HSMT ERRATA SHEET

1. High School Mock Trial 2016
State of Harmony v. Riley Green
Errata Sheet
12/22
1.) In Pat Sweeney's statement he/she mentions founding the "Developing a
Street-Ready Mind" program. Is this program the same as the Action
Response Continuum (ARC) or is this a separate program?
No elaboration needed.
2.) While witnesses cannot be physically separated at trial, are witnesses
considered “constructively” sequestered in the sense that they may not cite
other witnesses’ statements in the packet and other witnesses’ testimony at
trial (unless they are a party to the case)?
Refer to the procedural rules of competition, part 12, section B, which states that
“Witnesses are bound by their written statements and should not be assumed to
have knowledge of facts set forth in the legal briefs, Judge’s Order, the statements
of other witnesses.” Also, refer to Procedural Rule D, section 11, which states
that “No motion for separation of witnesses will be entertained.”
3.) One of my students happens to know a lot about archery and hunting and
has shown us that many actual compound bows come in bright colors,
similar to what we see in Exhibit B. Would this information be able to be
used as common knowledge for examination purposes or would it count as
outside research?
No, this is not considered common knowledge, and would be considered outside
research.
4.) Page 35 of the case materials discusses the Introduction of Physical Evidence
pursuant to Rule 901. Specifically it states, in part: "..for mock trial
purposes, all exhibits contained in the case materials have already been
stipulated as admissible evidence…This means that both sides have agreed
that all exhibits are admitted…"
In years past, the Stipulations page has also included a stipulation noting that
all exhibits have been stipulated as admissible. This year, however, that
stipulation was omitted (Page 43 of case materials).
Based upon the information on Page 35 of the case materials, it appears as
though no one is permitted to object to the admissibility of an exhibit during
a trial. Due to the omission in the stipulations page this year, however, I
wanted to clarify that that is indeed true. Please advise.
That is correct. According to Rule 901, on page 35 of the case materials,
“Specifically, for mock trial purposes, all exhibits contained in the case materials have

2. already been stipulated as admissible evidence and may not be altered to give either side
an unfair advantage. This means that both sides have agreed that all exhibits are
admitted. Therefore, it is not necessary to demonstrate through a witness’s testimony that
an exhibit is authentic, an accurate representation or admissible, nor is it necessary to
move the court for the admission of the physical evidence.”
The omission of any stipulation in the case materials does not change the rule.
5.) Rule 901 on page 35 of the materials states that exhibits are stipulated as
authentic and admissible, and that once a witness has identified an exhibit,
they may be asked any relevant questions about the exhibit. Last year, the
errata sheet made it clear that under Rule 901, evidentiary objections to the
content of exhibits are improper. Rule 901 has not changed; however, there
was a discussion at the OCLRE conference about making objections to
exclude testimony about certain exhibits. Has the interpretation of Rule 901
changed? Should we prepare the students to make and respond to hearsay
or other objections regarding the exhibits, or are all witnesses permitted to
testify about the contents of the exhibits as long as the testimony is relevant?
Rule 901 is laid out in our Rules of Competition, and the interpretation of the rule
has not changed.
12/8
1. Is Exhibit B an accurate depiction (in terms of brand, style, and color) of the
specific bow and arrow AJ Bryant was carrying when the shooting
occurred? While the brand of toy is referenced in some witness statements, the fact
that the Exhibit depicts the version AJ had is not contained in any witness
statement.
Exhibit B represents the “Smoosh” brand bow and arrow used by AJ Bryant on the night
of the shooting.
2. If a team has a female playing any of the roles referenced in Exhibit A, should the
Exhibit be constructively corrected to reference a female, or does that mean the
dispatcher incorrectly reported the individual as male?
As stated in previous errata, for the purposes of mock trial all characters can be played by
either gender. Exhibits making reference to specific genders can be constructively read
to assume they are gender neutral. This does not require any marking or modification to
be made to the physical copy of the exhibit.
3. Where can we access the new scoresheets prior to the competition?
The scoresheets are attached to the end of this errata sheet, and reflect the defense
presenting first.
11/24
1. On line 158 of Pat Sweeney's statement, he refers to Officer Green as "they."
Does this imply many officers at the scene or simply Officer Green?
On line 158, “They” exclusively refers to Officer Green.

3. 2. Justice Smith's statement says that he was hired in 1994 and retired in 2014 (20
years of service), But on line 198 of his own statement, he says that he has more than
25 years’ experience. That would take him back to 1990 (when he was still in high
school). Is it 20 or 25 years of experience?
No further elaboration needed.
3. Exhibit A states that a call came in at 1820 (6:20 pm) reporting the robbery and
identifying both of the subjects as male. Does that mean that AJ and Sam can only
be played by male students?
All roles can be played by male or female students, regardless of any exhibits or witness
statements.
4. There is a conflict between the Defendant's pre-trial brief and the court order
regarding the relief. Defendant requests a finding of "Not Guilty." But, the court
order states that the Court must determine whether Riley Green's actions were
"legally justified." A "Not Guilty" finding should be reserved for the jury trial
stage. So, isn't Riley Green requesting the Court to find that his/her actions were
"legally justified" at this stage?
No further elaboration needed. Please refer to the judge’s order.
5. My students (and the attorneys) want to know who is the party opponent for
Defense since the prosecution is the State of Harmony? Is it AJ Bryant?
No further response needed.
6. What are the dimensions of the bow?
No further elaboration is needed.
7. Is it possible for us print the exhibit larger than the 8 1/2 x 11 document?
Procedural rule 13, section D offers guidance on our policies for exhibits. In the rules, it
states that “the exact page from the case materials may be reproduced on 8 ½ x 11 paper,
but not bound in plastic or modified in any way.” This year, you may print off a copy of
exhibit B in color if you do not already have one, but it cannot be modified to be larger
than 8 ½ X 11.
8. Due to the defense having the burden of proof this year, will the defense also
supply the official timekeeper?
Pursuant to the rules, the official timekeeper is provided by the plaintiff/prosecution.
11/10
1. When AJ Bryant shoots the female in the convenience store, what is the jar that is
knocked over and looks like blood? Is it Sauce or Salsa?

4. No further elaboration is needed.
10/27
1. Given the affirmative defense, what relief is the defendant seeking?
See the defendant’s pre-trial brief and the order of the court. No further elaboration
needed.
2. Will the timekeeper’s sheet (p. 142 in materials packet) be updated to show that
the Defense goes first and that the Prosecution (not “Plaintiff”) goes second? If so,
will those sheets be posted someplace?
The timekeeper materials have been updated, and the timekeeper documents can now be
found on the website under “competition documents” on the 2016 competition page,
found here: http://www.oclre.org/documents/2016-timekeeper-sheets
3. Officer Smith references the City of Buckeye dispatch log. Is this the document
referenced as Exhibit A, the Police Incident Log on page 112?
At a few different points in the case, witnesses refer to a “Dispatch log.” This is in
reference to Exhibit A, the Police Incident Log, which can be found on page 112 of the
case.
10/13
I noticed that the exhibits are printed in black and white in the paper case file, but
are offered in color for the digital case. Will we be able to use the color exhibit or
black and white exhibit in trial for the bow and arrow?
For the purposes of the trial, you will be able to use the exhibit in color. The exhibit is
available on the website, and in the digital case file. You can also email
csmith@oclre.org and we will send you a pdf file of the image.
The special instructions of the case state that this is a burden shifting case, can you
explain that further?
For the purposes of the case, Riley Green will be presenting the affirmative defense of
legal justification for the use of force, and the trial will not address the underlying charge
of felonious assault. Therefore, the Defendant will go first in this mock trial and will
present evidence in support of the affirmative defense of legal justification of use of

5. force. Then, the Prosecution State of Harmony will present evidence in opposition to the
affirmative defense. The scoresheets and judges’ materials will reflect this change, and it
means that the defense will present opening statements first, call witnesses first, and have
the optional two minute rebuttal.