security, who investigated and reported back that it was a harmless prank. I had no reason not to trust Huntingtons judgment. The next event occurred November 22, at the Homecoming football game. During a timeout, what seemed like the entire student body got up from the home stands and walked the track that ran around the outside of the playing field to sit with the fans from Walton High, our biggest rival! It was embarrassing, especially when it was reported on the local news. I was upset because no rules were broken so I couldnt issue detentions or suspensions. My discipline model is based on control, and respect, and I felt I was losing both. I also was frustrated that Huntington knew so little. I felt something sinister was afoot and sensed a new gang forming. I had numerous meetings with Capt. Huntington, who assured me that the incidents were pranks that allowed students to harmlessly release some frustrations. In December, Capt. Huntington showed me new graffiti on a school wall. It read C O L unite or d\. The COL was a gang I had never heard of. I told Huntington, who didnt know much more than I, to get to the bottom of it. S/he claimed to have a COL informant and said s/he was pursuing leads. S/he had learned that COL stood for Children of Liberty. I took a picture of the graffiti and directed Huntington to have staff scrub it off. I didnt find out until after the attack on Caesar Rodney that Maddox Hale was behind the graffiti and the COL. I was losing trust in Capt. Huntington, so I showed Jo Bartlett the picture and asked if s/he knew anything about the Children of Liberty and whether they were behind the cafeteria and Homecoming incidents. Jo told me s/he overheard some debate team members talking in
15

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

hushed tones about a COL but didnt know anything else. S/he said s/he would monitor the team more closely and report back with any concrete information obtained. Things remained quiet for some time after the graffiti incident until February 2009. We were holding a special election to replace Bill Williams, the student body president, who had moved out of town. Maddox Hale, then a senior, was running and had created a number of disturbing campaign posters. The posters were a take-off on an old political cartoon showing a cut-up snake and included the line Unite or Die, the same slogan as the graffiti. Most disturbingly, the COL was identified on the poster. I wish I had put two and two together right there and then. This poster clearly promoted violence, had no place in my school and was contrary to our antiviolence policy. I directed that all posters be removed immediately and sent a short memo to the staff explaining my actions, because I felt they might be misinterpreted as censorship. The one positive from this display was that Maddox revealed her/his connection to the COL; I became convinced Maddox was the COLs creator. I knew Maddox as the charismatic star of the debate team, a student obviously skilled in the art of persuasion. I couldnt imagine why s/he would want to threaten her/his future. As I expected, Maddox disapproved of my actions and came to talk to me that day. However, rather than the calm, reasonable and logical student I expected, Maddox was confrontational. When I refused to reverse my decision, Maddox left my office very angry. As s/he was leaving, s/he said You and your security thugs may be able to censor me, but youll never be able to keep us quiet seven hundred sixty voices must be heard. A few days later, I heard that Maddox was organizing a rally scheduled for February 27. I asked Jo Bartlett what s/he knew and Jo told me that the real purpose of the rally was to embarrass me and attack my policies. I was furious! I considered suspending Maddox, but Jo convinced me to allow the event to proceed, explaining that otherwise, I would be creating a martyr. I agreed that holding the rally was a win-win proposition. On the one hand, it was likely that few students would attend since the outdoor rally was scheduled for what was forecast to be a cold, windy day; Maddoxs campaign would lose momentum and the issue would die. On the other hand, if Maddox drew a crowd and caused a disturbance, s/he would violate the rule I created that barred off-campus gatherings affecting school order, and I could suspend or expel her/him. Such punishment was squarely supported by the recent Supreme Court decision, Morse v. Frederick, because I deemed the rally a school sanctioned event. I would make sure my guards were present to monitor for any violations of my rule. Jo concurred. At about 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the rally, I watched from my window as about two dozen of the schools 1,200 students met Maddox across the street from the school. Anticipating possible trouble, I directed that Capt. Huntington make all after-school security personnel available for the rally: eight guards in all. It was a cold, gray wintry day, with six inches of snow on the ground and the wind swirling. A few students carried signs and chanted some slogans, but it was readily apparent that the rally was a flop. Maddox addressed the tiny crowd through a megaphone, reading from a prepared speech. While I thought that Maddoxs efforts were pointless, I applauded her/his resiliency. Just when I was about to return to my desk and finish the days paperwork, the situation turned like a light switch. All of a sudden, the students involved in a snowball fight began pelting the guards with snowball after snowball. I grabbed my own megaphone and ran down the stairs to see if I could get things under control. I yelled for the crowd to disperse or face arrest. Instead, they grew more hostile. I saw one snowball strike a wall and fragments of rock exploded from inside it. It was difficult to see who threw it, since the students were wearing hooded sweatshirts, scarves
16

151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186

or ski masks. In the middle of all of the commotion, I heard Maddox yelling at the crowd through her/his megaphone. I believe I heard Maddox yell Do it!, Do it! Snowballs flew in waves, dozens of them, or hundreds. One of the officers, Caesar Rodney, was struck on the head with a rock filled snowball. He went down in a heap, his blood splattering the snow. A cheer went up from the crowd; it made my skin crawl my students had become a mob. I watched as the guards rushed forward. Some of the crowd parted and ran, but parts didnt. It was very chaotic. After the crowd scattered and things calmed down, I saw that the guards had Hale and his/her buddies Button Gwinnett and Fran Lee under arrest. Immediately after the riot, city detectives got involved and I fully cooperated with them. None of our security guards could clearly identify the student who struck Rodney due to the chaos, and not a single one of the kids who we knew attended the rally would talk to me or the police until the police convinced Fran Lee to talk. The anti-snitch culture is malignant among our City youth. I did learn of the COLs Jitter website and how it was most likely created by one person. Unfortunately, the detectives were unable to trace the creator of the COL bugs because the account was linked to an anonymous e-mail, and all of the comments were made from the web and not an identifiable cell phone. In any event, before the site was shut down by Jitter, I read all the posts, including the bug that forewarned that guards would be attacked on February 27, 2009. My opinion is that Maddox posted those messages, including the message that directed protestors to attack the guards with rock filled snowballs. My review of the website postings reveal that the tone and content in those postings are overwhelmingly similar to the language Maddox Hale admittedly used in the following items: (1) her/his campaign poster, (2) the e-mail Maddox sent announcing the February 27, 2009 rally, and (3) Maddoxs speech given at the rally. In addition, following Maddoxs arrest, there have been no further flash mob incidents. Finally, the snowball attack threat is consistent with Maddoxs threat to me that I would never be able to censor her/him. My opinion is based upon my training in Rhetoric and is offered within a reasonable degree of certainty in that field. Shortly after the attack upon the guards and the horrible injuries to Cpl. Rodney, I fired Capt. Huntington for failing to discover the COL site and Maddoxs connection to it; had s/he done so, the riot wouldve been prevented. Unfortunately, I was widely blamed for the riot. There will always be an administrative scapegoat in these cases, and I was it. I saw the writing on the wall and chose to resign before I could be fired. I, Carter G. Braxton, hereby verify that the above statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief

Carter G. Braxton
Signature Signed and Sworn to before me

October 12, 2009

DATE

George Taylor Notary Public, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania My commission expires: November 26, 2010

17

STATEMENT OF JO BARTLETT Witness for the Prosecution

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

My name is Jo Bartlett and Im 63 years old. I currently live at 862 N. Witherspoon Ave. in Philadelphia. For almost forty years, I have been a teacher at J.P. Zenger High School and, for the past twenty years, I have coached debate. I was recently appointed as Principal on a permanent basis by the School Reform Commission. I have undergraduate degrees in History and Political Science from Drexel University, where I focused on Colonial American politics, and I have a Masters degree in education from Widener University. These days, I dont get into the classroom as much as I used to, but over the years I have taught history, civics, political science, and a variety of seminars to sophomores, juniors and seniors. Since the first day that I visited Independence Hall with my parents as a kid, I have loved the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the amazing story of our nations birth. What our founding fathers and mothers accomplished is truly heroic, erasing thousands of years of despotism triumphing over democracy, tyranny of the majority crushing minority rights, and the rule of men destroying the rule of law. The Bill of Rights has been my Bible since that day. When I was younger, that faith got me in some trouble. In college, I was active in the Student National Coordinating Committee, and although I never worked the front lines, I was arrested more than once for conspiring to block access to military bases or inspiring others to burn draft cards. Once, when I was in my 20s, a protestor I recruited took a swing at an MP. I wound up pleading no contest to soliciting assault. That conviction was later expunged. When I started at J.P. Zenger in 1969, the whole country, and most definitely the school, were different. Zenger was an experimental school that thrived on open dialogue. Of course, that was a long time ago. The late 70s and early 80s brought gangs into the neighborhood and violence followed. People fled the cities and parents lost patience as the social diversity increased. Pretty soon, the School Board gave us a strict new curriculum. Things went downhill from there and, by 2007, Zenger wasnt the kind of place you wanted your kids to go. The violence came to a head on April 18, 2007. It was around the anniversary of Columbine and just days after the Virginia Tech massacre. An e-mail was sent from an anonymous account to the schools administration, promising an attack on the school to rid it of what was termed unwanted immigrants. The email was almost completely ignored. Around 9:30 a.m., the fire alarm was triggered and the halls filled with students. Two shots rang out, sending the school into complete pandemonium. We all fled or hid wherever we could until, after two hours, police declared the school safe. They never found the shooter. Predictably, the School Reform Commissions first act was to make a scapegoat out of thenPrincipal Hopkinson, firing her. They then opened an emergency search for a replacement, and I applied. I promised to end the violence by going back to our roots, opening a dialogue between rival factions and easing tensions through communication. They looked at me like I was a relic, a hippie or something, even though everything I proposed had worked before and was backed up with decades of research. Instead, they hired Carter Braxton, who had a strong disciplinary track record. I thought it was a terrible decision at the time and a betrayal of everything Zenger stood for. I considered retiring, but what was I going to do? I couldnt abandon my kids. Braxton hired a small army of security guards and installed security cameras everywhere, though we all quickly figured out that the cameras were mostly for show. S/He instituted many policy changes - such as requiring school uniforms and handed out suspensions and expulsions like they were hall passes. Not surprisingly, in the short term, s/he got results. Everyone had been so spooked by the shooting that we all kowtowed. Actually, it was kind of a
18

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

welcome breather, a chance to focus on education again. Teachers got to teach, even if we were still teaching to the tests, and theres no question that scores did go up. Parents and guardians were happy, the School Reform Commission was pleased with the positive press, and, I guess for a few months there, I kind of became a believer in Braxtons authoritarian model. I even backed Braxton up once in a faculty meeting when many staff nearly mutinied. The shooting incident still haunted me though, and I knew from the literature that some kids who turn to violence are ones who are intelligent, feel misunderstood and, most of all, are socially isolated. In the mid-80s, when the student council was stripped of its power to do anything but plan dances, I quit as its moderator and started coaching debate, where I could get the same thrill of seeing students eyes open to new ideas and perspectives. After the shooting, I decided to use the debate team as a means of bringing some of the alienated students back into the fold. That is when I first started paying close attention to Maddox Hale and Fran Lee, who were both in my history class. From what I could see during Maddoxs sophomore year, s/he was a very bright student who didnt have any friends and always dressed in black. Fran was a hard core kid, an angry ganger from the old days. Maybe I was paranoid, but I suspected that one of them was responsible for the 2007 shooting incident. Fran proved to be a good debater, but Maddox was brilliant; one of the most naturally talented debaters I have ever coached. In Maddox's very first practice, s/he drew a parallel between 19th Century suffragettes and the Sabine women, and I hadnt even assigned that part of the Discourses! From that moment on, Maddox was the heart and soul of the debate team. Within a couple of weeks, s/he had perfected the art of using historical examples as a part of her/his rhetoric, and by the middle of her/his junior year, Maddox had memorized dozens of quotes! By the end of her/his junior year, Maddox was one of the top-ranked debaters in the state. Looking back on it now, several things stick out in my mind. First, during her/his junior year, Maddox became very focused on the period before the Declaration of Independence, rather than on nation-building. S/he wrote her/his junior term paper on pre-Declaration violence, like the burning of the HMS Gaspee, the Battle of Golden Hill, and the tarring and feathering of British officials. Although it was a very impressive work, it bothered me to see Maddox writing about a violent subject. I didnt mention that to her/him, though, and because I didnt want to dissuade such impressive scholarly efforts, I gave her/him an A on the paper. If s/he had bothered to spell-check, it wouldve been an A+. In Maddoxs senior year, I noticed a huge change in her/his personality, especially once s/he was named captain of the debate team. Maddox became cocky and defiant, and began currying the favor of other members of the team to the point where they almost became her/his followers. This was especially true of Button Gwinnett, a sophomore who was well-meaning but an intellectual lightweight who I included on the debate team only as a favor to her/his grandmother. Button supported whatever idea Maddox came up with and always sought to be paired with Maddox during team exercises. Another incident that seemed harmless at the time still echoes in my mind when I think about the February 2009 riot. Shortly before winter break, I had the team debate whether freedom of speech at a school should be trumped by the need of a school to maintain order and the integrity of its educational mission. The topic was in the news after the Supreme Court issued its regrettable decision on the lack of students free speech in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. Maddox was second to speak, and s/he staked out the most extreme position possible, that freedom of speech should be absolute and that restriction on expression of any kind, verbal or symbolic, is unconstitutional. It didnt stop there, though. Maddox then applied this principle to
19

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151

the dress codes and the fact that detentions were issued automatically to anyone who spoke ill of the administration. The debate turned into an unabashed rant on the state of J.P. Zenger, with members competing to see who could criticize Braxton most aggressively. While I was pleased that the students felt free to speak their minds, I realized things were getting out of hand. When I tried to put the debate back on track, Maddox resisted. S/He started quoting Patrick Henry and H. Rap Brown in parallel, concluding that armed resistance has been a constant throughout American history. I knew, of course, that Braxtons methods would create resistance, because oppression always does, but I was stunned at how far Maddox had come since the previous school year and how readily others followed her/him. I tried to explain to the students that, without Braxtons control, the school would revert back to its state of two years ago, when students were afraid to walk the halls, but turnover is constant in high schools, and much of the team had never experienced that at Zenger. They only understood what they were living, what Maddox termed Braxton fascism. I realized then that Maddox was one of the most dangerous people in the entire school! It occurred to me that Maddox might have been behind the two school pranks; the statue event in the cafeteria and the student walk out at Homecoming. Though I hadnt witnessed either, they were clearly the work of a creative mind. I was convinced that these events were part of Maddoxs master plan. I also became aware of hushed discussions in debate team practices and, though I usually couldnt hear what they were saying, I could tell that Maddox was in charge based on body language alone. Every once in a while, I could hear Maddox quoting a revolutionary figure and drawing a comparison to Braxton and the students struggles. Many times, these were the same quotes I had hung around my classroom. I resolved to keep a closer eye on Maddox and to work more closely with her/him. It was definitely one of those "keep your enemy close" sort of tactics. Maddox was taking my regular class and an advanced seminar, so we spent two periods a day together. I opened my library to her/him. In the seminar, we focus on primary sources and spent hours reading Locke, Rousseau and the Founders, dissecting quotes and discussing revolutionary theory. I was pleased to see that, with me at least, Maddox didnt talk about violent uprisings much. Instead, we focused on the mechanism of revolutionary governance, both in its Constitutional forms and in its earlier, secret iterations. In mid-December, Principal Braxton showed me a picture of a graffiti tag painted on school property. In all my years, Id never seen a gang tag for COL, but I was intrigued. I always lecture on the commercialization of propaganda, and I cite Ben Franklins political cartoons as early and effective examples of this technique. So when I saw the incomplete unite or die written under the marking, I assumed one of my disciples was involved. At the next debate practice, I listened more intently than ever to the banter between the students, and learned that COL stood for "Children of Liberty." None of the students, though, admitted responsibility for the graffiti. Personally, I thought that Maddox was just playing dumb s/he was much quieter that day than usual. By this point, I was very concerned. Im all for open dialogue, but secret conspiracies: no way. I realized that, for the safety of the school, it was my responsibility to report what I was seeing to Principal Braxton. Things came to a boiling point when Maddox ran for student body president. When Braxton took down Maddoxs campaign posters, Maddox was incensed and sought my guidance. I advised Maddox to confront Braxton directly and try to sort out the disagreement. I heard that, unfortunately, things apparently got heated between the two, and Maddox left their meeting
20

152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191

angrier than ever. Maddox then told me that s/he decided to stage a rally and call out Braxton in public. S/he sent an e-mail to the entire student body about it. Truly, I applauded Maddox for using words instead of disobedience to get her/his message across, and I allowed Maddox to use debate team time to practice her/his speech. That way, I hoped I could control what was said and what was going to happen. I even helped her/him work with the Declaration of Independence and mimic the syntax of the Founders. Of course, I told Principal Braxton what Maddox was planning, but didnt get into the details of the speech itself. I didnt think it was necessary. Braxtons initial reaction was to ban the event, but I encouraged Braxton to allow the rally to proceed. In the end, Braxton agreed that the rally would likely fail and would lead to the end of Maddoxs run at president, slowing down the momentum of the COL. That way, speech would be protected. Of course I knew from Braxton that guards would be there. I even mentioned it at debate practice that night and asked Maddox if s/he still intended to go forward with the speech. S/he said s/he did, and I told Maddox I was proud of her/him for standing up for the right to free speech. Unfortunately, we had no clue that the rally was going to be used as a diversion to attack the guards. I wanted to attend the rally, but the weather was worse than predicted and didnt want to chance hypothermia. Im no longer a spring chicken! Plus, Id already heard the speech a half dozen times or so. I stayed in my classroom, surfing the Web. Frankly, Im glad I was not there. After the riot, Braxton told me about the Jitter website, which I read. I then realized that Maddox had been using my seminar to learn how to run a revolution! Now I understand why s/he took such interest when I lectured on the Committees of Correspondence, and why s/he loved my seminar lessons on Sam Adams, John Hancock and Silas Downer. About Jitter, I dont have much to add, and I had nothing to do with the email that Maddox believes I sent her/him from the COLHQ. I do use e-mail, but that is about it when it comes to computers. I did try that blogging thing once on a website I created, www.libertypole.net, right after the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case but really that is about it when it comes to the internet. To me it seemed like no one would care to read the ramblings of an old timer. After the attack, I thought again about retiring; the school had changed so much and I carry a lot of guilt about what occurred. Yet, when the School Reform Commission approached me about taking over as principal on an interim basis, I felt I owed it to the school and the community to prove that one doesnt need a dictator to have peace. Im happy to report that since the attack, there have been no significant incidents of violence at J.P. Zenger, no gangs re-emerging, and, since Maddoxs arrest, no acts by the COL. My success has been so appreciated that I was recently named principal on a permanent basis. Im sorry that Braxton lost her/his job, but it turns out I was right all along. As Thomas Jefferson said, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
I, Jo Bartlett, hereby verify that the above statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Jo Bartlett
Signature Signed and Sworn to before me

October 12, 2009

DATE

Charles Carroll - Notary Public, Commonwealth of PA, My commission expires: July 14, 2010
21

STATEMENT OF FRAN LEE Witness for the Prosecution

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

My name is Fran Lee. Im 19 years old. I attended J.P. Zenger until I was kicked out in March 2009. I earned my GED last summer. Ive agreed to talk in this case; in exchange for testifying against Maddox Hale, the prosecutor reduced my crime from aggravated assault to simple assault and agreed to give me 18 months probation. I was probably looking at two to four years of state prison time if Id have been convicted of aggravated assault. I now live in New Ochota, Georgia with my aunt and uncle. I had to move because Im viewed as a snitch, and that makes it dangerous for me back home. Its about the worst thing you can be. Im currently taking classes in restaurant management. After things cool down, I want to move back and open a fancy restaurant in Rittenhouse Square. Im gonna call it Swank. Going to high school at J.P. Zenger was hard. You definitely needed to be tough if you wanted to survive. Fighting was just a part of growing up in the city. It didnt matter if you were real smart or a girl, or whatever; you had to hold your own or you would always be picked on. Lots of kids joined gangs for protection. Thats just the way it was, and most of us didnt know any other way. Most of the gangs at Zenger were based on what neighborhood or ethnic group we belonged to. I managed to stay out of the gangs until 8th grade, when I joined the Liberties. We only allowed native born kids to join. You see, our school was getting to be like the United Nations, and we hated it. All these immigrants were taking over old neighborhoods and forming their own gangs. I know Maddox pretty well since wed gone to school together for years. Maddox is a strange kid. S/he always had a weird stare, like you could never be quite sure what s/he was thinking, and sometimes s/he tried too hard to fit in. Other times, Maddox would do whatever s/he could to anger people. Maddox never got in a gang, because no one wanted her/him and s/he couldnt be trusted. Toward the end of our sophomore year, right before the shooting in school, and before we had school uniforms and all that stuff, Maddox started to wear all black and became a complete loner. It was freaky, like s/he was patterning her/himself on the Columbine kids. I wouldnt be surprised if it was Maddox who fired those shots in our sophomore year. We all wanted things to change after the school shooting but what we got, Principal Braxton, was far worse. With Braxton running the school putting traffic lines in the hallway, making us wear uniforms, posting an army of security thugs everywhere, sending us to detention for just breathing - we felt like prisoners. I got five detentions in my junior year alone just for crossing the double yellow line, and two times I didnt even do it; the guards just wrote me up to harass me. I hated them, and Im pretty sure they despised me. Braxton made things so bad for us, we had no choice but to turn our anger on her/him. I felt like dropping out many times, but I was determined to graduate, just to stick it to Braxton and the guards. Bartlett was my history teacher and since I was a natural at arguing, s/he recruited me for the debate team. Everyone thinks that debate is for geeks, but at Zenger, it became the only place to vent and not get in trouble. Plus, Bartlett was pretty cool. I was shocked though when Maddox was recruited by Bartlett to join the team too. As it turns out, Maddox was a lot better than me. I relied on passion, but her/his arguments were more logical, and s/he was always using quotes and fancier words to say stuff. The team eventually came to admire Maddox, which upset me. Mostly to spite Maddox, I usually took the opposite position as s/he did and tried get as many people behind me as possible. I guess we became rivals.

22

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

By my senior year, Zenger had become even more like a prison, if that was possible. The students complained all the time about how much we hated Braxton. Maddox was more annoying than ever, having been named captain of the debate team over me. Maddox had the underclassmen worshiping her/him. The worst was Button Gwinnett, a sophomore, who followed Maddox around like a puppy dog. Pathetic! Maddox couldve gotten Button to do anything. I first heard about the COL sometime in September of my senior year. I cant remember who told me, but I found out there was this Jitter site where someone was bugging about our school. I dont believe COL even existed before my senior year, when Jitter became popular. Anyway, all you had to do to join was have a Jitter account and sign up to track the bugs on its web page, www.Jitter.com/COLiberty. A lot of us dont have computers at home, and we didnt want to sign up at school, where Braxton might be watching, so I signed up over at the Reilly Public Library. A whole bunch of Zenger students use those computers to do our homework and check email or surf the Web, since the library is only a block from school. Plus, everyone who signed up for the COL could receive real time updates. Most students, including me, signed up to track COL bugs as texts to our cell phones. It was just something we all did. We knew the adults had no clue the website even existed. It was too new. Adults are always a step or two behind kids, especially with electronic messaging. People say that the COL was just another gang. Thats bull. The Liberties was a real gang, with a leader you knew and brothers and sisters who you could count on to cover your back. The COL wasnt like that. Whatever it was, a lot of Zenger students signed up. After Braxton harassed all of the gangs out of school, students had to direct their energy somewhere. The COL name was a play off of the Sons of Liberty, the secret organization of American patriots before the Revolutionary War. That was pretty cool. The first COL text I got was the one announcing the cafeteria flash mob. Button Gwinnett told me s/he was going to do it because Maddox thought it was cool. I decided to join in because I was really curious to see what the guards would do; I loved the idea of taunting them. There were about thirty of us who participated, and all we did was act like statues for five minutes or so. The three cafeteria guards didnt know what to do. They tried to get us to move, but we wouldnt. They called for Capt. Huntington, but before s/he arrived, we started moving again. Capt. Huntington detained Button because Button did the statue thing a minute early, so I guess they thought that s/he was the leader. As if! Button got ten days detention. Anyway, we totally messed up lunch and for the first time since my old days with the Liberties, I felt powerful. After that, the Jitter messages became more intense and took direct shots at Braxton. I liked the one where it said Braxton was lobotomizing us and that we must Unite or Die. More and more students signed up for COL messages and it became something everyone would talk about when a new bug went up. It was definitely the cool thing to do. Button and I would often discuss who we thought was behind the COL. It didnt take a genius to narrow it down. A lot of the language seemed to come right from the walls of Bartletts classroom, and Maddox always used old quotes whenever debating. Bartlett was obsessed with the Revolutionary War and the Founding Fathers, and put up the quotes around her/his room. Maddox, though, was more than obsessed; more like possessed. I even heard Maddox speaking in Colonial dialect during normal conversations. Thou must give me a hoagie. What a loser! The COL bugs were all put up at 2:15 a.m. from the web, so the bugger was obviously preprogramming in the time for posting. Its not hard to find that feature on the website. It lets you bug at a set time up to 48 hours in advance of when you want the Jitter Bug sent. I confronted
23

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

Maddox a few times and s/he always denied even tracking the COL website. Still, I knew s/he was doing it. I asked Maddox about that pre-programming feature once and s/he just smiled. It was one of those knowing smiles like s/he was keeping a secret. Anyway, I saw Maddox all the time at the Reilly Library, using the public computers over there. Thats probably where s/he wrote all the COL messages. On the morning of the Homecoming game, November 22, we all got another Jitter flash mob message telling us what to do. Again, it went off without a hitch. All of the students in attendance, about a couple of hundred, got up in unison when the visiting coach used his first timeout during the second half, and walked in silence around the track and sat down in the visitors' bleachers. It was awesome and even got covered on the evening news. It was the perfect statement. Maddox even participated, grinning like s/he had just watched Little Wayne doing a rap s/he had written. I must admit, though: Maddox killed it. On December 12, there was a Jitter message about leaving our mark on the school. Button asked me what it meant. I told Button that I thought it meant that COL members should tag their turf with spray paint, like I used to do in the Liberties you know, graffiti. Button took my explanation as a suggestion and went out and bought spray paint. I went looking for Button and finally found her/him in the alleyway on the north side of the building. S/he had already painted the C O L on the wall. I tried to grab the can from Button and told her/him s/he was stupid and could get expelled since there was a security camera in the alley. Button stopped, but then Maddox showed up, as if from thin air. Maddox was really ticked off and yelled at Button in that ridiculous Colonial-speak: Why art you stopping?! You should finish without fail what you have resolved to do. This is too important to quit now you have to make your mark! It was such a bizarre rant I just froze until I heard Capt. Huntington yelling at us. We all took off. I followed Maddox out of the alleyway because I knew the other way was blocked off. I didnt see Button behind me and I knew that s/he must have been caught. I expected to be called into the Principals office the next day, but nothing came of it. I asked Button about it. Button said Capt. Huntington let her/him go so long as she scrubbed the paint off. A couple of days later, there was another bug applauding the graffiti artist BG, who we all knew was Button. After that last bug, there was nothing from the COL for almost a month. I think Maddox wanted to let the heat cool a bit. When the election for the new student body president was announced in January, I wasnt surprised Maddox wanted to run. Only an egomaniac would want a short-term position with an impressive title but no power. It seemed really stupid to me, but the debate team got behind Maddox and helped create that ridiculous campaign poster. I asked Maddox why s/he put the COL logo on the poster and s/he said Button suggested it. I was shocked, just shocked - yeah, right - that Braxton had the posters removed. Of course, Maddox got that deranged stare again and focused on organizing a school-wide rally as part of a campaign against Braxton. In the week leading up to the rally, Maddox used the debate meetings as a personal platform to push her/his election. Bartlett even helped Maddox prepare her/his speech and forced us all to listen to Maddox practice it, even though we had a big debate tournament coming up. The morning of the rally, we all got a COL flash mob message instructing us to throw rock filled snowballs at the guards at the point in Maddoxs speech when s/he says I have not yet begun to fight. The day of the rally was really cold and windy. I went only because I was curious. There were just a few dozen students there. I thought the COL had more juice behind it by now, and I think
24

151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187

Maddox was expecting hundreds to attend, so that kind of brought a smile to my face. I was bored immediately, so a couple of us started a snowball fight and tried to ignore the speech, but Maddox just plowed ahead. Hate to admit how good Maddox can be in front of a crowd, but s/he really got rolling with the speech. When s/he yelled into the megaphone - and I mean really yelled - I have not yet begun to fight, everyone in the snowball fight started throwing snowballs at the guards, including me and Button, who was next to me. I was startled, actually, at how forcefully Maddox delivered that line. S/he had never rehearsed it like that in the debate club practices. Anyway, it was cool to see again how much power we, I mean the COL, could wield. There were about eight guards there, and they didnt react at all. They just stood still. No one was throwing stones or rocks yet, and we were maybe 25 to 30 feet apart from the guards, but moving closer with each volley. Maddox stopped speaking and moved between us and the guards. Maddox was encouraging us, yelling through the megaphone, Dont Stop! Dont Stop! We kept throwing snowball after snowball, but none had any effect. Then Maddox started getting hit and s/he moved out of the way. Im pretty sure I saw Maddox move to the other side of Button and start throwing snowballs as well. It was all getting a bit frantic and hard to tell where everyone was. I dont know what came over me next, but I saw how arrogant the guards looked and thought about all the bogus detentions, and then I saw a rock on the ground and remembered the Jitter message. I decided I had had enough. I picked up a small rock, packed some snow around it, and I hurled it at the guards. There were rocks and stones all over the area because of the archaeological dig going on at the old slave quarters at Independence Mall. Anyway, I was just trying to get a reaction. Button saw me and picked up a rock too, and soon maybe half the crowd was throwing snow-covered rocks. Im pretty sure Maddox was doing it, too. I dont know which one of us hit the security guard in the head, but that finally got a response. As soon as the blood hit the snow, the guards rushed us. Complete chaos broke out. Guards started throwing their clubs around and pushing students. Most of the students were able to get away, but Button, Maddox and I got run over and were arrested. Im not proud of what I did, but I admit that I threw rocks at the guards. I dont know if it was my rock that hit that one guard, but it really doesnt matter. What I did was wrong, but it was effective. Braxton lost her/his job as a result and the school has since changed for the better under Bartlett, from what I hear. Though Ive never liked Maddox, I must give credit where credit is due. If Maddox had never created the COL, none of this wouldve been possible. I, Fran Lee, hereby verify that the above statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Fran Lee
Signature Signed and Sworn to before me DATE

October 12, 2009

George Ross Notary Public, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania My commission expires: December 24, 2012
25

STATEMENT OF MADDOX HALE Witness for the Defense

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

My name is Maddox Hale and Im 19 years old. I was set to graduate from J. P. Zenger in June 2009 but was expelled that March. I live with my aunt and step-uncle in a row home at 1215 Heyward Ave., Philadelphia. I'm out on bail right now, working part time at the Wilmington Port doing clerical work my Great Aunt Sussex got me the job. I want to go to college, but I need to clear my name first. When I got to high school, I was like most kids, just trying to find my niche. Unfortunately, Zenger was a rough school. There was a lot of tension between ethnic groups. Each had its own gang. There were fights and rumbles all the time inside and outside the school. I wasnt in a gang, though. No one asked me, and back then, I didnt really talk to anyone. Things were so bad my first two years, I was afraid to walk to school and move between classes. My only protection was to dress all in black, so I would look scarier. The spring of 2007 brought monumental change for me and the school. On April 18, 2007, during second period, the fire alarm was pulled, followed by two gunshots. I was terrified. Remember, this was right after Virginia Tech. I ran as fast as I could for the doors, like I was in some horror flick. Amazingly, no one was hurt. A gun was found, but no prints were on it. They never arrested anyone. I heard rumors that people thought I was involved because I fit the profile, but I know right from wrong. Plus, I dont know a thing about guns. The police questioned me and even searched my house, but nothing ever came of it. All of my step-uncles guns were accounted for. Principal Braxton was hired right after this, in May 2007. I hated Braxton from the start. You couldnt even sneeze in class without getting detention. I hated life and school more than ever. Thats when I crossed paths with the most amazing mentor anyone could ask for, my teacher, Jo Bartlett. Ms./Mr. Bartlett asked me to stay late one day after history class toward the end of the year. It was like Ms./Mr. Bartlett understood the pain I was going through. S/he convinced me to join the debate team, that it was a good place for smart kids who had something to say. I was a natural at debate. Plus, I didnt have to worry about being a bad speller because everything was verbal. I came out of my shell as I learned different techniques for making arguments and expressing opinions. I gained everyones respect, except for Fran Lee. Fran seemed threatened by my talent and all the attention I got, but I didnt care what Fran thought. By my senior year, everything had changed. I was president of the debate team and the dark period in my life was far behind me. The most influential person in my life continued to be Ms./Mr. Bartlett. S/he was really into the history of Philadelphia and the founding of our country. S/he would weave Revolutionary War stories into classroom discussions and our debate team meetings. S/he had famous Revolutionary era quotes made into posters that hung all over the classroom. We read all of the Founders letters and speeches. I even tried to incorporate some of that Colonial syntax into my debates. Ms./Mr. Bartlett helped us realize the importance of our basic civil rights. S/he often stressed that the freedom of speech was the most important of them all and had to be defended at all costs. While I found my voice, the school was losing its. Most people were fooled by Braxtons success at removing gangs from the school and the decrease in violence. What they didnt realize was that there was a ton of tension building. In the halls, you would pass certain kids and could feel the anger and frustration about being caged for seven hours a day. It was gonna blow. You can take the gangs out of the school, but you couldnt take the gangster out of the students. The first clear act of dissent was the cafeteria event. Over lunch, I watched in amazement as a couple of
26

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

dozen students just stopped moving. It lasted only a few minutes, but the guards reaction was priceless; they had no idea what to do. I learned later, from Button Gwinnett, that the prank was called a flash mob and was mobilized through Jitter, a free social internet-based messaging system. Jitter allows a person to type up to 180 characters into any device connected to the internet and then electronically send the message to all of the members who signed up to track that persons postings. The only student who got in trouble for the cafeteria flash mob was Button, probably because s/he started it. S/he received a weeks detention for disrupting the schools normal operations. Button later told me that s/he told the administration that the whole thing was a prank and that is how they took it. Button told me the Jitter group was called the Children of Liberty, or COL, and that s/he learned about it from Fran Lee. Though everyone at Zenger seemed to join later on, I didn't. I guess it was the nonconformist in me and because my aunt and step-uncle were too cheap. I didnt have a text plan, so Id never get the messages instantaneously, which is kind of the point. I only ever used the public computers at Reilly Library to do my school work, access my textbooks and research on the internet. The library was only a block from Zenger so I was there a lot, since my family could not afford a computer at home. In any event, Button would update me about new COL messages. Button seemed under the delusion we were good friends because s/he once lied for me and helped get us out of a detention one day when we didnt have hall passes. The next flash mob organized by COL that Button told me about was to occur at the Homecoming game on November 22. I thought it was a great idea. To me, the action was a comment on how we all felt alienated from our own school. To the administration, it would be seen as insubordination, yet we werent breaking any rules. It was pure genius. I wish I had come up with that idea. I decided to join this time since it was such a powerful statement. For the first time, I think the students realized how powerful we were when we stood together united against the administration. It was electronic freedom fighting! Even though I was on the outside of this whole COL thing, I unwittingly got caught up in it on December 12. I was leaving debate practice around 5 p.m. The sun was really low, and I was in a hurry to get home. That was when I walked past Button and Fran hanging out on the north side of the building. They each had spray paint cans in hand and were writing something about the COL on the wall. I was shocked. I mean, participating in the flash mobs was one thing that was making a political statement but graffiti was illegal. I told them that graffiti was not the way to bring about change, especially for those of us in the debate team. We knew better. I didn't encourage Button; I tried to grab the can from him/her and we scuffled. Then I heard Capt. Huntingtons voice and took off running. I think Huntington saw me, though nothing came of it. Fran got away too. Button called me later that night and said s/he also got away. A few days later, Button boasted how the COL sent out a message applauding her/his sacrifice for the movement. S/he was so proud. Winter break seemed to calm everything down sort of like a hibernation. Things got interesting again at the end of January 2009, when our student body president moved and a new election was scheduled for February. This was the opportunity I was looking for. Though the position didnt carry much weight, especially since it would only be for a few months, I thought I could exploit the campaign process to expose Braxton. Later, Button told me that the COL endorsed me in a series of Jitter messages. I was happy to have the support. I spent hours trying to come up with a message for my campaign, but it didnt hit me until I spoke with Ms/Mr. Bartlett. We were talking about old Colonial and Revolutionary War
27

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151

campaigns, and I was inspired to use the famous political cartoon by Benjamin Franklin, Unite or Die, as my central theme. Bartlett loved it, and told me it was just right. I left the sections of the snake unlabeled, though I did include the COL graphic on it. That was Buttons idea. Button pulled up the Jitter site on a school computer and I quickly copied the graphic. I never read the site though. S/He thought it would help me get support. It was the perfect message. I really had no idea that the COL used the Unite or Die phrase. Had I known, I would never have used it. Im more creative than that. That Monday, February 16, instead of debate practice, we made fifteen posters with my campaign message and hung them around school in prominent places. I came to school Tuesday expecting the school to be abuzz from seeing my posters. Instead, I found they had all been taken down by Braxton and her/his security thugs. I was furious! Ms./Mr. Bartlett suggested I address the censorship head on. I marched into Braxtons office after school. S/he invited me in as if s/he expected my arrival. Before I could open my mouth, s/he said that the posters were removed because use of the word Die as a verb could make students feel threatened. I explained that the message was purely political and a key part of my campaign. It was like talking to a brick wall, and I got so flustered I think I came off sounding threatening. I dont remember exactly what I said something about how Braxton and her/his army of thugs would never shut me up, that my voice would always be heard. Whatever it was, I lost my composure and immediately regretted what I said. Braxton told me that if I didnt change my campaign theme I wouldnt be permitted to run in the election and that s/he would look into suspending me. I was outraged. Here I was trying to affect change in the school the right way and I was getting punished, while the COL was preaching lawlessness and nothing was happening to them. Even though I would never have considered dropping out of the election, I was dejected and sulked through debate practice that night. I told Bartlett about Braxtons threat to pull the plug on my campaign. Bartlett encouraged me to carry on. Then, I received this amazing email the next morning, from a sender identified as COLHQ. I'm not sure who sent it, but I think it was Ms./Mr. Bartlett. The language of the letter sounds like her/him. In any event, it certainly inspired me to keep fighting. I decided to call out Braxtons censorship. I planned a rally at Independence Mall, which was right across the street from our school. It was the perfect place symbolically but still within ear shot of the school. Plus, I thought there was a chance I could get the media to come. I sent a mass email inviting the school to attend. I didnt care if the administration knew what I was planning. I had a constitutional right to have my voice heard. The rally was set for Friday February 27. The message spread like wildfire and soon everyone was talking about me, even the teachers. I was a little worried that things could get out of hand, so I asked Ms./Mr. Bartlett for advice. S/He told me that as long as I held a megaphone, and not a sword, the large crowd we anticipated would remain under control. That made me feel better. I prepared a speech and practiced it over and over again in front of the debate team to make sure it was perfect. To me, this was my I have a dream moment. I was completely prepared. On the day of the rally, the temperature was colder than expected. I dont think that it got out of the 20s, and it was really windy. At 3:00 p.m., we met across the street from the school as planned. Unfortunately, only about 25 or so students showed up and no media. I was crushed; I had expected hundreds. In fact, more students were having a snowball fight on Independence Mall than were ready for my rally, including Fran and Button. There seemed to be more security guards on duty than protestors, although I think there were actually only ten or so guards. They always appear to be greater in number than they are because of their intimidating uniforms. Still, I was not deterred and handed out some clever posters I had made. The signs were quotes from famous Revolutionary War heroes that best captured my message, including Patrick
28

152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190

Henrys quote about guarding the public liberty. Unfortunately, no matter how loud we chanted, our voices were lost in the howling wind. At 3:30 p.m. as planned, with megaphone in hand. I gave the speech I had written out word for word, that is until the commotion broke out. I was about half way through when I repeated that sacred phrase from John Paul Jones, now infamous in Philadelphia: I have not yet begun to fight. At that point, the kids throwing snowballs at each other started to throw them at the guards. Before I knew it, everyone was joining the fray. Things were getting out of hand. I was losing control. The guards stood unfazed and motionless, like Beefeaters in front of the Tower of London. My shining moment, even if smaller than expected, was being ruined. I ran towards the snowball throwers, my hand flailing in the air, yelling at the top of my lungs, Dont do it stop!!! No one listened, and I became a target. As I was pelted with snowball after snowball, I retreated and tried to plead with people on an individual level, but there was nothing I could do. The more I pleaded, the louder the clamor for violence from the other protestors became. The next few minutes were a blur. A heavy snowball cracked one of the security guards square in the head and I could see blood splatter the surrounding snow as he fell to the ground. It was disturbing to hear the protestors cheer at this awful sight. The guards rushed us. It was pure bedlam. Most students were able to escape. I was not so lucky and ended up trampled and taken into custody. The cops took my speech from my hand, saying it was evidence. I was booked that night and released to my step-uncles custody around mid-night; he was not happy. Im not sure who threw the snowball that started the riot. It certainly was not me. I didnt throw a single snowball; I tried to stop the fight. And I most certainly didnt write the bug directing the flash mob attack on the guards when I quoted John Paul Jones. I never even knew about that flash mob bug. I know the main reason Im a suspect is because the language used in the COL bugs is similar to the language I used on my campaign poster and other things I wrote, but I never really looked at the COL messages until after the rally. I always heard about them second hand from Button. It is ridiculous to think I put all of that together. My entire speech was focused on solving problems through words, not force. That Braxton and Fran believe Im behind the COL is not at all surprising. Braxton knew I was becoming a threat to her/his police state, and Fran was always jealous of me. Maybe s/he even set this up. On the other hand. I cant quite express how devastating it is to know that Ms./Mr. Bartlett believes I was behind the COL and the violent attack. It is truly unfathomable. I trusted her/him implicitly. I just hope that someday Ms./Mr. Bartlett will come to know in her/his heart that I would never advocate such barbaric actions. I guess Ms./Mr. Bartlett was right when s/he would always say at practice that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I, Maddox Hale hereby verify that the above statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Maddox Hale
Signature Signed and Sworn to before me

October 11, 2009

DATE

John Morton Notary Public, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, My commission expires: October 13, 2011 29

STATEMENT OF SAM HUNTINGTON Witness for the Defense

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

My name is Sam Huntington. Im 54 years old and unemployed. I live on Lynch St. in South Philly. My previous employer, the Hessian Security firm, entered into a two-year contract with the School District of Philadelphia in 2007 and I was assigned the Security Captain for John Peter Zenger High School. I began my job there after the school shooting. My sole mission was preventing violence in the school. I supervised a team of seventeen highly trained security personnel who were mostly retired or off-duty police officers. I was fired near the end of the 2009 school year. As long as I can remember, Ive wanted to be a cop. It wasnt exactly a stretch for me since most of my family had been or were police officers. I wanted to serve my country first so, after high school, I enlisted in the Army and was in for ten years until honorably discharged. I used GI Bill money to attend Penn State, where I graduated near the top of my class with a degree in criminal justice. My honors thesis on the similarities between inner-city gangs and terrorist cells was published in a leading criminal law journal and is still cited. In 1987, I joined the 25th Patrol District of the Philadelphia Police Department, which is in North Philly. My military experience was a real plus and, with my bachelors degree, I quickly rose to Corporal and was offered a position in the Gang Unit, where I applied my intelligence analysis skills to street gangs. I was often recognized for my ability for eradicating gang violence. My unit was extremely successful, and I was on the fast track to becoming a captain and even possibly police commissioner when I got caught up in a corruption investigation in 2002. After one of our gang raids, approximately $150,000 in seized cash disappeared before it reached the evidence locker. I was accused of the theft by an anonymous tipster. I was eventually cleared by the Internal Affairs Board, but my unit was responsible, so I was formally reprimanded. When the budget crisis hit in 2007, I took a buyout. I felt that, without a badge, I could work with the citys youth and stop the gangs before they even started. The Zenger position fit that bill. From my start there, I often disagreed with Principal Braxtons tactics. S/he believed that the only way to turn the school around and to deter others was to harshly punish every student who stepped out of line. Thats a great theory, but I know that it doesnt work, not with teens. Violence is a disease, and the only way to stop gangs is to find the root causes - in school or in society - and try to bridge the differences. When I first started the job, I often expressed this view to Principal Braxton, but s/he always said that it was too late for talk, we need action, and referred to Chapter 7 of his/her book. I will admit that Braxton did get short-term results. The security cameras, dress codes, and mandatory suspensions did cause a significant, immediate drop in school violence and gang activity. These efforts kept J.P. Zenger off of the Persistently Dangerous School list, but the harsh measures also led to Braxtons downfall. Short-term results are easy; its long-term changes that are hard. Braxton didnt have a plan, and I knew that the student body hated her/his tactics. A little bit of push back was inevitable. Heck, it was even healthy! The first sign of resistance came in September 2008, when I was called to the cafeteria and informed that some students had frozen in place for a few minutes. After speaking with my staff, I concluded it was a prank. I firmly believe in a safety valve theory of policing. Kids need to blow off some steam as long as theyre not hurting anyone. Principal Braxton, however, insisted it was insubordination and wanted to dole out punishment. I disagreed, but it was an order, so I issued a detention to Button Gwinnett, a sophomore who initiated the event.

30

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Braxton believed that punishing Gwinnett would end the so-called uprising. Just in case, Braxton ordered that we double our enforcement of all rules and policies. This crackdown increased pressure at Zenger. Another blow up was inevitable and, not surprisingly, it was even more spectacular. I was not on duty the night of Homecoming, but my staff contacted me about the football game walk-out. I even saw footage on Action News! My security team rightly did nothing to stop the protest since no rules had been violated. At school the next week, I asked a number of students how it was organized and they said they learned through texts and word of mouth. They wanted to show us - Braxton and my guards, which they called Braxtons Army how they felt. Braxton began to obsess over who or what was organizing against her/him and honestly, I was becoming a bit concerned as well. With Braxton cracking down so hard, I thought the next event might not be so harmless. My first break came on December 12th. It was around 5 p.m., and I was on my evening patrol. I heard a commotion along the north alley of the main building. As I approached, I saw three students wearing winter coats and hats standing by the wall. Someone who sounded like Maddox Hale, shouted, Stop, someones coming! Maddox saw me and ran west and I saw Fran Lee follow Maddox. I jogged north and saw Gwinnett trying to run east, but a gate across the alley was locked, so Button was cornered. I cuffed Button, as was my right as a school officer. I surveyed the area and noticed a wet graffiti tag on the wall and a spray paint can on the ground in a matching color. The tag said C O L and unite or d\ . I was intrigued, because tagging is a classic gang activity, and I thought I knew every gang in the city. I had never seen this one before. I was curious about a connection between the cafeteria event and this gang tag. There was no way Button was a gang leader way too meek for that - but I believed s/he would lead me to the leader. I decided that I needed Button as an informant. To earn her/his trust, I took the cuffs off and sent her/him home with a warning and a promise to scrub the wall clean and to not inform anyone of our conversation. That was the carrot. Then came the stick: I threatened Button with jail if I found out s/he told anyone about our discussion. Button broke down crying. The anti-graffiti law is clear that I should have arrested him/her, but when dealing with gangs, the rule book has to be flexible. I showed the wall to Braxton the next day, since it was my duty to report any damage to school property. I told her/him I didnt know much about the COL but that I was pursuing a strong lead. S/he took a picture of the graffiti and made it clear that s/he was very anxious to find out who was behind the tag and if they were connected to the cafeteria and Homecoming events. I sent the spray can to Independence Labs, a forensic group that the school had on retainer, to check for prints. I ran the prints they found through the schools database. Most of the kids in the school district had been fingerprinted right after the April 2007 shooting incident, with the permission of their parents and guardians, of course. The results showed Buttons prints all over the can and one print for Maddox. There was also a partial print on the top of the spray nozzle, but it was only a five point match to Maddox. A point is a feature or friction ridge on the fingerprint that is compared to points on another print and they are analyzed to see how many points match. A six point match is the minimum needed to find a match though there is no magic number. Most courts expect an eight or ten point match, sometimes more. After I got the print analysis back, I called Button into my office and showed it to her/him. I told Button s/he could be expelled or even criminally prosecuted if s/he didnt come clean. Lets just say the waterworks started again. I grilled Button about the COL and found out it stood for Children of Liberty. Button told me that Maddox had been trying to grab the can and stop her/him and Fran Lee from completing the COL tag when I interrupted them. When I asked Button if s/he knew who
31

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151

headed the COL, you could tell that s/he had no clue. All Button knew was that someone identified as the COL sent out periodic text messages to other students ridiculing Braxton or calling for a flash mob against Braxton, like the cafeteria and Homecoming events. I asked to see the texts but Button said s/he always deleted them since s/he got thousands a month. Typical teenager. Button also divulged that Fran was a COL member, but didnt believe Fran was responsible for the texts. I read Button the riot act and promised that any further acts of disobedience would be dealt with by Braxton. I made Button promise to send me any further COL messages. I left this interrogation not really knowing what the COL was. I Googled children of liberty that night and discovered that a lot of groups called themselves by that name but none were related to what was going on at Zenger. The COL was not a gang in the traditional sense. Gangs involve mutual support groups working to a somewhat coherent, defined objective, and almost universally bound by a single, shared trait such as geography or ethnicity. None of these things was true of the COL: there appeared to be no joining requirements, no gang colors, no signifiers, and no enforcement of any rules, if any rules existed. The only singular characteristic was a strong hatred of Braxton, and that wouldve gotten half the faculty on board! Not only that, but gang leaders tend to be flamboyant, obvious characters who reveal their position of power for all to see. The person behind the COL went to great lengths to remain unknown. It was a hub and spoke system: COL members received messages but no one knew where they were coming from. The COL was more like an idea that had taken limited form in organizing two nonviolent pranks and one act of graffiti. These were safety valve releases, not a gang activities. Over the next few weeks, I met with Button Gwinnett a few times but got very little information. It appeared that the COL had been scared off and gone underground. Button never informed me about the COLs Jitter website. Honestly, I had never even heard of Jitter. I was in charge of security detail on the day of Maddox Hales rally. I knew that Maddox was planning the protest, and I saw it as another safety valve event against Braxton, who everyone knew had pulled Maddoxs campaign posters from the hallways of the school. Braxtons blatant interference in the student government election raised a lot of hackles, and much of the faculty was upset at Braxton. I thought it would be helpful for Braxton to hear the students complaints, or at least appear to, to release the pressure. I didnt believe Security was necessary at the rally, since it was off campus and our presence was sure to antagonize the students. I objected, but Braxton ordered me to assign all seven guards I had available to the event and demanded that I be there myself to command them. When only a handful of students showed up, we relaxed. Even the students who were there paid no attention to the rally; they were too busy tossing snowballs at each other. However, after Maddox started her/his speech and said, I have not yet begun to fight, a barrage of snowballs were launched at me and the guards from about twenty to thirty feet. I directed my guards to stand still, and my team obeyed me even in the face of the students taunts. Maddox, with megaphone in her/his right hand and the speech in the other, pleaded with the attackers to stop. All that did was make her/him a target, and s/he had to retreat into the crowd of students. It didnt take long for things to get nasty, and we noticed students, including Button and Fran, packing snowballs with small rocks. Before I could direct our retreat, a snowball hit Corporal Rodney square in the head. He fell in a heap into the snow, a rock beside him. My security team rushed into the crowd. We disbursed the crowd quickly, but force had been used against us, and I would be lying if I said I didnt see my team use their clubs a few times. I bent down to aid Caesar, who was bleeding profusely and mumbling that Maddox Hale had hit him with the rock.
32

152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188

As for Maddoxs involvement, I lost track of her/him after s/he retreated into the crowd. I dont know for certain whether s/he threw snowballs at us, but I doubt it: when I arrested Maddox, s/he was still holding the megaphone in one hand and the speech in the other. In addition, immediately after the fight, I asked the seven guards on duty what happened and, to a person, none knew for sure who threw the fateful projectile. It was too chaotic to tell for sure, and most of the students faces were obscured. We all agreed, though, that Fran and Button escalated the fight to rock filled snowballs. Before I was fired, I tried to get information from the students I knew were at the rally, but not a one would take the chance of being labeled a snitch. In my opinion, which I offer within a reasonable degree of certainty in my field of expertise in gang activity and profiling, is that Maddox did not fit the profile of a gang leader, or of the leader of the COL in particular. Simply, Maddox is not the type of person who would post an anonymous message promoting violence upon me and my guards. From my observation of Maddox, s/he enjoyed the limelight and the publicity that came from being a star debater. When her/his picture was in the Inquirer, s/he was smiling for a week. Its highly unlikely such a personality could have been the leader of a secret organization or kept such a secret that long. The COL drew its strength from being underground, like a secret society. Maddox would not have deliberately invited scrutiny by making references to the COL and the phrase unite or die on the campaign poster, for instance. Plus, after the snowball incident, I learned that Maddox had received a threatening e-mail from the COLHQ. Seems more like a setup to me than guilt. Collectively, based on my years of training and experience dealing with teenage gangs and profiling gang leaders, these factors are conclusive. In my opinion, Maddox Hale cant be guilty of criminal solicitation to commit aggravated assault under the Pennsylvania Criminal Code. However, I do recall one event that at the time seemed inconsequential. I was walking by a debate team practice one day in early January, right after the winter break, when I heard Maddox Hale quoting Patrick Henry. I remembered generally what s/he said, and when I did a Google search that night, there it was - Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. That same quote was in one of the COL messages. After the riot, I took a photo of the classroom so I could have proof of that same language on the walls. I also seized a protest poster from Jo Bartletts classroom that carried the same exact quote. I, Sam Huntington hereby verify that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Sam Huntington
Signature Signed and Sworn to before me DATE

October 9, 2009

Stephen Hopkins Notary Public, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, My commission expires: August 12, 2010

33

STATEMENT OF BUTTON GWINNETT Witness for the Defense

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

My name is Button Gwinnett, and Im 17 years old. Im currently at Glen Mills School, which is a juvenile detention facility, because I was found to be a delinquent for committing aggravated assault. When I get out in the summer of 2010 or so, Ill go back and live with my grandma at 5342 N. Clark St. in Philadelphia. She has been really understanding about everything. I know I made a lot of mistakes, but Im ready to do better. Ill be returning next fall to Zenger, where Ill repeat my sophomore year. I got expelled from Zenger last March and am excited that Ms./Mr. Bartlett is now the principal; s/he will be great. When I started at Zenger, Principal Braxton was already in charge and there wasnt much gang activity in the school. To be honest, I was looking forward to joining a gang. I didnt want to cause trouble; I just thought it would be cool to be part of a real family and get protection. I told my grandma once in the weeks leading up to the start of school that I wanted to join the Liberties she was so alarmed, and because she heard how great the debate team was at Zenger, she contacted Ms./Mr. Bartlett and just like that, I was signed up. I had no choice. As it turned out, I really liked Ms./Mr. Bartlett. The debating part was interesting but I really liked her/his stories from the 60s and 70s. They were all about the protests and marching for the civil rights movement and against the Vietnam War, and how it brought everyone together. Ms./Mr. Bartlett was also a big fan of the Revolutionary War and worshiped the Founding Fathers. Her/his classroom walls were covered in Revolutionary War quote posters and s/he would often start debate practice by pointing to a quote and challenging us to use it in our arguments. The best thing about the debate team was Maddox Hale. Maddox was by far the best debater on the team, even though I didnt always understand what s/he was saying. Even when not debating, Maddox used big and complex words to express her/himself. Maddox was awesome. S/he took a special interest in me and became like a big sister/brother. The rest of the team really liked Maddox, too, and we elected her/him team captain. It was Maddox who convinced me that Braxton was ruining our school. Maddox taught me that every time a student received a detention for speaking her/his mind, we were being censored. Maddox called this a deprivation of civil liberties. That was a phrase that Ms./Mr. Bartlett used a lot, too. One of the first things Ms./Mr. Bartlett taught us was that these liberties were worth fighting for and that there was no excuse for censorship. Fran Lee was also on the debate team and a senior like Maddox. Fran also showed a big interest in me, but I didnt really like Fran because I got the feeling s/he was only hanging around me to get at Maddox. Everyone knew that Fran and Maddox didnt like each other. Anyway, I mostly ignored Fran when s/he bad-mouthed Maddox. I always had Maddoxs back. For example, one day early in the year, we decided to go to the Wawa down the street for a couple of hoagies. It made us late for 3:30 debate practice. Braxtons rule was that, even if it was after school, we had to have a hall pass. It was automatic detention if we were caught. We were just a few minutes late and running to the room when Capt. Huntington and another guard, Randie Towaliga, stopped us. They were ready to give us detention when I told her/him we were late because I had to make an emergency stop at the drug store on Market Street to get an inhaler because I was having an asthma attack. I really do have asthma, so I pulled out my inhaler. The guards fell for it and let us go with a warning. From then on, there was a strong bond between me and Maddox. After debate practice, Maddox invited me to her/his row home and showed me her/his uncles guns and how to use them. I thought it was the coolest thing I had ever seen.

34

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

I first heard about the COL from Fran at debate practice one day in September. Fran said they had a site on Jitter, www.Jitter.com/COLiberty, and it was all about Zenger HS. I went home that night and got on the web and with a couple of clicks, I was registered to get COL posts on my cell phone. I read the bugs already up about tyranny, oppression and uniting or dying. It sounded like stuff from Ms./Mr. Bartletts room, or like stuff Maddox was saying about Braxton. I didnt really understand it, but it sounded cool. I even tried to post stuff of my own, but the site was password protected and I couldnt hack it. At end of September, I received a COL bug on my phone that there was going to be a flash mob at lunch the next day. Flash mobs were real new. I had only heard about them the summer before. I was really excited to talk to Maddox and to get her/his opinion. Turns out I was the first person to tell Maddox. Maddox said s/hed never heard of the COL or the Jitter site. Maddox was too poor to have a computer or a text plan. Maddox thought the flash mob was a great idea, however, and told me that I should participate because it was a form of speech that should be protected. The flash mob was a big success. We all stopped in place like statues for a few minutes during 5th period lunch. I was so excited to do it that I started a minute too early. There were like thirty people that joined, and the guards didnt know what to do. They tried to get us to move, but we wouldnt budge. Fran did it, and some other debate kids, too. For whatever reason, Maddox didnt join in, which bothered me. Unfortunately, I was the only flash mobber who got in trouble. Security questioned me and I told them it was just a prank. I didnt say anything about the COL or Jitter. I got a weeks detention, but it was totally worth it. I became a hero at school and was mentioned in a COL Jitter message the next day! After that, it seemed like all of the kids at school signed up for the COL site. The COL messages all came in at 2:15 a.m., which confused me until I finally figured out that the COL bugger was using a feature on Jitter where you can bug ahead of time and have it pop up when you tell it to. Anyway, Fran and me tried to figure out what each message meant and who was sending them. There were more bugs about revolution, radical change, and attacks on Braxton. It was thrilling. I imagined that this was what being in a gang was all about. Fran thought Maddox was behind the COL, but I was pretty sure that was a lie. Maddox told me s/he wasnt interested in the COL. One thing I knew about Maddox from debate club was that s/he loved the spotlight. If Maddox had created the COL, everyone wouldve known and s/he wouldve been sure to tell me we trusted each other. Really, it could have been anyone sending the COL jitters since everyone in the school hated Braxton. But, if I had to guess, Id say it was someone in Bartletts classes or someone on debate because one of the bugs was a John Adams quote that hung up on Bartletts wall. Maybe it was even Bartlett her/himself, especially since s/he ended up getting Braxtons job. Only someone really smart like Bartlett couldve thought this all up. The second flash mob, at the Homecoming game, was really cool too. There was a buzz in the student section. I sat near Maddox, who leaned over to me in the first half and asked what was up with the crowd. I explained that during the second half, all Zenger students would get up, walk around the track and sit down in the visitors bleachers. Maddox got weirdly excited and blurted out what a brilliant idea! and that it was symbolically perfect speech! Maddox must have read my blank stare so s/he explained that by going over to the other side, we were showing Braxton how alienated we were from our own school. Maddox went on about how no one could get punished since no rules would be broken. Anyway, on cue, all the students at the game, including Maddox, joined the mob, maybe like 200 of us. We could really feel the unity. Its hard to explain how awesome that felt. The administration mostly treated it as a prank, again, and not as some powerful student movement, which is what it felt like to me.

35

99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

After Homecoming, I got really active in the COL, which turned out to be a huge mistake. We received two Jitter messages in December that said It is time for our words to become writing. It is time for our actions to become permanent and Leave our mark upon the school, as these words have marked the web and our hearts. I asked Fran that day at school, December 12, what it meant. Fran told me that in the Liberties gang, they would mark the gangs turf by spray painting their symbol on a wall or street sign, and that the Jitter messages probably meant something like that. Fran suggested that if I wanted to do that, I should use the north alley because there were two ways to escape if security came around. After school, I bought a can of dark blue spray paint from a hardware store. Fran met me in the alley just as I was finishing spraying "C O L". Fran told me to write unite or die underneath it to complete the message. As I was finishing up, Maddox appeared almost out of nowhere. Maddox was shocked at what we were doing. S/he said I was being stupid and could get in serious trouble because there were security cameras all over the building. Maddox definitely didnt encourage me to keep painting. Then we heard Capt. Huntington approach, and Maddox and Fran ran one way while I ran the other. Just my luck, I ran straight into a fence which was never locked before. Huntington cuffed me. I was terrified. S/he asked what I was doing behind the school and why I ran. I said I was just getting fresh air and ran because I was afraid of getting detention. Then I just started crying. That really affected Huntington, who un-cuffed me and was totally nice. Crying always works on my grandma, too. Anyway, Huntington picked up the spray can and told me to go home. S/he told me not to talk to anyone about this incident. I went home and immediately called Fran. I was too ashamed to reach out to Maddox. Fran, instead of being supportive, got really angry and reminded me how gang members never snitch on their buddies. I thought this was all behind me, but a few days later I was called into the security office by Capt. Huntington, who showed me a picture of the dark blue spray can with fingerprints on it. It was like I was on CSI, but I was the bad guy! I saw that my prints were there, and Maddoxs too. I tried to start crying but Huntington told me that if I didnt cooperate I was going to jail. I agreed, but did my best to give as little information as possible. I said COL stood for Children of Liberty and was kind of like a gang. That got Huntingtons attention and s/he grilled me so much it made my head spin. S/he asked all about who were the leaders, who was in it, was there an initiation, did the COL have hand signals or colors, and on and on. I really had nothing to say except for the basics: COL was just a group of lots of students who hated Braxton and the security guards because they felt like school was a police state. Because everyone was so mad all the time, some students sent text messages to other students under the COL name complaining about Braxton. I said that the cafeteria and Homecoming pranks were organized through texting, which was kind of true. Anyway, again, I didnt say anything about the Jitter site and I didnt use the word flash mob. Huntington told me that if I got any more text messages about any other pranks, I had to forward them to her/him. I kept my promise to Fran; I never snitched on Fran, Maddox or anyone else. Huntington did ask me why Maddoxs prints were on the can. I said that Maddox tried to stop me from spraying and grabbed the can which was completely true. I met with Capt. Huntington a few times over the next two months but said little, especially since the Jitter messages had slowed. I think I forwarded Capt. Huntington only two COL bugs: the one that talked about there being a time to preach and pray and a time to fight, and the one that said elections are where political questions are answered. They seemed pretty harmless and I only sent the content of the text. I never revealed the Jitter site, but even I got curious about who ran the COL. I asked Maddox over and over if it was her/him. I figured that that information might come in handy if I ever got in trouble with Capt. Huntington again though I would never
36

150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184

rat out Maddox. Maddox only ever told me something like Button, Im the captain of the debate team, I dont need a secret group to announce my message. If I wanted to attack Braxton, I would do it to her/his face, now skitter away. After a while, Maddox just ignored me. The next big thing at school was the emergency election. Maddox was running for school body president and I was ready to pitch in any way possible. I helped Maddox with her/his campaign poster. S/he chose the cut up snake but it was my idea to add Unite or Die. I also encouraged Maddox to put the COL tag on it to get as much support as possible. Ms./Mr. Bartlett even let Maddox use debate team practice time to organize Maddoxs rally even though we had a really big debate competition coming up. The morning of the rally, I got the Jitter message for a flash mob at Independence Hall. The bug gave instructions that when Maddox said I have not yet begun to fight, we would throw snowballs filled with rocks at the guards. I had mixed feelings about doing this but when it turned out to be a super cold and windy day and only 20 or so kids showed up, I thought a snowball fight was the only way to get attention. Plus, I felt bad for Maddox because s/he made tons of protest signs and only a few were used. Fran was there, which surprised me because s/he definitely did not support Maddox. Anyway, on cue, we started chucking snowballs at the guards instead of each other. No one was using rocks, though. Maddox then turned towards us and yelled in the megaphone for us to Stop, stop it! You guys are ruining everything. That prompted everyone to throw snow at Maddox, and s/he retreated. I didnt see Maddox again until it was all over. During the snowball fight, the guards were completely unfazed. I know that frustrated us and thats when I saw Fran pick up a rock and cover it in snow. I followed her/his lead. We all did, or at least it seemed that way, except Maddox. I never saw Maddox throw a single snowball. One of the snow-covered rocks hit one of the guards square in the head. The guards finally reacted big time; they went into a complete rage and rushed us. I dont remember the next few minutes. It was crazy. I got hit in the head a couple of times. Most of the students managed to run away but me, Fran and Maddox all got arrested. The only good that came of the whole thing is that Braxton was fired. Fran got off easy. S/he only got probation, which was unfair since it was probably me or Fran who hit the guard. Maddox and I ended up suffering the most. Maddox was only trying to make things better at school and ended up getting punished for it. S/he gave up college for us, for our school! I, Button Gwinnett hereby verify that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Button Gwinnett
Signature Signed and Sworn to before me

10/9/2009
DATE

Oliver Wolcott Notary Public, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania My commission expires: February 14, 2011
37

EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1: COL Jitter Website (Screenshots) Exhibit 2: Graffiti Wall Exhibit 3: Maddox Hale Campaign Poster Exhibit 4: Protest Poster Exhibit 5: Maddox Hale Rally E-Mail Exhibit 6: Principal Braxton Memo to Faculty Exhibit 7: Principal Braxton Rsum Exhibit 8: Captain Huntington Rsum Exhibit 9: Spray Paint Can Fingerprint Analysis Exhibit 10: Jo Bartletts Classroom Exhibit 11: COLHQ E-Mail Exhibit 12: Maddox Hale Speech Exhibit 13: LibertyPole.net Blog (Screenshot)

38

Exhibit 1
HOME | Profile | Find Buggers | Settings | Help | Sign Out

Children_of_Liberty
Track
For freedom to ring there must be sacrifice: to Gray, Caldwell, Attucks, Maverick & Carr, add MH, BG & FL!!!
Mar. 5, 2009 @ 2:15am from web.

Name: Children of Liberty Location: Philadelphia, Pa. John Peter Zenger H.S. Bio: Freedom & Civil Liberty Flash Mob Buggin Since: 9/2008 Trackers: 764

** FLASH MOB ** Snowball fight on the mall. When Hale says, I have not yet begun to fight, throw snow at the guards who gather. Snowballs filled with rocks & stones will take down the tyrant on the thrown!
Feb. 27, 2009 @ 2:15am from web

What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. TJ 1787
Feb. 26, 2009 @ 2:15am from web

UNITE OR DIE!!!

Feb. 18, 2009 @ 2:15am from web Feb. 10, 2009 @ 2:15am from web Feb. 3, 2009 @ 2:15am from web

VOTE FOR HALE the COL & Hale stand together Elections are where political questions are answered. Braxton has grown complacent. The principals principles are fragile and stale.
Jan. 31, 2009 @ 2:15am from web

Messages: 37
Tracking: None Note: Dont bug-back

There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come. PM
Jan. 24, 2009 @ 2:15am from web Jan. 16, 2009 @ 2:15am from web

UNITE OR DIE!!!

The break is over. The campaign remains. Phase 3, the final phase is coming soon. Braxton will fall.
Jan. 11, 2009 @ 2:15am from web

These stains of paint are our stains of blood. COL BG understands the plan.
Dec. 16, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

Leave our mark upon the school, as these words have marked the web and our hearts.
Dec. 12, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

It is time for our words to become writing. It is time for our actions to become permanant.
Dec. 4, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

1, 2, 3 >

HOME | Profile | Find Buggers | Settings | Help | Sign Out

Jitter 2009

39

HOME | Profile | Find Buggers | Settings | Help | Sign Out

Children_of_Liberty
Track
For freedom to ring there must be sacrifice: to Gray, Caldwell, Attucks, Maverick & Carr, add MH, BG & FL!!!
Mar. 5, 2009 @ 2:15am from web.

Name: Children of Liberty Location: Philadelphia, Pa. John Peter Zenger H.S. Bio: Freedom & Civil Liberty Flash Mob Buggin Since: 9/2008 Trackers: 764

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. PH 1775
Dec 2, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

Braxton is fritened. The voice of many outweighs the tyranny of a few!

Nov 27, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

THE COL HAS ARRIVED!!! Great job everyone!!! No casualties and the massage couldnt have been clearer. ** FLASH MOB** Tomorrow homecoming game. 2nd half 1st timeout by opposing team. Rise from the stands & walk around the field. Sit on the visitors side.
Nov 22, 2008 @ 2:15am from web Nov 24, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

Messages: 37
Tracking: None Note: Dont bug-back

UNITE OR DIE!!! We have not yet begun to fight!

Nov 21, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

Be prepared to stand once again together the plan has been formed and Braxton will be shocked.
Nov 20, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." PH
Nov 19, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. BF 1771
Nov 17, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

Braxton has lobotomized our identity for our own supposed safety. There is no need for safety when you dont have an identity.
Nov 9, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

We cant stand by & let liberty be curtailed any longer.

Nov 3, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. BF 1776
Oct 31, 2008 @ 2:15am from web Oct 28, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

Phase two is coming COL Flash Mobbers unite. < 1, 2, 3 >

HOME | Profile | Find Buggers | Settings | Help | Sign Out

Jitter 2009

40

HOME | Profile | Find Buggers | Settings | Help | Sign Out

Children_of_Liberty
Track
For freedom to ring there must be sacrifice: to Gray, Caldwell, Attucks, Maverick & Carr, add MH, BG & FL!!!
Mar. 5, 2009 @ 2:15am from web.

Name: Children of Liberty Location: Philadelphia, Pa. John Peter Zenger H.S. Bio: Freedom & Civil Liberty Flash Mob Buggin Since: 9/2008 Trackers: 764

The first step towards changing the way this school is run is by changing the way this school thinks!
Oct 24, 2008 @ 2:15am from web Oct 19, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

UNITE OR DIE!!!

They that can give up essencial liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." BF 1759
Oct 18, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

Fear is Braxton. It is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders us so stupid and miserable, that we cannot accept it.
Oct 13, 2008 @ 2:15am from web Oct 8, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

UNITE OR DIE!!!

Messages: 37
Tracking: None Note: Dont bug-back

This radical change in the principals, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." JA 1818
Oct 8, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

"Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people . . .
Oct 8, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

Subtle yet effective one casualty is a small price to pay for gaining a voice. Way to go BG! **Flash Mob** Cafeteria 5th period lunch stop where you are and dont move for 10 minutes @ 12:47 on 9/30.
Sept 30, 2008 @ 2:15am from web Sept 28, 2008 @ 2:15am from web Sept 18, 2008 @ 2:15am from web Oct 1, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

UNITE OR DIE!!!

Over Oppression? Phase one is coming! Have faith. Tired of tyranny? This year it will change! Stay tuned for instructions.
Sept 13, 2008 @ 2:15am from web

< 1, 2, 3

HOME | Profile | Find Buggers | Settings | Help | Sign Out

Jitter 2009

41

Exhibit 2

42

Exhibit 3

43

Exhibit 4

44

Exhibit 5

From: To: Subject: Date:

Maddox.hale@qmail.com "everyone" <distribution list> Rally for Liberty Thurs. Feb. 19, 2009 17:23:34

It is time for everyone to rally against the tyranny that plagues our school. We are here to learn, but cannot do so in a police state atmosfere. Decisions are made that affect us but we have no input into them. Some of us are old enough to vote and to fight and die for our country, but we have no right to comment on what affects us on a day to day basis. Principal Braxton has taken our freedoms from us, one by one: freedom to dress as we like, freedom to walk where we like, freedom to talk as we like, to whom we like. And now he has taken even the freedom to be heard in our own elections. Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard in the halls of Zenger! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, let it come! There are those who say that we are weak, that students cannot cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we cannot even talk in free periods? When a security guard shall be stationed in every clasroom? Shall we gather strength by iresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? We canot stand by and let our liberty be curtailed any longer. Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it! Meet after school on February 27th at Independence Mall, right across the street from the school. Ignore the No Loitering Signs we will not be loitering, we will be taking the first steps toward changing the way this school is run. Together, our voices united, we can change the way this school thinks! Send this message to every one you know, to everyone who cares about learning and liberty!!! The distinctions between us are no more. I am not a debater, but a John Peter Zenger student! We must UNITE OR DIE!!! In the words of the immortal John Paul JonesI have not yet begun to fight! - MADDOX HALE, Candidate for Student Body President

45

Exhibit 6
John Peter Zenger High School
Education in Libertys Shadow

MEMO: Date: February 17th, 2009 To: All Faculty Members From: Principal Braxton Cc: William Floyd, Asst. Principal; Thomas Nelson, Jr., Asst. Principal Re: Removal of Campaign Posters

As many of you may be aware of, I had campaign posters that were placed around the school by senior Maddox Hale removed by the janitorial staff last night. The posters were in direct violation of our anti-violence rules. The use of the word die in this context clearly attempted to coerce the student body into voting for the candidate identified in the posters through threats. I do not believe that this student would consider actually killing someone who did not vote for the student, nor do I believe that this statement was aimed at inciting violence or some larger plot to cause injury to the school. However, in light of our schools recent history and the massacres that occurred at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech University, we are prompted to take a proactive stance at the first sign of danger. Although I do value the rights of the students to express themselves, the right of free speech is not absolute at all times under all circumstances. This is such a circumstance as these posters directly interfere with the educational mission of our school. I am available to discuss this matter further if need be. Sincerely,

Carter G. Braxton
Carter G. Braxton Principal

46

Exhibit 7
Carter G. Braxton, PhD
1787 Stone Way, Apt. 213 Philadelphia, PA 19130

EDUCATION
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA Ph.D., Education, 1983 Thesis: Discipline and Punishment in the Panopticon A Theoretical Model for Application of Bentham and Foucault to Modern Non-Penal Educational Systems Activities: Concerned Citizens for Educational Safety (Founder, President) Teaching Assistant: Education 343: Developing Classroom Control Education 352: Security Issues in Public Education Publications: Toward a Model of Control in Failed Schools, Education, Vol. 119, Spring 1982 Peace Through Fear: Manipulating the Limitations of Knowledge to Achieve a Productive Classroom, Journals of the National Education Association, Vol. 37, Winter 1980 The Role of Body Language in Presentation, in The Abject Imbeciles Guide to Public Speaking (Roger Sherman, ed., Penguin Group) (1980) M.A., Rhetoric, 1978 Completed degree requirements for M.A., Sociology, 1977 Temple University, Philadelphia, PA B.A., with General and Departmental Honors, Sociology, 1975 B.A., Psychology, 1975 Honors: Phi Beta Kappa Wythe Prize Award for Best Thesis in the Social Sciences Deans List, 1971-1975

PUBLICATIONS
Old-School Discipline for Our New School Problems, American Heritage, 1984

EXPERIENCE
Principal, John Peter Zenger High School, Philadelphia, PA May 2007-June 2009 Acted as principal and chief disciplinary officer for major urban high school with heterogenous student body. Led recovery from violent incident shortly before hiring, keeping school off of Persistently Dangerous Schools list. Using grant from Philadelphia School District, managed diverse student body through rigorous application of discipline, blending modern monitoring technology with traditional punitive methods. Improved test scores. Generated buy-in from community, including student body.

47

Dean of Discipline, Rutledge Preparatory School, Middleton, SC Managed disciplinary functions for elite private academy of 300 students. Vice Principal, William Paca High School, Chase, MD

August 2005-June 2006

August 2002-June 2005

Served as Vice Principal for urban school of 3000 inner city teens. Adapted curriculum to address disciplinary needs and managed student discipline. Principal, Hewes Elementary School, Hoopers Ford, NC August 2001-October 2001

Led school of 200 through difficult month following September 11, 2001. Ensured that order was maintained and education continued regardless of external events. Vice Principal, Philip Livingston Magnet Academy, Morrisania, NY August 1998-June 2001

Coordinated curricular development and disciplinary functions for school of 800. Dean of Discipline, Whipple Military School, Thornton, NH August 1995-June 1998

Enforced honor code, academic code, dress code, and speech code at high school of 750 cadets. Principal, Richard Stockton High School, Hartsfield Landing, NJ August 1994-June 1995

Served as chief academic, disciplinary and later athletic officer for high school of 2100 students. Dean of Discipline, R. H. Lee Independent School, Harrison, VA August 1990 -June 1994

Controlled security and disciplinary functions for a private non-demominational school of 1600 students. Increased expulsions, suspensions and detentions by 68%, during which time test scores rose 15% and average class size declined 9%. Assistant Principal, Athletic Director, Lyman Hall, Elbridge, MA August 1988-June 1990

Coordinated scheduling for over twenty-five athletic teams. Ensured strict compliance with all MIAA requirements. Monitored detention. Teacher, Reading, George Clymer Elementary School, Smith, PA August 1984-June 1988

A complete list of academic presentations and personal and professional references is available upon request.

48

Exhibit 8
Sam Huntington
2217 N. Lynch St. Philadelphia, PA 19106

EXPERIENCE
John Peter Zenger High School, Philadelphia , PA Security Captain, April 2007 June 2009 Provided security for major urban high school during day and at major school functions. Supervised team of seventeen security officers. Trained off-duty and retired police professionals to address unique challenges of multiethnic school with history of gang violence. Trained security personnel in operation of security equipment including metal detectors and security cameras. Coordinated scheduling for team members with local precinct captain. Worked closely with Principal to ensure orderly movement of students during academic day. Exercised discretion in reporting student offenses to ensure effective discipline. Philadelphia Police Department, Philadelphia, PA January 1987 January 2007 Philadelphia Police Commendation for Merit, 1992. Chief, Gang Unit, 6th Patrol District, 2000-2002. During tour of duty, 6th Patrol District experienced 20% decline in gang violence. Commendatory Citation, September, 2001. Lieutenant, Shift Captain, 6th Patrol District, 1996-2000. Sergeant, Gang Unit, 25th Patrol District, 1992-1996. Deputy Chief, of Traffic Section from 2002-2007. Corporal, Gang Unit, 25th Patrol District, 1988-1992. Patrol Officer, 25th Patrol District, 1987-88. United States Army July 1973 - August 1983 Honorably Discharged with rank of Staff Sergeant. Served as ranking non-commissioned officer for platoon of twenty military policemen serving across United States, Germany, and Middle East. Intelligence analyst, 525th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade, Haifa, Israel, 1982-83. Received Good Conduct Medal for exemplary conduct, efficiency and fidelity during service in Frankfurt, Germany. Airborne qualification, December 1976.

49

EDUCATION
Pennsylvania State University B.A., Criminal Justice, cum laude, 1987

PUBLICATIONS
Gang Investigations: A Street Cops Guide, in PERSPECTIVES ON MODERN URBAN CRIMINOLOGY (James Wilson, ed., Robert Morris University Press) (2002) With Prof. Francis Lewis, Thugs of a Feather: An Organizational Study of Modern Urban Street Gangs, Journal of Police Science and Administration, Autumn 1987

REFERENCES
Jo Bartlett, Principal, John Peter Zenger High School, Philadelphia, PA Capt. Thomas McKean, U.S. Army (Ret.), Ft. Benning, GA Lt. Pat Webster, Philadelphia Police Department, Philadelphia, PA

50

Exhibit 9

L censed by the Philadelphia Police Department

Maddox Hale 5 pt match

Maddox Hale 18 pt match

Button Gwinnett 18 pt match

Button Gwinnett 18 pt match

Notes: Prints not enlarged to scale Location is accurately reflected

51

Exhibit 10

52

Exhibit 11

From: To: Subject: Date:

COLHQ@qmail.com Maddox.hale@qmail.com The Times That Try Mens Souls Wed. Feb. 18, 2009 7:04:25

When your voice is taken from you, what rights have you? When you cannot peacably assemble, or elect your own representatives, what rights have you? Today is the eighteenth of February, 2009, but it might as well be the eighteenth of April, 1775. And when the sun rises tomorrow it will be the nineteenth December, 1777. But when the dawn brakes on Friday morning it can yet be December 20, 1860. The cause of the students of John Peter Zenger is, in great measure, the cause of all mankind. The days of revolution are upon us now, and the dark days of this cold and bitter winter will long be remembered. Yet when his country called, did Washington quale? When words needed to be writen, did Paine silence his printing press? And when the time came to sign, did Hancock scribe his name in the tiniest letters? The Children of Liberty need a voice. John Peter Zenger needs a leader. You cannot withdraw from this election any more than Washington or Paine or Hancock could walk away from their roles in history. Withdrawal is giving aid and comfort to our enemy. You cannot, and we will not let you. The cause of all mankind is too important. Stay, Maddox Hale, and fight. Remember the Treason Act giving aid and comfort to our enemies is a crime punishable by death!! - The Children of Liberty

53

Exhibit 12

54

55

56

Exhibit 13

57

APPLICABLE LAW
(MOCK TRIAL VERSION)
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 2702. Aggravated assault. (a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she: (1) causes serious bodily injury to another intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. * * * (b) Grading.--Aggravated assault under subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the first degree. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 2301. Definitions The following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this section: "Serious Bodily Injury." Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 306. Liability for conduct of another; complicity (a) Accomplice Liability.-- A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if, with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he or she aids or attempts to aid such other person in committing it. *** (d) Culpability of Accomplice.-- When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he or she acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense. *** (g) Prosecution of Accomplice Only.-- An accomplice may be convicted on proof of the commission of the offense and of his complicity therein, though the person claimed to have committed the offense has not been prosecuted or convicted or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction or has been acquitted. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 902. Criminal Solicitation (a) Definition of Solicitation -- A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he or she commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission.
58

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : v. : : : : MADDOX HALE, : Defendant :

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Docket No.: CP-51-CR-011230-2009

Charges Aggravated Assault Criminal Solicitation (Aggravated Assault)

JURY INSTRUCTIONS
PRESIDING JUDGES: Do not read these Instructions in Open Court During the Mock Trial Competition
[At the conclusion of a jury trial, the judge will instruct the jury how to apply the law to the evidence. Hypothetically, if the judge in your mock trial case were to provide instructions to the jury, they would look something like the following. A copy of these instructions may not be used as an exhibit during the mock trial competition. Students may, however, use these concepts in fashioning their case and making arguments to the jury.]

1. Role of Jury Members of the jury, you have seen and heard all the evidence and the arguments of the lawyers. Now I will instruct you on the law. You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence that you have heard and seen during this trial. That is your job and yours alone. I play no part in finding the facts. You should not take anything that I may have said or done during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think about what your verdict should be. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. My role now is to explain to you the legal principles that must guide you in your decisions. You must apply my instructions carefully. Each of the instructions is important, and you must apply all of them. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion about what the law is or ought to be. You must apply the law that I give to you, whether you agree with it or not. 2. Jury sole judge of facts; sympathy or prejudice not to influence verdict You are the sole judges of the facts in this case. It is your duty to determine the facts from the evidence produced here in court. Your verdict should not be based on speculation, guess or conjecture. Neither sympathy nor prejudice should influence your verdict. You should also not be influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or gender. Do not allow public opinion to influence you. You are to apply the law as stated in these instructions to the facts as you find them, and in this way decide the case. 3. Credibility of witnesses In deciding what the facts are you must decide what testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. Credibility refers
59

to whether a witness is worthy of belief: Was the witness truthful? Was the witness testimony accurate? You may believe everything a witness says, or only part of it, or none of it. You may decide whether to believe a witness based on his or her behavior and manner of testifying, the explanations the witness gave, and all the other evidence in the case, just as you would in any important matter where you are trying to decide if a person is truthful, straightforward, and accurate in his or her recollection. In deciding the question of credibility, remember to use your common sense, your good judgment, and your experience. In deciding what to believe, you may consider a number of factors: (1) The opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things about which the witness testified; (2) The quality of the witness knowledge, understanding, and memory; (3) The witness appearance, behavior, and manner while testifying; (4) Whether the witness has an interest in the outcome of the case or any motive, bias, or prejudice; (5) Any relation the witness may have with a party in the case and any effect the verdict may have on the witness; (6) Whether the witness said or wrote anything before trial that was different from the witness testimony in court; (7) Whether the witness testimony was consistent or inconsistent with other evidence that you believe; and (8) Any other factors that bear on whether the witness should be believed. Inconsistencies or discrepancies in a witness testimony or between the testimony of different witnesses may or may not cause you to disbelieve a witness testimony. Two or more persons witnessing an event may simply see or hear it differently. Mistaken recollection, like failure to recall, is a common human experience. In weighing the effect of an inconsistency, you should also consider whether it was about a matter of importance or an insignificant detail. You should also consider whether the inconsistency was innocent or intentional. You are not required to accept testimony even if the testimony was not contradicted and the witness was not impeached. You may decide that the witness is not worthy of belief because of the witness bearing and demeanor, or because of the inherent improbability of the testimony, or for other reasons that are sufficient to you. After you make your own judgment about the believability of a witness, you can then attach to that witness testimony the importance or weight that you think it deserves. The weight of the evidence to prove a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testified or the quantity of evidence that was presented. What is more important than numbers or quantity is how believable the witnesses were, and how much weight you think their testimony deserves. 4. Expert TestimonyBasic Instruction [This instruction applies only if Carter Braxton or Sam Huntington, or both, were qualified as expert witnesses during trial.] I permitted [Carter Braxton and/or Sam Huntington] to testify as an expert witness. An expert witness is a person who has special knowledge or skill in some science, art, profession, occupation, or subject that the witness acquired by training, education, or experience. Because
60

an expert has specialthat is, out of the ordinaryknowledge or skill, he or she may be able to supply you with specialized information, explanations, and opinions that will help them decide a case. Regular witnesses are bound by two limitations that do not apply to an expert. First, regular witnesses generally can testify only about things that they personally perceivedthings that they saw and heard themselves. And second, regular witnesses are not allowed to express opinions about matters that require special knowledge or skill. By contrast, an expert is allowed to express an opinion about a matter that is within the area of his or her expertise. Furthermore, while an expert may base an opinion on things personally perceived, he or she may also base an opinion on factual information learned from other sources. Remember, you are the sole judges of the credibility and weight of all testimony. The fact that the lawyers and I may have referred to certain witnesses as experts, and that the witnesses may have special knowledge or skill, does not mean that their testimony and opinions are correct. When determining the credibility and weight of an experts testimony and opinions, consider all the factors that I described earlier that are relevant when evaluating the testimony of any witness. You should also consider all other things bearing on credibility and weight, including the training, education, experience, and ability of each expert, the factual information on which he or she based an opinion, the source and reliability of that information, and the reasonableness of any explanation he or she gave to support the opinion. 5. Accomplice Testimony In this case, the Commonwealth offered the testimony of Fran Lee. Since Fran Lee was previously charged as an accomplice with the Defendant, special precautionary rules apply to her/his testimony. I will explain later what it means to be an accomplice. Experience shows that an accomplice, when caught, may often try to place the blame falsely on someone else. On the other hand, an accomplice may be a perfectly truthful witness. The special rules that I will give you are meant to help you distinguish between truthful and false accomplice testimony. The special rules that apply to accomplice testimony are: First, you should view the testimony of an accomplice with disfavor because it comes from a corrupt and polluted source. Second, you should examine the testimony of an accomplice closely and accept it only with care and caution. Third, you should consider whether the testimony of an accomplice is supported, in whole or in part, by other evidence. Accomplice testimony is more dependable if supported by independent evidence. 6. Presumption of innocence; reasonable doubt; burden of proof The Defendant, Maddox Hale, has pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. The Defendant is presumed to be innocent. S/he started the trial with a clean slate, with no evidence against her/him. The presumption of innocence stays with Maddox Hale unless and until the government has presented evidence that overcomes that presumption by convincing you that Maddox Hale is guilty of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence requires that you find her/him not guilty unless you are satisfied that the Commonwealth has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
61

The presumption of innocence means that Maddox Hale has no burden or obligation to present any evidence at all or to prove that s/he is not guilty. The burden or obligation of proof is on the Commonwealth to prove that Maddox Hale is guilty and this burden stays with the Commonwealth throughout the trial. For you to find Maddox Hale guilty of the offenses charged, the Commonwealth must convince you that Maddox Hale is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that the Commonwealth must prove each and every element of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. A Defendant may not be convicted based on suspicion or conjecture, but only on evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt or to a mathematical certainty. Possible doubts or doubts based on conjecture, speculation, or hunch are not reasonable doubts. A reasonable doubt is a fair doubt based on reason, logic, common sense, or experience. It is a doubt that an ordinary reasonable person has after carefully weighing all of the evidence, and is a doubt of the sort that would cause him or her to hesitate to act in matters of importance in his or her own life. It may arise from the evidence, or from the lack of evidence, or from the nature of the evidence. If, having now heard all the evidence, you are convinced that the Commonwealth proved each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should return a verdict of guilty for that offense. However, if you have a reasonable doubt about one or more of the elements of the offense charged, then you must return a verdict of not guilty of that offense. 7. Overview of Crimes Charged Maddox Hale has been charged with two crimes. First, s/he is charged with aggravated assault and second, with solicitation to commit aggravated assault. These are separate crimes and I will explain the elements of these crimes to you in a moment. As to the first crime charged, aggravated assault, the Commonwealth has proposed alternative theories by which it believes you can find Maddox Hale guilty of this offense. First, the Commonwealth charges that the Defendant actually committed the crime of aggravated assault by throwing the projectile which struck the victim. Second, the Commonwealth charges that if you do not find that the Defendant threw the projectile that struck the victim, that alternatively, you can still find the Defendant guilty of aggravated assault if you find s/he was an accomplice of the person who actually struck the victim and caused his bodily injury. The second crime that Maddox Hale has been charged with is criminal solicitation to commit aggravated assault. The central allegation for this crime, as charged by the Commonwealth, is that the Defendant actively solicited subscribers or members of the website www.jitter.COLiberty to commit aggravated assault upon the victim by posting a message on that site directing that they throw rock filled projectiles at school security guards, including the victim, upon hearing a cue from the Defendant to so act. I will define the elements this crime to you in greater detail in a moment. 8. Aggravated Assault Causing Serious Bodily Injury To find the Defendant guilty of aggravated assault for directly causing serious bodily injury to the victim, you must find that each of the following elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

62

First, that Maddox Hale caused serious bodily injury to Caesar Rodney. Serious bodily injury is bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. I have previously ruled, and you are hereby instructed, that the injuries suffered by Cpl. Rodney constitute serious bodily injury; Second, that Maddox Hale acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. A person acts intentionally with respect to serious bodily injury when it is his or her conscious object or purpose to cause such injury. A person acts knowingly with respect to serious bodily injury when he or she is aware that it is practically certain that his or her conduct will cause such a result. A person acts recklessly with respect to serious bodily injury when he or she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that serious bodily injury will result from his or her conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and intent of the Defendant's conduct and the circumstances known to him or her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the Defendant's situation. It is shown by the kind of reckless conduct from which a life-threatening injury is almost certain to occur. 9. Aggravated Assault Accomplice Liability Theory As I told you a moment ago, even where the Defendant did not directly commit aggravated assault, there is a way that the Defendant can still be found liable for this crime through the conduct of another person or persons. That is when the Defendant is an accomplice of the person who actually commits the crime at issue. To be an accomplice, a person does not have to agree to help someone else; the person is an accomplice if he or she, on his or her own, acts to help the other person commit a crime. More specifically, you may find the Defendant is an accomplice of another in this case if the following two elements are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: a. that the Defendant had the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury; and b. the Defendant aided, agreed to aid or attempted to aid the other person in committing it. It is important to understand that a person is not an accomplice merely because he or she is present when a crime is committed, or knows that a crime is being committed. To be an accomplice, the Defendant must specifically intend to help bring about the crime by assisting another in its commission. 10. Criminal Solicitation to Commit Aggravated Assault The second crime that Maddox Hale has been charged with is criminal solicitation to commit aggravated assault whereby s/he is alleged to have posted a message on the Jitter website broadcast to subscribers or members encouraging them to throw rock filled snowballs when cued to do so by the Defendant.
63

In order to find the Defendant guilty of soliciting aggravated assault, you must find that all three of the following elements have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. First, you must find that the Defendant commanded or encouraged or requested other persons, in this case, the subscribers or members of the website www.jitter.COLiberty, to engage in specific conduct, namely, throwing rock filled snowballs at school security guards, when cued by the Defendant; Second, you must find that the Defendant did so with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crime of aggravated assault; and Third, you must find that the conduct that was commanded or encouraged or requested by the Defendant would either: a. constitute the crime of aggravated assault; or b. constitute an attempt to commit the crime of aggravated assault by the other persons; or c. make the other persons accomplices in the commission or attempted commission of the crime of aggravated assault. To review, a person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to or causes serious bodily injury to another intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. 11. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Evidence may either be direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. You should consider both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence. You may decide the case solely based on circumstantial evidence, and the Commonwealth may meet its burden of proof solely based on circumstantial evidence. 12. Concluding Instructions Your decision in this case is a matter of considerable importance. Remember that it is your responsibility as jurors to perform your duties and reach a verdict based on the evidence as it was presented during the trial. In arriving at a verdict, you should not concern yourselves with any possible future consequences of your verdict, including what the penalty might be if you should find the Defendant guilty. Upon retiring to deliberate, you should select one of you to be the foreperson. He or she is the person who will announce your verdict. Your verdict must be unanimous. This means that in order to return a verdict, each of you must agree to it. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after there has been impartial consideration with your fellow jurors. In the course of deliberations, each of you as jurors should not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous. However, no juror should surrender an honest conviction solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors. In closing, I would also like to suggest that you will be able to deliberate more easily and in a way that will be better for all concerned if each of you treats your fellow jurors and their views with the same courtesy and respect as you would other persons in your everyday life.
64

SECTION II
Rules of the Competition

Rules of the National High School Mock Trial Competition Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2010
I. RULES OF THE COMPETITION (as amended 02/15/2010)
Administration Rule 1.1 Rule 1.2 Rule 1.3 Rule 1.4 The Problem Rule 2.1 Rule 2.2 Rule 2.3 Rule 2.4 Rule 2.5 Teams Rule 3.1 Rule 3.2 Rule 3.3 Rule 3.4 Rule 3.5 The Trial Rule 4.1 Rule 4.2 Rule 4.3 Rule 4.4 Rule 4.5 Rule 4.6 Rule 4.7 Rule 4.8 Rule 4.9 Rule 4.10 Rule 4.11 Rule 4.12 Rule 4.13 Rule 4.14 Rule 4.15 Rule 4.16 Rule 4.17 Rule 4.18 Rule 4.19 Courtroom Setting Stipulations Reading Into The Record Not Permitted Swearing of Witnesses Trial Sequence and Time Limits Timekeeping Time Extensions and Scoring Motions Prohibited Sequestration Bench Conferences Supplemental Material; Costumes Trial Communication Viewing a Trial Videotaping/Photography Jury Trial Standing During Trial Objections During Opening Statement/Closing Statement Objections Reserved Team Eligibility Team Composition Team Presentation Team Duties Team Roster Form The Problem Witnesses Bound by Statements Unfair Extrapolation Gender of Witnesses Voir Dire Rules Code of Conduct Emergencies Student Timekeepers

65

Rule 4.20 Rule 4.21 Rule 4.22 Rule 4.23 Rule 4.24 Rule 4.25

Procedure for Introduction of Exhibits Use of Notes Redirect; Recross Scope of Closing Arguments The Critique Offers of Proof

Judging and Team Advancement Rule 5.1 Rule 5.2 Rule 5.3 Rule 5.4 Rule 5.5 Rule 5.6 Rule 5.7 Rule 5.8 Dispute Resolution Rule 6.1 Rule 6.2 Rule 6.3 Rule 6.4 Reporting a Rules Violation/Inside the Bar Dispute Resolution Procedure Effect of Violation on Score Reporting of Rules Violation/Outside the Bar Finality of Decisions Composition of Judging Panels Score Sheets/Ballots Completion of Score Sheets Team Advancement Power Matching/Seeding Selection of Sides for Championship Round Odd Number of Team Participating in Championship

II.
Article I.

NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL CHAMPIONSHIP FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (MOCK TRIAL VERSION) (as amended 06/01/2009)
General Provisions Rule 101 Scope Rule 102 Purpose and Construction

ARTICLE II. Article III. Article IV.

Judicial Notice (Not Applicable) Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings (Not Applicable) Relevancy and its Limits Definition of Relevant Evidence Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible: Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes Methods of Proving Character Habit; Routine Practice Subsequent Remedial Measures Compromise and Offers to Compromise Payment of Medical or Similar Expenses Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions and Related Statements Liability Insurance (civil case only)

Rule 401 Rule 402 Rule 403 Rule 404 Rule 405 Rule 406 Rule 407 Rule 408 Rule 409 Rule 410 Rule 411 Article V.

Privileges Rule 501 General Rule

Article VI.

Witnesses

Rule 601 General Rule of Competency

66

Rule 602 Rule 607 Rule 608 Rule 609 Rule 610 Rule 611 Rule 612 Rule 613 Article VII.

Lack of Personal Knowledge Who May Impeach Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime (this rule applies only to witnesses with prior convictions) Religious Beliefs or Opinions Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation Writing Used to Refresh Memory Prior Statements of Witnesses

Opinions and Expert Testimony Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness Testimony by Experts Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts Opinion on Ultimate Issue Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion

Rule 701 Rule 702 Rule 703 Rule 704 Rule 705 Article VIII.

Hearsay Definitions Hearsay Rule Hearsay Exceptions, Availability of Declarant Immaterial Hearsay Exceptions, Declarant Unavailable Hearsay within Hearsay

Rule 801 Rule 802 Rule 803 Rule 804 Rule 805 Article IX. Article X. Article X

Authentication and Identification (Not Applicable) Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs (Not Applicable) Other

Rule 1103 Title

*************************************************

I. RULES OF THE COMPETITION

ADMINISTRATION
Rule 1.1. Rules Rule 1.3. Emergencies During a trial, the presiding judge shall have discretion to declare an emergency and adjourn the trial for a short period of time to address the emergency. In the event of an emergency that would cause a team to be unable to continue a trial or to participate with less than six members, the team must notify the National Board as soon as is reasonably practical. If the Board, or its designee(s), in its sole discretion, agrees that an emergency exists, the Board, or its designee(s), shall declare an emergency and will decide whether the team will forfeit or may direct that the team take appropriate measures to continue any trial round with less than six members. A penalty may be assessed. A forfeiting team will receive a loss and points totaling the average number of the ballots and points received by the losing teams in that round. The non-forfeiting team will receive a win and an average number of ballots and points received by the winning teams in that round. team, school, participant, court officer, judge, or the mock trial program.

All trials will be governed by the Rules of the National High School Mock Trial Championship and the National High School Mock Trial Championship Rules of Evidence. Questions or interpretations of these rules are within the discretion of the Board of Directors of the National High School Mock Trial Championship, Inc. (National Board), whose decision is final. Rule 1.2. Code of Conduct

The Rules of Competition, as well as proper rules of courthouse and courtroom decorum and security, must be followed. The National Board possesses discretion to impose sanctions, including but not limited to disqualification, immediate eviction from the Championship, and forfeiture of all fees and awards (if applicable) for any misconduct occurring while a team is present for the National Championship, for flagrant rule violations, and for breaches of decorum which affect the conduct of a trial or which impugn the reputation or integrity of any

67

Final determination of emergency, forfeiture, reduction of points, or advancement, will be made by the Board. Rule 1.4 Student Timekeepers (a) Each team attending the NHSMTC is responsible for providing one student as an official timekeeper equipped with two stopwatches. The official timekeeper may be a student who is not one of the official eight team members. In trial, each team is to use a set of "Time Remaining" cards with the following designations to signal time: 20:00, 15:00, 10:00, 5:00, 4:00, 3:00, 2:00, 1:00, 0:40, 0:20, and "STOP". Modification of intervals is not permitted. The host committee will provide "Time Remaining" cards and timekeeper instruction materials. Timekeepers must use the "Time Remaining" cards provided by the Host Committee and NO others. (b) Each teams official timekeeper is required to attend the scheduled on-site timekeeper orientation, which will be held on Thursday afternoon before competition rounds begin. If a team does not send an official timekeeper to the required orientation meeting, that team will defer to its opponents official timekeepers in all rounds of the competition. The host committee, at its discretion, may schedule a make-up timekeeper orientation for Friday morning before rounds begin solely for teams that register for the tournament after the Thursday session. (c) If a team desires to assign more than one student to the timekeeper role, then all students who will be assigned to the timekeeper role must attend the timekeeper orientation. (See Rule 1.4(b)). The teams official student timekeeper will keep time for both sides during all competition rounds.

Rule 2.3. Unfair Extrapolation A fair extrapolation is one that is neutral. Unfair extrapolations are best attacked through impeachment and closing arguments and are to be dealt with in the course of the trial. If a witness is asked information not contained in the witness statement, the answer must be consistent with the statement and may not materially affect the witness testimony or any substantive issue of the case. Attorneys for the opposing team may refer to Rule 2.3 in a special objection, such as unfair extrapolation, or This information is beyond the scope of the statement of facts. Possible rulings by a judge include: a) No extrapolation has occurred; b) An unfair extrapolation has occurred; c) The extrapolation was fair; or, d) Ruling is taken under advisement. The decision of the presiding judge regarding extrapolations or evidentiary matters is final. When an attorney objects to an extrapolation, the judge will rule in open court to clarify the course of further proceedings. Rule 2.4. Gender of Witnesses

All witnesses are gender neutral. Personal pronoun changes in witness statements indicating gender of the characters may be made. Any student may portray the role of any witness of either gender. Rule 2.5. Voir Dire

THE PROBLEM
Rule 2.1. The Problem

Voir dire examination of a witness is not permitted.

TEAMS
Rule 3.1. Team Eligibility

The problem will be an original fact pattern which may contain any or all of the following: statement of facts, indictment, stipulations, witness statements/affidavits, jury charges, and exhibits. Stipulations may not be disputed at trial. Witness statements may not be altered. The problem shall consist of three witnesses per side, all of whom shall have names and characteristics that would allow them to be played by either males or females. All three of the witnesses must be called. Rule 2.2. Witnesses Bound by Statements

Each witness is bound by the facts contained in his/her own witness statement, the Statement of Facts, if present, and/or any necessary documentation relevant to his/her testimony. Fair extrapolations may be allowed, provided reasonable inference may be made from the witness statement. If, in direct examination, an attorney asks a question which calls for extrapolated information pivotal to the facts at issue, the information is subject to objection under Rule 2.3, unfair extrapolation. A witness is not bound by facts contained in other witness statements.

(a) Teams competing in the NHSMTC are to be comprised of students who participated on the current state championship team, if that student participated at any level of the states competition for that team. Should the state championship team be unable to participate, the state coordinator has the sole discretion to either designate an alternative team from that states competition or allow substitution of team members under paragraph (b) of this rule. If a state coordinator picks an alternative team, substitution of team members of the alternative team may be made under paragraph (b) of this rule. States may not enter an all-star team. The Board shall determine what is an all-star team. The Boards determination will be final. (b) If any student participant from the state championship team is unable to compete, another student may substitute for such participant as provided herein. The individual acting as the substitute must have been enrolled as a student at the school that won the state championship. Any non-school based team may use as a substitute any student who was a

68

member of the sponsoring organizations program during the academic year. (c) The state coordinator and the teacher-sponsor have an affirmative obligation to verify each competitors eligibility. Submission of a roster for the NHSMTC constitutes certification that the status of each participant has been verified. Rule 3.2. Team Composition

Rule 3.5.

Team Roster Form

Copies of the Team Roster Form must be completed and duplicated by each team prior to arrival at the courtroom for each round of competition. Teams must be identified by the code assigned at registration. No information identifying team origin should appear on the form. Before beginning a trial, the teams must exchange copies of the Team Roster Form. The Form should identify the gender of each witness so that references to such parties will be made in the proper gender. Copies of the Team Roster Form should also be made available to the judging panel and presiding judge before each round. Teams shall not knowingly disclose their place of origin to any member of the judging panel or to the presiding judge.

Teams consist of eight official members assigned to attorney and witness roles representing the prosecution/plaintiff and defense/defendant sides. Only six of the eight official members will participate in any given round as attorneys and witnesses. (See Rule 3.3 for further explanation referring to team participation.) Additionally, a person will be designated as the official timekeeper. The official timekeeper must meet the requirements of Rule 1.4 as the teams official timekeeper, and may be (but need not be) one of the eight official members. At no time may any team for any reason substitute other persons for official team members. The Team Roster will become official at the time of on site registration. Rule 3.3. Team Presentation

THE TRIAL
Rule 4.1. Courtroom Setting

The Prosecution/Plaintiff team shall be seated closest to the jury box. No team shall rearrange the courtroom without prior permission of the judge. Rule 4.2. Stipulations

Teams must present both the Prosecution/Plaintiff and Defense/Defendant sides of the case, using six team members in each trial round. For each trial round, teams shall use three students as attorneys and three students as witnesses. Rule 3.4. Team Duties

Stipulations will be considered a part of the record and already admitted into evidence. Rule 4.3. Reading Into The Record Not Permitted

Team members are to evenly divide their duties. Each of the three attorneys will conduct one direct examination and one crossexamination; in addition, one will present the opening statement and another will present the closing arguments. In other words, the eight attorney duties for each team will be divided as follows: 1. Opening Statements 2. Direct Examination of Witness #1 3. Direct Examination of Witness #2 4. Direct Examination of Witness #3 5. Cross Examination of Witness #1 6. Cross Examination of Witness #2 7. Cross Examination of Witness #3 8. Closing Argument (including Rebuttal) [See Rule 4.5] Opening Statements must be given by both sides at the beginning of the trial. The attorney who examines a particular witness on direct examination is the only person who may make the objections to the opposing attorneys questions of that witness cross-examination, and the attorney who cross-examines a witness will be the only one permitted to make objections during the direct examination of that witness. Each team must call all three of its assigned witnesses. Witnesses must be called only by their own team during their case-in-chief and examined by both sides. Witnesses may not be recalled by either side.

Stipulations, the indictment, or the Charge to the Jury will not be read into the record. Rule 4.4. Swearing of Witnesses

The following oath may be used before questioning begins: Do you promise that the testimony you are about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition? The swearing of witnesses will occur in one of two ways. Either the presiding judge will indicate that all witnesses are assumed to be sworn, or the above oath will be conducted by (a) the presiding judge, (b) a bailiff, provided by the host state; or (c) the examining attorney. The host state will indicate which method will be used during all rounds of the current years tournament. Witnesses may stand or sit during the oath. Rule 4.5. Trial Sequence and Time Limits

The trial sequence and time limits are as follows: 1. Opening Statement (5 minutes per side) 2. Direct and Redirect (optional) Examination (25 minutes per side) 3. Cross and Re-cross (optional) Examination (20 minutes per side) 4. Closing Argument (5 minutes per side) The Prosecution/Plaintiff gives the opening statement first. The Prosecution/Plaintiff gives the closing argument first; the

69

Prosecution/Plaintiff may reserve a portion of its closing time for a rebuttal. The Prosecution/Plaintiffs rebuttal is limited to the scope of the Defendants closing argument. Attorneys are not required to use the entire time allotted to each part of the trial. Time remaining in one part of the trial may not be transferred to another part of the trial. Rule 4.6. Timekeeping

Rule 4.9.

Sequestration

Teams may not invoke the rule of sequestration. Rule 4.10. Bench Conferences

Bench conferences may be granted at the discretion of the presiding judge, but should be made from the counsel table in the educational interest of handling all matters in open court. Rule 4.11. Supplemental Material; Costuming Teams may refer only to materials included in the trial packet. No illustrative aids of any kind may be used, unless provided in the case packet. No enlargements of the case materials will be permitted. Absolutely no props or costumes are permitted unless authorized specifically in the case materials. Costuming is defined as hairstyles, clothing, accessories, and make-up which are case-specific. The only documents which the teams may present to the presiding judge or scoring panel are the individual exhibits as they are introduced into evidence and the team roster forms. Exhibit notebooks are not to be provided to the presiding judge or scoring panel. Rule 4.12. Trial Communication Coaches, teachers, alternates, and observers shall not talk to, signal, communicate with, or coach their teams during trial. This rule remains in force during any emergency recess, which may occur. Team members may, among themselves, communicate during the trial; however, no disruptive communication is allowed. Signaling of time by the teams timekeepers shall not be considered a violation of this rule. Coaches, teachers, alternates and observers must remain outside the bar in the spectator section of the courtroom. Only team members participating in this round may sit inside the bar and communicate with each other. Rule 4.13. Viewing a Trial Team members, alternates, attorney coaches, teacher sponsors, and any other persons directly associated with a mock trial team, except for those authorized by the National Board, are not allowed to view other teams performances in the National competition, so long as their team remains in the competition. No person shall display anything that identifies their place of origin while in the courtroom. Rule 4.14. Videotaping/Photography Any team has the option to refuse participation in videotaping, tape recording, and still photography by opposing teams. Media coverage will be allowed. Media representatives authorized by the host committee or the National Board will wear identification badges. Rule 4.15. Jury Trial The case will be tried to a jury; arguments are to be made to judge and jury. Teams may address the scoring judges as the jury. Rule 4.16. Standing During Trial Unless excused by the judge, attorneys will stand while giving opening and closing statements, during direct and cross examinations, and for all objections.

(a) Each team is required to provide one student who will serve as the official timekeeper for that team. This timekeeper must meet the requirements of Rule 1.4. Timekeepers are responsible for fairly and accurately keeping and reporting the time during the trial presentation and during any disputes under Rule 6.2. During the rounds of the competition, timekeepers are to act as a neutral entity. Timekeepers are not to communicate with their respective teams during the course of the trial presentation, recesses, or during any dispute procedure, except to display the time remaining cards and indicate (as directed by the presiding judge) how much time is remaining during a particular part of the trial. (b) Time limits are mandatory and will be enforced. Time runs from the beginning of the witness examination, opening statement, or closing argument until its conclusion. Introduction of counsel or witnesses prior to the opening statement shall not be included in the time allotted for opening statements. However, if counsel or witnesses are introduced once the opening statement has commenced, such time shall be included in the time allotted for the opening statement. Time stops only for objections, questioning from the judge, or administering the oath. Time does not stop for introduction of exhibits. (c) Timekeepers should display the applicable Time Remaining cards simultaneously. At the end of each task during the trial presentation (i.e. at the end of each opening, at the end each witness examination, at the end of each cross examination and at the end of each closing argument) if there is more than a 15 second discrepancy between the teams timekeepers, the timekeepers must notify the presiding judge of the discrepancy. The presiding judge will then rule on the discrepancy, the timekeepers will synchronize their stopwatches accordingly and the trial will continue. Any discrepancies between timekeepers less than 15 seconds will not be considered. No time disputes will be entertained after the trial concludes. The decisions of the presiding judge regarding the resolution of time disputes are final. Rule 4.7. Time Extensions and Scoring

The presiding judge has sole discretion to grant time extensions. If time has expired and an attorney continues without permission from the Court, the scoring judges may determine individually whether or not to discount points in a category because of over-runs in time. Rule 4.8. Motions Prohibited

No motions may be made.

70

Rule 4.17. Objections During Opening Statement/ Closing Statement No objections may be raised during opening statements or during closing arguments. If a team believes an objection would have been proper during the opposing teams opening statement or closing argument, one of its attorneys may, following the opening statement or closing argument, stand to be recognized by the judge and may say, If I had been permitted to object during opening/closing arguments, I would have objected to the opposing teams statement that _________. The presiding judge will not rule on this objection. Presiding and scoring judges will weigh the objection individually. No rebuttal by the opposing team will be heard. Rule 4.18. 1. Objections An attorney shall not ask

Argumentative Questions: argumentative questions.

4. Ask the witness to identify the exhibit. I now hand you what has been marked for identification as Exhibit No. ____. Would you identify it please? Witness should answer to identify only. 5. Ask the witness a series of questions that are offered for proof of the admissibility of the exhibit. These questions lay the foundation or predicate for admissibility, including questions of the relevance and materiality of the exhibit. 6. Offer the exhibit into evidence. Your Honor, we offer Exhibit No. ___ into evidence. 7. Court: Is there an objection? (If opposing counsel believes a proper foundation has not been laid, the attorney should be prepared to object at this time.) 8. Opposing Counsel: No, Your Honor, OR Yes, Your Honor. If the response is yes, the objection will be stated for the record. Court: Is there any response to the objection? 9. Court: Exhibit No. ___ (is/is not) admitted. If admitted, questions on content may be asked. Rule 4.21. Use of Notes

2.

Lack of Proper Predicate/Foundation: Attorneys shall lay a proper foundation prior to moving the admission of evidence. After the exhibit has been offered into evidence, the exhibit may still be objected to on other grounds. Assuming Facts Not in Evidence: Attorneys may not ask a question that assumes unproved facts. However, an expert witness may be asked a question based upon stated assumptions, the truth of which is reasonably supported by evidence (sometimes called a hypothetical question). Questions Calling for Narrative or General Answer: Questions must be stated so as to call for a specific answer. (Example of improper question: Tell us what you know about this case.) Non-Responsive Answer: A witness answer is objectionable if it fails to respond to the question asked. Repetition: Questions designed to elicit the same testimony or evidence previously presented in its entirety are improper if merely offered as a repetition of the same testimony or evidence from the same or similar source.

Attorneys may use notes in presenting their cases. Witnesses are not permitted to use notes while testifying during the trial. Attorneys may consult with each other at counsel table verbally or through the use of notes. Rule 4.22. Redirect/Recross

3.

Redirect and Recross examinations are permitted, provided they conform to the restrictions in Rule 611(d) in the National High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence. Rule 4.23. Scope of Closing Arguments

4.

Closing Arguments must be based upon the actual evidence and testimony presented during the trial. Rule 4.24. The Critique

5.

6.

The judging panel is allowed 10 minutes for debriefing. The timekeepers will monitor the critique following the trial. Presiding judges are to limit critique sessions to a combined total of ten (10) minutes. There is no critique in the fourth round. Judges shall not make a ruling on the legal merits of the trial. Judges may not inform the students of score sheet results. Rule 4.25 Offers of Proof

Teams are not precluded from raising additional objections that are available under the National High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence. Rule 4.19 Rule 4.20. Reserved Procedure for Introduction of Exhibits

No offers of proof may be requested or tendered.

JUDGING AND TEAM ADVANCEMENT

Rule 5.1. Finality of Decisions

As an example, the following steps effectively introduce evidence: 1. All evidence will be pre-marked as exhibits. 2. Ask for permission to approach the witness. Your Honor, may I approach the witness with what has been marked for identification purposes as Exhibit No. ___? 3. Show the exhibit to opposing counsel.

All decisions of the judging panel are FINAL. Rule 5.2. Composition of Judging Panels

The judging panel will consist of at least three individuals. The composition of the judging panel and the role of the presiding judge

71

will be at the discretion of the host director, with the same format used throughout the competition, as follows: 1. 2. 3. One presiding judge and two scoring judges (all three of whom complete score sheets); or One presiding judge and three scoring judges (scoring judges only complete score sheets); or, One presiding judge and two scoring judges (scoring judges only complete score sheets and presiding judge completes a form which selects only the winner and does not assign point totals for either team).

In the event of a mathematical error in tabulation by the scoring judges which, when corrected, results in a tie in the Total Points boxes, the tie-breaker box shall determine award of the ballot. In the event of a mathematical error in tabulation by the scoring judges which, when corrected, results in a tie in the column Totals box, the Tiebreaker Box shall determine award of the ballot. Rule 5.5. 1. 2. 3. 4. Team Advancement

Teams will be ranked based on the following criteria in the order listed: Win/Loss Record equals the number of rounds won or lost by a team; Total Number of Ballots equals the number of scoring judges votes a team earned in preceding rounds; Total Number of Points Accumulated in Each Round; Point Spread against Opponents the point spread is the difference between the total points earned by the team whose tie is being broken less the total points of that teams opponent in each previous round. The greatest sum of these point spreads will break the tie in favor of the team with the largest cumulative point spread. Power Matching/Seeding

The scoring judges may be persons with substantial mock trial coaching or scoring experience or attorneys. Each scoring panel shall include at least one attorney. The presiding judge shall be an attorney. At the discretion of the host director, the Championship round may have a larger panel. All presiding and scoring judges receive the mock trial manual, a memorandum outlining the case, orientation materials, and a briefing in a judges' orientation. In the event of an emergency (i.e., sudden illness, etc.), if a judging panel member must leave the courtroom, the presiding judge will call for a brief recess, assess whether the judging panel member will be able to return in a reasonably short period of time, and then resume the proceedings upon the panel members return to the courtroom. If the panel member is unable to return to the courtroom, the dispute resolution committee must be informed. Once the panel composition is adjusted by this committee to best meet the requirements of the rules, then the round should continue. During any recess under this rule, the teams, whenever possible, should remain seated in their appropriate positions within the courtroom until the round resumes. Rule 5.3. Score Sheets / Ballots

Rule 5.6.

A random method of selection will determine opponents in the first round. A power-match system will determine opponents for all other rounds. The two teams emerging with the strongest record from the four rounds will advance to the final round. The first-place team will be determined by ballots from the championship round only. Power matching will provide that: 1. 2. 3. Pairings for the first round will be at random; All teams are guaranteed to present each side of the case at least once; Brackets will be determined by win/loss record. If the number of teams in a win/loss bracket is equal to or greater than twelve (12), the bracket will be split in half to create two (2) sub-brackets for power-matching purposes only. Sorting within brackets will be determined in the following order: (1) win/loss record; (2) ballots; (3) speaker points; then (4) point spread. The team with the highest number of ballots in the bracket will be matched with the team with the lowest number of ballots in the bracket; the next highest with the next lowest, and so on until all teams are paired; If there is an odd number of teams in a bracket, the team at the bottom of that bracket will be matched with the top team from the next lower bracket; Teams will not meet the same opponent twice; To the greatest extent possible, teams will alternate side presentation in subsequent rounds. Bracket integrity in power matching will supersede alternate side presentation Selection of Sides For Championship Round

The term ballot will refer to the decision made by a scoring judge as to which team made the best presentation in the round. The term score sheet is used in reference to the form on which speaker and team points are recorded. Score sheets are to be completed individually by the scoring judges. Scoring judges are not bound by the rulings of the presiding judge. The team that earns the highest points on an individual judges score sheet is the winner of that ballot. The team that receives the majority of the three ballots wins the round. The ballot votes determine the win/loss record of the team for powermatching and ranking purposes. While the judging panel may deliberate on any special awards (i.e., Outstanding Attorney/Witness) the judging panel should not deliberate on individual scores. Rule 5.4. Completion of Score Sheets

4.

5. 6.

Each scoring judge shall record a number of points (1-10) for each presentation of the trial. At the end of the trial, each scoring judge shall total the sum of each teams individual points, place this sum in the Total Points box, and enter the team (P for prosecution/plaintiff of D for defense/ defendant) with the higher total number of points in the tie-breaker box. NO TIE IS ALLOWED IN THE TOTAL POINTS BOXES.

Rule. 5.7.

In determining which team will represent which side in the Championship Round, the following procedure shall be used:

72

1.

2. 3.

The team with the letter/numerical code which comes first alphabetically or numerically will be considered the Designated Team. The coin will be tossed by a designee of the host state coordinator. If the coin comes up heads, the Designated Team shall represent the plaintiff/prosecution in the Championship Round. If the coin comes up tails, the Designated Team shall represent the defendant. Odd Number of Teams Participating in Championship

witnesses before lodging the notice of dispute or in preparing the form. At no time in this process may team sponsors or coaches communicate or consult with the student attorneys. Only student attorneys may invoke the dispute procedure. Rule 6.2. Dispute Resolution Procedure

Rule 5.8.

A bye becomes necessary when an odd number of teams are present for any given round of the tournament. It is the intent of the National High School Mock Trial Championship to avoid byes where possible. To avoid having an odd number of teams to start the national championship, the host state, upon determining that an odd number of teams have registered, will have a second team from its own state participate. In the event of a circumstance resulting in an odd number of competing teams, the following procedure will apply: 1. The team drawing the bye (no opponent for a single trial round) in rounds two through four will, by default, receive a win and three ballots for that round. For the purpose of power-matching, the team will temporarily be given points equal to the average of its own points earned in its preceding trials. At the end of the fourth round, the average from all three actual trial rounds participated in by the team will be used for the final points given for that teams bye round. For example, a team receiving a bye in round three would receive three ballots and an average of its points earned in rounds one and two. At the end of the fourth round, however, the points actually awarded to the team for the bye round will be adjusted to take into consideration the fourth round performance of the team. 2. A team receiving a bye in round one will be awarded a win, three ballots and the average number of points for all round one winners, which total will be adjusted at the end of each round to reflect the actual average earned by that team.

The presiding judge will review the written dispute and determine whether the dispute should be heard or denied. If the dispute is denied, the judge will record the reasons for this, announce her/his decision to the Court, retire to complete his/her score sheet (if applicable), and turn the dispute form in with the score sheets. If the judge feels the grounds for the dispute merit a hearing, the form will be shown to opposing counsel for their written response. After the team has recorded its response and transmitted it to the judge, the judge will ask each team to designate a spokesperson. After the spokes-persons have had time (not to exceed three minutes) to prepare their arguments, the judge will conduct a hearing on the dispute, providing each teams spokesperson three minutes for a presentation. The spokespersons may be questioned by the judge. At no time in this process may team sponsors or coaches communicate or consult with the student attorneys. After the hearing, the presiding judge will adjourn the court and retire to consider her/his ruling on the dispute. That decision will be recorded in writing on the dispute form, with no further announcement. Rule 6.3. Effect of Violation on Score

If the presiding judge determines that a substantial rules violation has occurred, the judge will inform the scoring judges of the dispute and provide a summary of each teams argument. The scoring judges will consider the dispute before reaching their final decisions. The dispute may or may not affect the final decision, but the matter will be left to the discretion of the scoring judges. Rule 6.4. Reporting of Rules Violation/Outside the Bar

Disputes which occur outside the bar only during a trial round may be brought by teacher or attorney-coaches exclusively. Such disputes must be made promptly to a trial coordinator or a member of the National Board, who will ask the complaining party to complete a dispute form. The form will be taken to the tournaments communications center, whereupon a dispute resolution panel will (a) notify all pertinent parties; (b) allow time for a response, if appropriate; (c) conduct a hearing; and (d) rule on the charge. The dispute resolution panel may notify the judging panel of the affected courtroom of the ruling on the charge or may assess an appropriate penalty. The dispute resolution panel will be designated by the National Board. (As amended 02/15/2010)

DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Rule 6.1. Reporting a Rules Violation/Inside the Bar Disputes which occur within the bar must be filed immediately following the conclusion of that trial round. Disputes must be brought to the attention of the presiding judge at the conclusion of the trial. If any team believes that a substantial rules violation has occurred, one of its student attorneys must indicate that the team intends to file a dispute. The scoring panel will be excused from the courtroom, and the presiding judge will provide the student attorney with a dispute form, on which the student will record in writing the nature of the dispute. The student may communicate with counsel and/or student

73

*************************************************

II. National High School Mock Trial Championship Federal Rules of Evidence (Mock Trial Version)
In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing and to exclude evidence deemed irrelevant, incompetent, untrustworthy, unduly prejudicial, or otherwise improper. If it appears that a rule of evidence is being violated, an attorney may raise an objection to the judge. The judge then decides whether the rule has been violated and whether the evidence must be excluded from the record of the trial. In the absence of a properly made objection, however, the judge will probably allow the evidence. The burden is on the mock trial team to know the National High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence and to be able to use them to protect their client and fairly limit the actions of opposing counsel and their witnesses. For purposes of mock trial competition, the Rules of Evidence have been modified and simplified. They are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence and its numbering system. Where rule numbers or letters are skipped, those rules were not deemed applicable to mock trial procedure. Text in italics or underlined represent simplified or modified language. Not all judges will interpret the Rules of Evidence (or procedure) the same way, and mock trial attorneys should be prepared to point out specific rules (quoting, if necessary) and to argue persuasively for the interpretation and application of the rule they think appropriate. The Mock Trial Rules of Competition and these National High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence govern the National High School Mock Trial Championship.

ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Rule 101. Scope These National High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence govern the trial proceedings of the National High School Mock Trial Championship. Rule 102. Purpose and Construction These Rules are intended to secure fairness in administration of the trials, eliminate unjust delay, and promote the laws of evidence so that the truth may be ascertained. ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE -- NOT APPLICABLE ARTICLE III. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS -NOT APPLICABLE ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS Rule 401. Definition of Relevant Evidence Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by these Rules. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes (a) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (1) Character of accused - In a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or if evidence of a trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime is offered by an accused and admitted under Rule 404 (a)(2), evidence of the same trait of character of the accused offered by the prosecution; (2) Character of alleged victim - In a criminal case, and subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 412, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the alleged victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the alleged victim was the first aggressor;

74

(3) Character of witness - Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in Rules 607, 608 and 609. (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. Rule 405. Methods of Proving Character (a) Reputation or opinion. - In all cases where evidence of character or a character trait is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, questions may be asked regarding relevant, specific conduct. (b) Specific instances of conduct. - In cases where character or a character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that persons conduct. Rule 406. Habit, Routine Practice Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization, on a particular occasion, was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment. Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise (a) Prohibited uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party, when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to

validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction:

(1)

furnishing or offering or promising to furnish--or accepting or offering or promising to accept--a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and

(2) conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations regarding the claim, except when offered in a criminal case and the negotiations related to a claim by a public office or agency in the exercise of regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority. (b) Permitted uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a). Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness's bias or prejudice; negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

Rule 409. Payment of Medical or Similar Expenses Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury. Rule 410. Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against a defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions: (1) a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn; (2) a plea of nolo contendere; (3) any statement made in the course of any proceeding under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or comparable state proceeding regarding either of the foregoing pleas; or (4) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which does not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty which is later withdrawn. However, such a statement is admissible (1) in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought, in fairness, be considered with it, or (2) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or

75

false statement if the statement was made by the defendant under oath, on the record and in the presence of counsel. Rule 411. Liability Insurance (civil case only) Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.

untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise. (b) Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' character for truthfulness, other than conviction of crime as provided in rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified. The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by any other witness, does not operate as a waiver of the accused's or the witness' privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters that relate only to character for truthfulness. Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime (a) General rule. For the purpose of attacking the character for truthfulness of a witness, (1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused; and (2) evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted regardless of the punishment, if it readily can be determined that establishing the elements of the crime required proof or admission of an act of dishonesty or false statement by the witness. (b) Time limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However, evidence of a conviction more than 10 years old as calculated herein, is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence. (c) Effect of pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this rule if (1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon,

ARTICLE V. PRIVILEGES
Rule 501. General Rule There are certain admissions and communications excluded from evidence on grounds of public policy. Among these are: (1) communications between husband and wife; (2) communications between attorney and client; (3) communications among grand jurors; (4) secrets of state; and (5) communications between psychiatrist and patient.

ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES

Rule 601. General Rule of Competency Every person is competent to be a witness. Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, related to opinion testimony by expert witnesses. (See Rule 2.2) Rule 607. Who May Impeach The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness. Rule 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness (a) Opinion and reputation evidence of character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or

76

annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted, and that person has not been convicted of a subsequent crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, or (2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence. (d) Juvenile adjudication. Evidence of juvenile adjudication is generally not admissible under this rule. The court may, however, in a criminal case allow evidence of a juvenile adjudication of a witness other than the accused if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and the court is satisfied that admission in evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence. (e) Not Applicable Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness credibility is impaired or enhanced. Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation (a) Control by Court. - The Court shall exercise reasonable control over questioning of witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: 1. 2. 3. make the interrogation and presentation effective for ascertaining the truth, avoid needless consumption of time, and protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

questions must be limited to matters raised on redirect examination and should avoid repetition. Rule 612. Writing Used to Refresh Memory If a written statement is used to refresh the memory of a witness either while testifying or before testifying, the Court shall determine that the adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced for inspection. The adverse party may cross examine the witness on the material and introduce into evidence those portions, which relate to the testimony of the witness. Rule 613. Prior Statements of Witnesses (a) Examining Witness Concerning Prior Statement. In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel. (b) Extrinsic Evidence of Prior Inconsistent Statement of Witness. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in rule 801(d)(2).

ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

(b) Scope of cross examination. - The scope of the cross examination shall not be limited to the scope of the direct examination, but may inquire into any relevant facts or matters contained in the witness statement, including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts and matters, and may inquire into any omissions from the witness statement that are otherwise material and admissible. (c) When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. (d) Redirect / Re-cross. After cross examination, additional questions may be asked by the direct examining attorney, but questions must be limited to matters raised by the attorney on cross examination. Likewise, additional questions may be asked by the cross examining attorney or re-cross, but such

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

77

Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. (b) No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone. Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the Court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross examination.

(1) Prior statement by witness. - The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross examination concerning the statement and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarants testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarants testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or

(2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish the declarant's authority under subdivision (C), the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subdivision (D), or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subdivision (E). Rule 802. Hearsay Rule Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these Rules. Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions, Availability of Declarant Immaterial

ARTICLE VIII.

HEARSAY

Rule 801. Definitions The following definitions apply under this article: (a) Statement. - A statement is an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion. (b) Declarant. - A declarant is a person who makes a statement. (c) Hearsay. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if --

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:

78

(1) Present sense impression. - A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter. (2) Excited utterance. - A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. (3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical conditions. - A statement of the declarants then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarants will. (4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. (5) Recorded recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party. (6) Records of regularly conducted activity. - A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or date compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term business as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit. (18) Learned treatises. - To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross examination or relied upon by the expert witness in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by

judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. (21) Reputation as to character. - Reputation of a persons character among associates or in the community. (22) Judgment of previous conviction. - Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty (but not upon a plea of nolo contendere), adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment, but not including, when offered by the Government in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused. Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions, Declarant Unavailable (a) Definition of unavailability. Unavailability as a witness includes situations in which the declarant (1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarants statement; or

(2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarants statement despite an order of the court to do so; or (3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarants statement; or

(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or (5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarants attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b)(2), (3), or (4), the declarants attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means. A Declarant is not unavailable as a witness if exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying. (b) Hearsay exceptions: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: (1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar

79

motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination. (2) Statement under belief or impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarants death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.( (3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarants pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarants position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. (4) Statement of personal or family history. (A) A statement concerning the declarants own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; (B) a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the others family as likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared. (5) Forfeiture by wrongdoing. A statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness. Rule 805. Hearsay within Hearsay Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statement conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.

These rules may be known and cited as the National High School Mock Trial Federal Rules of Evidence. Host states have the discretion to eliminate rules that do not pertain to the trial at hand.
(As amended 06/01/09)

ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION NOT APPLICABLE ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITING, RECORDINGS AND PHOTOGRAPHS NOT APPLICABLE ARTICLE XI. OTHER
Rule 1103. Title

80

SECTION III Competition Forms

2010 National High School Mock Trial Championship Philadelphia, PA

Code of Ethics Form

Due on site at the Registration Desk State: ________________________ Team Name: ______________________________________________
The National Board possesses discretion to impose sanctions, up to and including forfeiture or disqualification, for any misconduct or violation of this Code of Ethical Conduct occurring while a team is present in the host city to participate in the national tournament. 1. The use of alcohol, drugs and weapons is forbidden in the course of this Championship, both at all competition sites and at all mock trial sponsored events. 2. The Rules of the Competition and this Code of Ethical Conduct will be followed by all participants in the National High School Mock Trial Championship. Coaches will discourage willful violations of the letter and/or the spirit of the Rules and this Code. 3. Team members, coaches and other observers promise to participate in all events associated with the National High School Mock Trial Championship in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with the highest standards of professionalism and deportment, showing respect for their fellow team members, opponents, coaches, judging panel volunteers, competition staff, host committee volunteers and courthouse and hotel personnel. 4. Displays of bad sportsmanship at any time during the Championship, including at the Awards Banquet and Dance, are prohibited. Whether winning or losing, team members, coaches and all other participants are expected to be gracious and supportive of other teams. 5. No Official Team Member, Coach or other observer associated with the team signing this Code is allowed to enter any courtroom in which his/her team is not competing. 6. The National High School Mock Trial Championship is designed for teams who comport themselves as professionals in and out of the courtroom. Official Team Members, Coaches and other observers must follow appropriate courtroom and courthouse decorum at all times, both inside and outside the courtroom. 7. It is expected that at the courthouse, the hotel and all event venues that teams and their individual members will respect their surroundings (including while using transportation options provided by the host committee), will follow all published courthouse regulations, will use appropriate receptacles for all trash, will leave restrooms and all other court and common areas of the hotel in good order and will otherwise behave as young professionals. I have read and understand the statements above and I will comply with the Rules of the Competition and this Code of Ethical Conduct throughout the duration of the 2010 National High School Mock Trial Championship. We understand that a violation of this Code by any one of the members of this team may result in sanctions including, but not limited to, the teams immediate eviction from the Championship and forfeiture of all fees and awards (if applicable).

State Coordinator: Primary Teacher Coach: Primary Attorney Coach: Official Team Members: 1. ___________________________________ 2. ___________________________________ 3. ___________________________________ 4. ___________________________________ 5. _________________________________ 6. _________________________________ 8. ___________________________________ Official Timekeeper (must sign if a 9th student fills this role):
__________________________________________

81

2010 National High School Mock Trial Championship Philadelphia, PA

Team Roster Prosecution

Team roster forms are to be duplicated and completed by each team prior to each round and presented to the Presiding Judge (1), Scoring Judges (3) and opposing counsel (1) before the round begins (5 per trial). Your team must be identified only by your TEAM CODE.

TEAM CODE: Round (circle one): 1 2 3 4 Final

NAME of STUDENT ATTORNEYS 1) (Students Name)

TASKS Opening/Dir/C-X

WITNESS EXAMINED Direct: (Witness) Cross (Witness)

2) (Students Name)

Closing/Dir/C-X

Direct: (Witness) Cross (Witness)

3) (Students Name)

Dir/C-X

Direct: (Witness) Cross (Witness)

NAME of STUDENT WITNESSES

(Number in order of appearance)

GENDER of WITNESS M M M F F F

ROLE to be PORTRAYED

4) 5) 6) 7)

Timekeeper (may not communicate with team)

Team Member(s) Not Participating in this Round: 8)

NOTE:

9)

(only if team is using a 9th member exclusively as timekeeper)

Team members not participating must sit behind the bar and may not communicate with participating team members during round.

82

2010 National High School Mock Trial Championship Philadelphia, PA

Team Roster Defense

Team roster forms are to be duplicated and completed by each team prior to each round and presented to the Presiding Judge (1), Scoring Judges (3) and opposing counsel (1) before the round begins (5 per trial). Your team must be identified only by your TEAM CODE.

TEAM CODE: Round (circle one):

NAME of STUDENT ATTORNEYS 1) (Students Name) Cross (Witness) 2) (Students Name) Cross (Witness) 3) (Students Name) Cross (Witness) NAME of STUDENT WITNESSES
(Number in order of appearance)

Final

TASKS Opening/Dir/C-X

WITNESS EXAMINED Direct: (Witness)

Closing/Dir/C-X

Direct: (Witness)

Dir/C-X

Direct: (Witness)

GENDER of WITNESS M M M F F F

ROLE to be PORTRAYED

4) 5) 6) 7)

Timekeeper (may not communicate with team)

Team Member(s) Not Participating in this Round: 8)

NOTE:

9)

(only if team is using a 9th member exclusively as timekeeper)

Team members not participating must sit behind the bar and may not communicate with participating team members during round.

83

2010 National High School Mock Trial Championship Philadelphia, PA

Timekeeping Sheet
Round: 1 2 3 4 Final Prosecution Team Code: ______ Defense Team Code: _______ (circle one) _________________________________________________________________________________ Opening Statements (5 minutes each) Prosecution ________ Defense ________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Direct/Redirect Examination of Three Prosecution Witnesses (25 total minutes) FIRST WITNESS (ending time) SECOND WITNESS (cumulative ending time) ________ ________

THIRD WITNESS (cumulative ending time: > 25 = time violation) ________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Cross/Recross Examination of Three Prosecution Witnesses (20 total minutes) FIRST WITNESS (ending time) SECOND WITNESS (cumulative ending time) ________ ________

THIRD WITNESS (cumulative ending time: > 20 = time violation) ________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Direct/Redirect Examination of Three Defense Witnesses (25 total minutes) FIRST WITNESS (ending time) SECOND WITNESS (cumulative ending time) ________ ________

THIRD WITNESS (cumulative ending time: > 25 = time violation) ________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Cross/Recross Examination of Three Defense Witnesses (20 total minutes) FIRST WITNESS (ending time) SECOND WITNESS (cumulative ending time)

________ ________

THIRD WITNESS (cumulative ending time: > 20 = time violation) ________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Closing Arguments (5 minutes each) Prosecution Defense ________ ________

Remember: Clock Stops for Objections

Timekeepers Signature: _________________________________Team Code: _________________
84

2010 National High School Mock Trial Championship Philadelphia, PA

Team Dispute Form Inside the Bar

See Rule of Competition 6.1 TEAM LODGING DISPUTE: _________ (Team Code) Round: (circle one) Date Submitted: Grounds for Dispute: ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
INITIALS OF DISPUTING TEAM SPOKESPERSON: ______

FINAL

DECISION OF PRESIDING JUDGE WHETHER TO GRANT HEARING:

Grant

Deny

Reason(s) for Denying Hearing or, if Hearing Granted, Response by Opposing Team: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
INITIALS OF OPPOSING TEAMS SPOKESPERSON: ______

Judges Notes from Hearing: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ DECISION OF JUDGE FOLLOWING HEARING: Refer to Panel Not Refer to Panel

Presiding Judges Comments on Decision Whether to Refer to Panel: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
This form must be returned to the trial coordinator along with the Score Sheets of all the Evaluators.

____________________________ Signature of Presiding Judge

85

2010 National High School Mock Trial Championship Philadelphia, PA

Team Dispute Form Outside the Bar

See Rule of Competition 6.4

DATE SUBMITTED: TIME SUBMITTED: PERSON LODGING DISPUTE: AFFILIATED WITH TEAM CODE: TITLE OF PERSON LODGING DISPUTE:

Grounds for Dispute:

Rule Number(s) or COEC Section(s) Involved (if applicable):

Trial Coordinator Initials: Date/Time Received: Decision by Dispute Panel Whether to Hold Hearing: Reasons(s) for Denying Hearing: GRANT DENY

Notes from Hearing:

Decision/Action of Dispute Panel:

Signature of Trial Coordinator

86

Date/Time of Decision

2010 National High School Mock Trial Championship Philadelphia, PA

Criteria for Scoring & Performance Ratings

CRITERIA FOR SCORING A TRIAL ROUND
The following criteria should be considered by scoring evaluators during the course of a teams trial presentation. Evaluators should consider 5 the average point award. All points assessed in a trial round are subjective.

Opening Statement

Provided a case overview The theme/theory of the case was identified Mentioned the key witnesses Provided a clear and concise description of their team's side of the case Stated the relief requested Discussed the burden of proof Presentation was non-argumentative Points may be deducted for use of notes, at the evaluators discretion Points should be deducted if opening statement exceeds time limit

Direct Examinations (Student Attorneys)

Properly phrased questions non-leading Used proper courtroom procedure Demonstrated understanding of facts, issues, and law Used case theme/theory appropriately/effectively during line of questioning Handled objections appropriately and effectively and did not overuse objections Did not ask questions that called for an unfair extrapolation from the witness Demonstrated an understanding of the Modified Federal Rules of Evidence Handled physical evidence appropriately and effectively (if applicableRule 4.20)

Cross Examinations (Student Attorneys)

Properly phrased questions - leading Effective questioning Properly impeached witness Handled objections appropriately and effectively Did not overuse objections Used various techniques, if necessary, to handle a non-responsive witness Demonstrated an understanding of the Modified Federal Rules of Evidence Handled physical evidence appropriately and effectively (if applicableRule 4.20)

Witness Performance
Witnesses did not use notes (as is required) Credible portrayal of character Showed understanding of the facts of the case
87

Sounded spontaneous, not memorized Poised and observed appropriate courtroom decorum Avoided unnecessarily long and/or non-responsive answers on cross examination Points should be deducted for the use of unfair extrapolations

Closing Argument
Theme/theory continued in closing argument Summarized the evidence Emphasized the supporting points of their own case and damaged the opponent's case Concentrated on the important, not the trivial Applied the applicable law Discussed burden of proof Responded to any questions from the judge with poise (if applicable) Overall, the closing argument was persuasive There should be only a minimal reliance on notes during the closing argument Points should be deducted if closing argument exceeds time limit

EXPLANATION OF TIE-BREAKER BOX ON SCORE SHEET

In the tie-breaker box in the bottom right-hand section of the Score Sheet (Ballot), write P or D to indicate the team you intend to win your score sheet. The team with the highest total point score on your score sheet wins that score sheet. Should a mathematical error occur that results in a tie in Total Points, your tie-breaker will be used to determine the winner of your score sheet. If a math error occurs on your score sheet that flips the winner of your score sheet to the other side, a competition staff member will find you to address the situation. Do not leave the courthouse until your mock trial staff have checked your score sheet and released you to leave.

EXPLANATION OF PERFORMANCE RATINGS USED ON THE SCORESHEET

Individual participants will be rated on a scale of 1-10 speaker points, according to their role(s) in the trial, as indicated in the Chart below. The scoring evaluator is scoring INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE in each speaker category. The scoring evaluator is NOT scoring the legal merits of the case. Scoring evaluators may individually consider penalties for violation(s) of the Rules of the Competition. Penalties would reduce point awards in the appropriate performance categories below. Penalties will not be indicated separately on the official score sheet. Scoring evaluators may NOT assign FRACTIONS or a O (zero) in any scoring category. Ties are NOT ALLOWED in the TOTAL POINTS boxes. The team with the highest number of total points on a score sheet wins that score sheet (ballot). The team winning the majority of score sheets per trial wins that trial. Judging Panels are strongly encouraged to exercise their OPTION of recognizing outstanding individual performance by honoring one OUTSTANDING ATTORNEY and one OUTSTANDING WITNESS per competition round. This will be a joint decision of the majority of the judging panel, including all scoring evaluators and the presiding judge. The appropriate certificates should be completed and signed by the judging panel and returned to the trial coordinator for distribution at a later time.
88

POINTS
1-2

PERFORMANCE
Not Effective

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Unsure of self, illogical, uninformed, not prepared, speaks incoherently, definitely ineffective in communication. Minimally informed and prepared. Performance is passable, but lacks depth in terms of knowledge of task and materials. Communication lacks clarity and conviction. Good, solid, but less than spectacular performance. Can perform outside the script but with less confidence than when using script. Logic and organization are adequate, but not outstanding. Grasps major aspects of the case, but does not convey mastery of it. Communications are clear and understandable, but could be stronger in fluency and persuasiveness. Fluent, persuasive, clear and understandable. Organizes materials and thoughts well and exhibits mastery of the case and materials. Superior qualities listed for 7-8 points performance. Additionally, thinks well on feet, is logical, and keeps poise under duress. Can sort essential from nonessential and use time effectively to accomplish major objectives. Demonstrates the unique ability to utilize all resources to emphasize vital points of the trial.

3-4

Fair

5-6

Good

7-8

Excellent

9-10

Outstanding

Scoring evaluators are reminded to closely review their Score Sheets to: Total all scores Check for blanks Check all totals closely Print your name and sign the Official Score Sheet Indicate the team in the tie-breaker box whom you intend to win the Score Sheet should a math error result in a tie in total points and Return your Score Sheet to the courtroom liaison assigned to your courtroom.1

89

2010 National High School Mock Trial Championship Philadelphia, PA

SAMPLE SCORE SHEET

Round: (Circle One) Team Codes: Prosecution Date: 1 2 3 4 Defense _________

Courtroom:

Using a scale of 1 to 10, rate the P and D in the categories below DO NOT award any fractions or zeroes NO TIES ALLOWED IN TOTAL POINTS
Not Effective 1-2 Fair 3-4 Good 5-6 Excellent 7-8 Outstanding 9-10

WITNESS ROLE
Prosecution First Witness: Prosecution Second Witness: Prosecution Third Witness: Defense First Witness: Defense Second Witness: Defense Third Witness:

PROSECUTION
Opening Statement
Direct Examination

Points

DEFENSE
Opening Statement
Cross-Examination

Points

Witness Presentation Direct Examination Cross-Examination Witness Presentation Direct Examination Cross-Examination Witness Presentation Direct Examination Cross-Examination Witness Presentation Direct Examination Cross-Examination Witness Presentation Direct Examination Cross-Examination Witness Presentation

Closing Argument

Closing Argument

TOTAL POINTS

TOTAL POINTS
TIE BREAKER BOX

COMPLETE THIS SCORE SHEET INDEPENDENTLY

Write P or D in this box to indicate the team you intend to win this Scores Sheet in the event a math error results in a TIE in total points. The team with the highest correct total number of points wins the Score Sheet (ballot).

Print Name: ______________________________________ Evaluator Signature: _______________________________

90