Trial Days 2 (Opening Statements/Prosecution's case) & 3 (Defense's case/Closing Arguments)
Reflect on your experience (whether you were a direct participant or not). Then, tie what you saw/experienced in to psychology and law. It is fine to have an initial paragraph just remarking on what you thought about the experience (weird, wow, boring, whatever). But the remainder of your blog post should be more formal.
Trial Day 2 really laid the foundation for how the rest of trial was going to run. You could most certainly see the adversarial process between the defense and prosecution. Defense would try to attack the creditability of basically all the prosecution's witnesses and people testifying. By doing this, not only was the defense trying to show the upper hand, but try to make the jurors question what should be believed. Trial Day 2 was much more interesting than Day 1. This is because the case was actually underway and it seemed as though people were more comfortable in their roles.
For me personally, Trial Day 3 was much more nerve wrecking and this was mostly due to the fact that I was testifying as an expert witness. There was much attacking going on from both sides of the bench, so I did not want to be discredited. The atmosphere in the courtroom was tense because I think the prosecution was starting to be fed up with the defense's tactics. The tension reached its peak when Ben Potter was recalled to the stand and his personal life was really put on trial. People are really starting to take this case seriously.
My testimony was as an expert witness for the defense. I was testifying about the fingerprint and how it can be seen as inconclusive. Though I did not cave under the pressure of the prosecution, I could most certainly feel it. I remember reading about how expert witness usually will try to be discredited, but in order for this not to happen, I tried to be prepared best as possible.
I'm extremely interested to see how the case will turn out. There have been many twists and breaks in the case so really at this time, it is hard to say what the jury will decide. All I hope is that the evidence is looked at clearly, and opinions of the attorneys does not come into play when trying to determine a decision.
Mock court gets way more intense than I ever imagined it to get. Being a juror in this mock trial, it is rather hard to decipher the difference between fabricated "facts" that helped this mock trial/case go along more smoothly and facts that actually are real in real life that go towards the conviction of the right person.
You can sense a lot of hostility in the room, especially against the defense attorneys. However, I feel as though the defense attorneys did a super good job in putting together their case. They are real thorough in their actions and almost always have a valid argument to throw at you. It is also amazing to hear, on both sides of attorneys, the questions and opening statements that they have come up with. It is like watching a real life show of Matlock. Which brings me to another point, I wonder if how the attorneys try to portray themselves to us is based on actual facts and actual lawyers' actions or if their personae are based on media depictions of lawyers. It is hard to tell, and I really have no idea.
It is also very confusing for me as an audience member, let alone a juror, to wrap my head around this whole mock trial thing. I know that the murder of beth did not really happen but yet some things brought into evidence or some witnesses called to stand are real life situations and I don't really know where to draw the line from real to fictional. It is especially hard to do this when people such as the attorneys, and rightfully so, have really gotten caught up in the matters.
I am very excited to hear the closing arguments and to see how jury deliberation goes amongst us 12 similar, yet very different, college students.
I am very very excited to come to the conclusion of this case! I think it has been a great experience and I thought we did a good job portraying our opening statements and I felt like our case went really well. I didn’t think the defense did very much as far as pushing their case though today. Maybe I just missed it but I didn’t see very much evidence presented on their part. I know they discredited our expert witness but I feel like we did a decent job today trying to rebuild her and put question on their expert witness. I also thought it was VERY unfair that the defense asked Ben about his personal life. That had no place in the case at all and even though we objected I felt like it was an unfair line of questioning. It should not have been allowed to continue. That pissed me off and I felt upset for him!
Day 2 was very interesting for the prosecution, but we were very nervous since we had to go first and didn’t know what to except. We had prepared our case ahead of time and it was now time to put it into action. We prepared questions and even thought ahead of time what the defense would ask as a counter, so we tried to prepare for that. I felt that we did a very good job (much better than pretrial stuff!). Day 3 was much more nerve-wracking than day 2 though since we couldn’t prepare as much. We had to pay close attention to what was being said during the defense’s questioning and think of things to counter on the spot. I thought Maquel did a great job with re-questioning the witnesses, but I am very excited for closing statements on Wednesday!
This whole case centers on things we have talked about in psychology and law like fingerprints, contamination, eyewitness testimony and expert testimony. When Maquel and I were doing our research we kept coming up with things that were discussed in class. I feel like there is psychology at every turn. Expert witnesses seem to have it tough! I would hate to be one…they are torn apart by attorneys! It’s also interesting to see how everyone interacts with each other (social psych). I feel like once we get in the courtroom everyone puts on a different perspective of themselves. I cannot wait until next week!
Jury duty is awesome. Not only do I get to watch the entire case unfold before me, afterward the other members of the jury and I decide the outcome! It's like the judge is the ref, but we are the ones keeping score.
Anyway, I was impressed by the opening remarks. Both parties appeared professional and convicted to their case. The defense clearly addressed the role of prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and promised doubt would enter our rational minds. The prosecution promised forensic evidence that would overrule that doubt.
One thing that struck me was that neither the prosecution not the defense presented exhibits demonstrating the layout of Maucker Union or the crime. As a juror, I feel it is necessary to have a context in which to consider the events beyond that of testimony. Although we are all students, some are more acquainted with the Union than others; and from what I have heard I can not place an exact location for the crime in Lang Hall tunnel. That is why when the defense asked about fingerprints from a door I was slightly perplexed. What door? How did this crime happen over there? A diagram or picture, any picture of the crime, would be nice.
On the first day prosecution presented expert witnesses whose testimony built the forensic base for the arrest of the defendant. These included the CSI responsible for collecting fingerprints and DNA as well as a handwriting analyst. The CSI's credibility was called into question by the defense as she had apparently never collected evidence before (go figure). The graphologist was entirely discounted for lack of...something, I forgot to take notes the first day.
But not the second day! After the growing intensity of Tuesday, I figured I should probably keep notes to keep my own memory straight. Detective Potter and Dr. Eastabold (right?) were recalled today. Potter had testified on Tuesday, the defense established that Potter had trouble remembering particular facts from an interview he had not reviewed, and ended, after objection, hinting this memory issue may have been due to "use of substance." What happened today on the matter seemed to me like legal high jinks. I mean, are we pretending like we're educated adults participating in a real trial, in which case I would assume we are all operating under fake aliases like "detective" and "defense attorney"; or are we really adults being educated on how participants operate within the legal system, in which case I would assume our personal lives are irrelevant to whatever it is we are trying to accomplish. Either way, I interpreted it as an ad hominem attack masquerading as an appeal to credibility.
The prosecution was, however, able to revive their graphologist by presenting it as professional testimony rather than expert. As a paid professional and member of professional groups her testimony was able to be heard for the record, although the defense certainly didn't leave the credibility of graphology to rest. They also presented Dr. Hendricks to testify the results of the analysis only registered an eight on the R. Scale and that this was only grounds to eliminate, not implicate, something I remember well from earlier in the semester.
Today also saw the first eyewitness testimony, as well as two character witnesses in support of the defendant. "Casanova" came into question, particularly his role in communication with Ashley Seemann (sp?). Also, the forensic artist gave testimony that the investigation was "questionable." As the trial is still under consideration, I am not going to discuss my thoughts on any of these testomines.
During trial, I find myself looking between the judge, prosecution and defense at their respective desks. I can only imagine the pressure and amount of information the attorneys are working with. It seems very frantic, which is why I appreciate my role as well as the cooling role the judge plays. Keep up the awesome work, everybody!
Trial Day 2 &3 -
As the beginning of the trial started, things began to fall into place. People showed how well they played their role, some better than others. The first person called to the stand was Katelynn Kohl, CSI. I feel not everything was done by the prosecution for the defense discrediting her. I also feel, as the other CSI member, that if they were discrediting her, I should have been called to the stand to back up the other half of the evidence that she did not collect. A lot of the testimonies entered in much person information that wasn't relevant to the case. I believe some of the witnesses should have been thought about more, before they were used as witnesses. Due to the fact that this was a real 'trial', they should have used things and people that would have been permissible in court. I also feel that if people were going to take their roles as seriously as they did, then they should have done a lot more to get facts instead of speculating so many things. Had I been a prosecuting attorney, I would have objected to a lot of the defense tactics, because there was a lot of speculation and a lot of leading witnesses. As a person being discredited and mocked, I feel very angry that I wasn't called up to defend myself or the FACTS of what I knew and what I actually processed as a CSI. Half of the evidence was taken by me and half of by Katelynn and throughout the trial, they speculated that we didn't do things correctly and mixed up who actually processed what evidence. I was unhappy with the lack of communication throughout the whole process. As a CSI, I never received any of the results and had I been called up to the stand, I wouldn't have known who's DNA was or wasn't found. I was considered a 'mole', and left excluded almost from the beginning even though I was the one that gave a tip to the detectives. The tip was the last thing I honestly had to do with the law enforcement, so I wouldn't have known the information to 'give' to the defendant or 'Cass Nova'. If there was believed to be a mole, strict protocol should have been enforced, to keep information from being leaked or given to the wrong person(s). As I have plenty of more evidence and statements to back up what I have to say and defend that I am NOT a mole, it won't do anything to help me or help the case. The defense speculated way too much that the prosecution didn't object to.
In a real trial, there would be more 'order' in the courtroom and I feel true prosecution and defense lawyers would have more objections. Overall, I feel that any trial is just a game of cat and mouse and who will overcome the other. Due to lack of communication and some people being involved more than others, the defense has built up a good case with bullshit evidence and testimony. I fear what the outcome will be, because of such confusion and opinions being admissible.
I play the role of a jury member, and I am excited about when the jury gets to deliberate to see how everyone interpreted the evidence and statements made during the trial. On day two the prosecution called their witnesses. One of the most memorable aspects of day two that just sticks out is when the expert witness was dismissed. I thought this showed just how much research the attorney did on his role, it was such an unexpected move that seemed to have been decided on the spot. I thought day three was better than day two. It seemed like most people settled more into their role, and it was easier to watch. In the beginning of the trial on day three the prosecution had their expert witness from the day before retestify as a professional witness (I think that was the title change, I'm not sure though) which showed just how knowledgeable these attorneys made themselves about their role as well. I think everyone is doing such a good job on their roles. Many aspects of psychology and law could be witnessed during the trial these last couple of days. Memory as it pertains to certain people and what they did in their role during the last few months and when was addressed. The memory of eye witnesses was brought up. Most notably, a similar version to war of the experts was displayed. There were not tons of different experts for the defense and for the prosecution testifying on the same subject, but when each attorney asked the expert a question they pretty much got the answer they wanted by spinning it in a different direction (which was the opposite of the other attorneys'). However, I don't really want to go into great detail about how I'm interpreting all of these different events and how they specifically relate to psychology and law since I am a jury member. I thought everyone did a really great job and I can't wait to deliberate.
Trial Day 2 was a lot better than the first day. It not only was more interesting, but it also really showed how the rest of the trial is going to go. The defense did a really good job thinking on their feet and laying out a good foundation for their case. They had questions written up for their witnesses, but did a good job during the rebuttal stage balancing out the prosecution’s cross-examination. People were a lot more confident and comfortable the second day as well. It seems like at this point, everyone took their roles seriously which made it more fun.
Day 3 was even tenser than the second day was. The prosecution finished up their case which seemed to just be a formality. After that the real fun began. The defense attorneys were very talented in putting their case together. It was really interesting to see what kind of information they brought forward. As the profiler, I didn’t think I would have to testify and before the class I didn’t really care if I had to. After actually seeing the cross-examination process, I was very thankful I didn’t have to testify. It seemed like more times than not the attorneys for both sides did a very good job discrediting the witnesses. Discrediting may not be the right word, but they at least didn’t make their testimony as believable. The most entertaining part of today was when Ben Potter was called to the stand. I knew what was coming and was very interested to see how it was going to pan out. I was a little confused with how the whole “mole” thing affected the trial. I just thought the CSI had just heard something and gave investigators a tip. I didn’t think it was anything suspicious or shady, but maybe I don’t fully understand it.
I am looking forward to hearing the verdict and the closing statements. It has been a good trial so far and I am looking forward to the conclusion. I also want to give a shout out to the attorneys and the judge. Their jobs, especially the attorneys seem really hard since they are not properly trained in those areas. They are great at thinking on their feet knowing when to object.
I also enjoy hearing the things we have studied in class. I was able to relate the 8 point match, for example, to the fingerprint chapter in the text. I also know not to completely trust eyewitnesses because we have learned they are not always reliable. I really enjoy the setup of the trial and I think it is as realistic as it can be which makes it a great learning tool.
Day 2 was alot of fun for me personally. Being the prosecuting attorney, i was feeling all kinds of emotions that day!I was really nervous for opening statements (im an anxiety freak!) but i thought both opening statements went really well. I had SO much fun questioning witnesses on the stand! I think being in the great room really makes everything feel real. I also think Judge Heil is doing such a great job! he truly keeps the atmosphere feeling real and professional! it helps alot that he is doing such a good job. I was VERY frustrated that our expert witness got discredited. While i do understand the grounds, i felt really bad for her being torn apart by the defense. However, Kolton did do a really* good job of researching her role. He proved that he knew alot* more about the subject than the expert witness, which was dissapointing. I noticed that alot of people mentioned that the attorneys really started to fall into their "roles" the second day...Personally, i have really really gotten into my role as the prosecuting attorney! Mackenzee and I have worked REALLY hard to build a strong case and be as professional and intelligent as we can. It is obviously hard, considering neither of us have ever been attorneys, but we are learning ALOT!
Day 3 was also nerve wracking because Mackenzee and I were not aware of who the defense would call to testify. I was suprised that their main focus was to make the murder seem like it was done by Ashley Sylmann? I felt that wasnt really the right path to choose. I felt that most of their case from day 3 was built on making Nathan "look good" but what about the hard evidence? It also really suprised me that they attacked Ben so much. I understand that we are supposed to be as "real" as possible, but bringing in Ben's own personal information was wrong. I understand that Kolton was attempting to discredit his ability to be an investigator, However, he pushed the issue too far. BUT Kolton did a good job of being how a real attorney would be. A real attorney is definitely going to bring up things like that to discredit a testimon. Overall, i thought day 3 seemed very professional. Everyone was more relaxed and comfortable i think.
Psychology is everywhere in the court room. Social psychology comes into play when the attorneys question their witnesses. And memory and cognition are alo important because that is what the jury relies on to make their decision and that is what the witnesses rely on to respond to the questions they are asked. I know for me personally emotions were very intense. I was nervous, angry, frustrated, excited, happy, and interested!
I am very happy to be done with the trial portion of this case and I am even more excited that I will not have to testify again. I really did not know what to expect when walking into the courtroom on day two. I was very surprised when the defense attorney went after all of the witnesses. Maybe I am a little biased but I felt that all he did was bully the witnesses and really had no evidence proving the defendant was innocent. I also thought it was incredibly unfair to bring Ben Potter's personal life and history into the trial. It seemed as though the defense had a difficult time separating real life from the trial, he chose to be a detective, let him testify and tell his side of the story rather than trying to discredit him as a detective altogether.
Day two of the trial was much more exciting than day one and I thought that both the prosecution and defense did a good job at what they were trying to accomplish. The prosecution did a good job at bring up all of the evidence that was found at the scene of the crime and explaining how it got there and how it must be related to the defendant. The defense also did a good job of turning it around and finding another place to stick the blame. Since all the defense needs is reasonable doubt to get Nathan acquitted of the crime, it was a very good path to follow.
I felt as though day three did get a little bit out of control. Two of the persons asked to testify had no idea that they were going to be doing so until minutes before the trial had resumed. What was the craziest to me was that a "mole", that I had heard nothing about until today, was brought into the picture. I do not see how this was allowed, especially since the suspected mole was never actually confronted about it. The expert witness did a good job of discrediting the reliability of the fingerprint on the murder weapon, but since it was a match, and fingerprint evidence is such stong evidence, I do not think that it was enough to completely sway the jury.
I am very excited to hear each side's closing arguments and for the jury to finally deliberate and determine whether or not the defendant is guilty.
These past few sessions of our mock trial have been really quite exciting! I have never participated in a mock trial before, so this is a very neat experience. As a member of the jury, I am listening to both the defense and prosecution. However, I think everyone is the room could feel the tension between the two sides during today’s trial session. Everyone participating in the trial is becoming more comfortable in their roles. Therefore, the professionalism of each role is making this experience seem as if it were real.
I thought both sides did a great job with their opening statements. Sitting with the other jury members, it is interesting that a story and the evidence are unfolding and we are the team to put these pieces together to decide the outcome. I thought it was interesting that the opening statements were particularly addressed towards us, the jury. In addition, I thought it was interesting to hear from persons from CSI discussing the fingerprint and DNA that was found at the crime scene and the results of the lab testing. I thought it was also interesting to listen to the handwriting analyst presenting her information that she collected from the Valentine’s Day card at the scene. Although the defense attorney made appoint to question the tactics and results of her results on Tuesday, she was able to report more information during today’s court session. It was also very interesting to hear from the investigators of this case as well as eye witnesses. As the questioning continued, I could sense the tension growing between the defense and prosecution more and more. I was surprised at the number of times both sides had to approach the bench to discuss specific questions with the judge before continuing with the trial. Persons testifying for the defense and prosecution have done a great job. I cannot wait to hear the closing arguments and collaborate with the other jury members to discuss the case.
It is interesting to see how each person plays his/her role during this mock trial. Comparing what I have read and what we have discussed in class about the specific roles that are included in a court case and throughout the investigation process, I am beginning to feel more comfortable with my knowledge about the court system and the law. I am excited to attend our final meeting period and conclude this case.
After day one of the trial which ended up only being jury selection I was a little worried about what the rest of the trial would actually consist of. Day 2 and 3 of the trial has been a lot more fun and interesting though. Being a jury member I feel as if we get everything first hand since they are arguing the case for us to ultimately decide the outcome of it.
Day 2 consisted of the prosecutors opening statements as well as the defendants opening statements. I believe both of them did a good job presenting their cases. After that the prosecutors had many different witnesses and others involved with the crime to take the stand and be asked questions. I was very real how everything played out. After the prosecution would ask questions the defendants would be right there after them with rebuttals or questions of their own. The defendants did a really good job I thought! I know for myself at least I would not be able to just come up with questions without much preparation let alone in front of so many people. Both sides took everything very seriously and acted as if they really knew what they were doing.
Day 3 of the trial got a lot more intense and even more real to me. Everyone seemed more comfortable with their particular job and it seemed to run more smoothly. This time the defense presented their people involved with the case and had them take the stand. They started off with questions and the prosecution then would come back with questions if they wanted. They did not come back with as many questions and the defense did to the prosecution. Once again I thought both sides did a good job but especially the defense. They seemed very knowledgeable about everything.
I will have to say overall it is kind of hard to take things seriously at times. Since these are not all complete strangers and you do know some of the people at least know their faces it’s hard to take them seriously. Same goes for everything that is going on with the actual crime that happened. It is a mock trial so we all know its fake ultimately but at the same time it’s hard to know when people are testifying about stuff if anything they are saying is somewhat true or not. Also in the court room you hear people laughing at the things people may say at the stand and what not. I have never been on actual jury duty but I feel as if that would not happen so much in a real court room case.
I also feel as if we are all very knowledgeable about some much psychology and the law that we have a lot more background information you might say about statistics and such about hand writing analysis, finger print analysis, and eye witness testimony that it’s harder for me to actual believe what I am hearing. We all know that eye witness testimony is one of the number one ways criminals are wrongly convicted of crimes. In a normal case I feel as if people may not be as knowledgeable about everything that is used and involved in this particular crime.
I am excited for next time to see how it plays out. Being a juror I am very excited to see how deliberation goes and see what everyone else thinks. It could get intense or go smoothly. We will see. I am excited for the verdict though.
I would like to use my freebie on this assignment
I was anxious about days 2 and 3 of the trial. As being the arresting officer and someone who was really inside the investigation, I was at the edge of my seat beginning day 2. As day 2 began, I was excited to hear how the case would be presented from both sides. I thought that the attorneys did an awesome job with opening statements. It was not as if I was sitting in a class project, I actually felt like I was in the middle of a trial. I thought both sides had very good techniques in their opening statements. I thought the prosecution did a great job at bringing up the evidence against Nathan, although I was surprised about a few things. I also thought that the defense did a good job at countering the prosecution. When they were questioning witnesses, I thought it was really cool to see how the defense and prosecution would think on their toes when cross-examining and redirecting. I did think it was a little ridiculous at the end when Ben was questioned, although I thought that was the end of it.
When day 3 started, I was even more anxious. Day 3 took off really well. The whole time it seemed very professional. Even though Dr. MacLin was not there, it was smooth and Judge Heil did a wonderful job with all of the objections presented. I think this is the day when people really started being comfortable in their roles and acting as if they really were those people. Colton was very much into it and it definitely showed that he is passionate about the defense. I think the prosecution did a good job at getting the handwriting testimony back into play as a professional testimony and not an expert testimony. Even if they did not, the concept we discussed in class about not being able to unring the bell came to mind. Once those words were said, the jury heard them even if they are supposed to ignore them. Fortunately, there was a backdoor so that it could be taken into account. There were some ethical issues. I thought that the defense calling Ben up again to question him about his drug use was outrageous. I understand that in real life this would of course be brought up to discredit the officer, but the fact is that we are in a class project and some things need to be left alone. I don’t care if something of his is public record, I don’t think something so personal should be brought to the attention of everyone in the class, especially since these are the people who are suppose to respect us and be respected. It got pretty intense today and the classes reactions show that. There was a lot of laughing at Ben’s testimony. I think the laughter was both because it was ridiculous and because it was awkward. You could see that both the prosecution and the defense were getting annoyed with each other and there were several times Judge Heil had to call them up to the bench because of it. All in all, I thought today was really, really great. It was pretty smooth, and I think both sides did a wonderful job finishing up. I can’t wait till Wednesday to see how it turns out.
There were so many aspects of psychology that we discussed in class that came into play during these days. We had fingerprint analysis, handwriting analysis, how the jury thinks, etc. One thing that was interesting was how the expert testimonies were viewed. It was clear that their credibility is very much dependent on the attorneys’ abilities to present them. I never realized how much thought goes into the formation of questions before until these days. You really have to know your jury and to know psychology to understand what will create certain beliefs and feelings. Social psychology is huge in this. Knowing how people react based on others is a central theme in court. I heard a quote once that stuck with me, “It is not about the truth, it is about what the jury will believe.” I think this explains how psychology is so important to trials to a T. Without psychology, it is hard to be an attorney and present one way or another.
On trial day two I felt that witnesses were not as clear as they could have been, but I thing that is in part to we had pretty much just started the trial and they were not as sure as the extent at which they would have to go to so that they could fulfill their role. Think people were still seeing this as a class project and not a murder trial. The prosecutors and defense attorneys where very into their roles and did an amazing job in presenting and arguing their cases. Opening statements went very well. It was easy to tell (from someone who knew the details of the case) what points each side was going to bring up when they presented their case. I was a little disappointed when the hand writing analysis got thrown out so easily. But at the same time the defense was easily able to discredit her and personality I don’t think the print offs of the hand writing samples where all that good because all I could see from where I was sitting was black pictures. It’s not that I didn’t think she did a good job, but I don’t know how ready for the defense she was since his questions caught her a little off guard. But I really can’t blame her, she was told to be someone and do something she probably did not know a whole lot about in the first place.
Second day of trial was crazy! Everybody was REALLY into their role! The prosecutors and the defense were right on top of things when they were going at it in the court room. I honestly thought it was going to be like day two but out of nowhere people came out swinging! It was almost funny to see the way people were getting really passionate about their role. It really was amazing to see the same people who just a couple of days ago trying so hard to do something they had never done before and they came back strong and sitting other court rulings (in support for both sides). But things got a little personal for me. Defense (not to pick on them it is just what I felt at the time more on their side then the prosecutors) got real. They were bringing up real issues (one directed at one detective) about personal credibility. No, I don’t think it had any real relevance when it came to the case but it real life that stuff does come up and would play a big role in the jury’s deliberation. I think it was sneaky that the defense brought in the defendant’s REAL girlfriend. I’m not saying he can’t do that, but she really had nothing to do with the class. Nobody was really murdered (in real life) so I just felt it was out of place. I don’t know if she told ahead of time what to say but she was one of the only real people on the stand. I’m NOT saying someone went up there and lied while under oath, but she really was his girlfriend. She was not assigned a role for the class unlike everyone else who kind of knew they were going to have a part to play when the trial date approached. I’m not 100% sure we got to closing statements. I know defense rested their case but I thought we would get closing statements the way we got opening statements.
I will be very interested to hear the verdict. I hope we get to hear why people voted the way they did and what part of the trial impacted them the most. It is always different for each person and I would like to know what the deciding factor was when the jury decided guilty or not guilty.
The second day of the trial; it lasted much longer and was much more interesting than the first day of trial. The trial started with the presentation of the evidences and hearing on any motions that may have to be approved and then moved very fast towards calling in the jury and the opening statements by both the prosecution and the defense .The prosecutor addressed the jury first by stating the details about the course and what actually happened and i thought the prosecution was extremely convincing in what it aimed to do through its opening statements which as basically trying to give them a picture which made the suspect seem guilty.
Next was the turn of the defense to address the jury. The defense did a great job of putting f0rth the various statements and facts which were in favor of the defendant. Next the trial moved on to the questioning of various witnesses which started with the questioning of a member of the CIA .The prosecutor questioned her about the evidences she found .The trial got intense when the fingerprint analyst was called as an expert witness by the prosecution and stated that defendants handwriting matched to the handwriting on the card. After she stated that the defense objected to the validity and reliability of handwriting analysis and it was decided that the testimony of the analyst will not be considered as an expert testimony. There was also questioning of the defendants ex girlfriend who basically stated negative facts such as jealousy etc by the defendant when they were in a relationship, for a moment it seemed like to me that the defendant is guilty of the crime. But yet when the question of the other boyfriends of Beth arise it makes the case complicated and difficult to determine who murdered Beth.
My Role: The second day of trial my responsibilities as the court assistant were the same as the first day of trial i.e. I had to address the audience about the arrival of the judge and give the name of the case ie the state7 of Iowa vs Dallhouser.
Trial day 3 also consisted of questioning of the witnesses .Most of the questioning was like the second day of trial. The new and key witnesses called today were the fingerprint analyst whose expert testimony was significant and mostly favored the defendant. As she stated that the 8 point match which is the level that matched the defendant’s fingerprints was a rather low level match and is not considered to be good enough to be held as perfect match and cannot be called a perfect match. The next highlight of the third day of trial was the questioning of the defendants present girlfriend who had nothing but good things to say about him. She confirmed to the court that she had a very loving relationship with her boyfriend and there was no instance where he acted violent or with jealousy at any point in their relationship. Next the detective who questioned the defendant was questioned by the defense but it soon became intense as the defense started to dig into the detective’s private life rather than the case and this aspect was immediately noted by the prosecution and the defense as asked to refrain from doing so. The third day of trail was interesting and concluded with a lot more information than the second day but still not enough to make the case crystal clear. It was interesting and the last day will be the day the decision will be made and I am eagerly looking forward to that.
I thought that days 2 and 3 were alot more interesting. I couldn't stop laughing on the second day because colton was pretty much attacking all of the prosecution's witnesses. I thought he was very prepared and used his knowledge against the prosecution. I did however feel bad for the people testifying because this isn't a real trial and he was questioning them like it was. The third day was a little shocking. I had to testify as a character witness for the defense so I was really nervous. I was happy that I didn't have to get cross-examined by the defense though. The lawyers for the prosecution were less intense. I was pretty mad about the tactics the defense chose. This is not a real trial and the defense pulled a detectives criminal background and openly announced in front of the class what he had been arrested for. I think that is personal information, and I don't think they should have used that against him in a mock trial. If I was in his sitaution I would have been extremely mad. Other than that aspect I think the lawyers did a very good job trying to fight their case. It made it alot more interesting when they really got into their role. Although the defense attorney was very intense he used psychological tactics to make the prosecution witnesses look like they were idiots and unreliable.
Wow. Today was pretty exciting. It is awesome to see the culmination of our whole semester pay off! First and formost, i think everyone is doing really well. It is obvious that all the attorneys know what they are doing and are really well prepared. It is great to see the cross examinations, and their ability to think on their feet. while hearing testimony i think to my self how i would cross examine the witness and then to see the prosecution execute exactly how i would it awesome. Everyone involved in the process seems so professional and prepared. They make me feel like im the least prepared person in class!
Today really picked up the pace. Not to say tuesday wasnt exciting becuase i had a lot of fun then too. I think i enjoyed today becuase we were functioning without Dr. Maclin present. It felt good to be able to conduct the trial on our own.
I think the defense is doing a very good job of discrediting witness' and the prosecutions cross examinations are very well executed. It got heated at points but that just shows how seriously we are taking the matter. And the actions would be present in an actual murder trial.
The hardest part for me is sitting back and watching the whole thing unfold. Especially when i disagree with something but really let it slide because there are no objections. One thing is for sure, Im glad im not a jury member. They have a really tough job, comprehending all the information with the pressure of making the correct decision. Im very curious to see how they find the defendant. I dont know if i would find him innocent or guilty that is for sure.
There are clearly instinces where psychology is present in the trial, even though it is a mock trial. The memory information as well as eye witness testimony really shows how the justice system and psychology intertwine. I think if a profiler would have been on the stand the psychological factors would be even more evident.
All in all i feel that everyone is doing a great job and im excited to see how the trial finishes. Is it wednesday yet?
I was excited for the trial to initially get under way as the pretrial stuff was kind of a walk through routine. The prosecution began with calling a few witnesses to the stand. First and foremost they introduced the envelop, which consisted of the valentines day card that Nathan had given Beth and was shown to actually have traces of fingerprints, oddly enough not only nathans alone, but also contained traces of another suspect.
The questioning by the prosecution here was pretty straightforward to establish the credibility of the expert witness. In cross examination the defense admitted evidence of the fingerprint that was actually uplifited and pleaded the case that it was a rather weak piece as it was not that clear and kind of smudged (showed to only have a rating of 8 on the expert scale which is not that high and only a level 1). The defense did a good job here to really discredit the witness in her analysis in having the jury themselves look at the evidence one by one. The next witness was a handwriting analysis that the Prosecution had called and through direct questioning seemed ok, but when the defense came on to cross her her tesitmony was disregarded due to her incompetence (she didnt know how to pronounce her job title). This was rather impressive on the defenses part and the whole room could feel the tension rising. Their were some good objections acted out by both sides in which the judge did a good job of doing his job in a fair manner. Day 2 to was based upon the prosecutions case and their witness, and ended in recess with them still having a few witnesses to go.
Day 3 was even better as the groundwork was already laid out and everyone had a gist of what the trial was becoming. The prosecution called their last two witnesses; one was a recall of a detective and the other was an witness. The witness seemed credible in that she recalled the approximate figure. The defense again knocked down the credibility of the prosecutions witness as they caught her in a loss for words when she slipped up and said that the defendant was shorter than the actual suspect she had supposively seen. The defense called an expert witness in fingerprint analysis and i was rather impressed by her demeanor. She came off as very professional and would not take any heat from the prosecution, i take it she was well prepped. The next witness from the defense was the defendants girlfriend who made a rather impressive stand as well as she showed great passion and truth in what she had to say about her and Nathans relationship, she made it very clear that he was not a jealous figure. The best day by far was of course day #3 as things really got heated.
I look forward to the last day of trial and am rather impressed by both sides presentations as this isnt a clear cut verdict, being a jury member, and cant wait to see how both sides tie everything together in their closing arguments.
Wow. I have sat back and told my friends how I do not see myself getting too involved into this case but after today, I left the class feeling all these emotions from what occurred. I was a character witness for the prosecution ASSIGNED with a chosen role with specific phrases and ideas to communicate. And I could honestly say I am angry about how the defense is taking the case. Let's be real for just a bit here, this is a mock trial for a class to show we what have learned. Last time I checked we never discussed a topic relating to humiliating someone's personal reputation by providing information to classmates about their history. And to go along with that, I do not believe we should have allowed the defendant's girlfriend into this scenario. She is not in our class and the defense could look up anything or bring anyone in while the prosecution did have to use false roles to help out. I just do not see how we can bring real life situations into a false setting scenario.
Needless to say everyone is doing awesome in their role's. I now see how hard the attorney's have worked outside of class to be prepared. Numerous witnesses have done extensive work as well. I would not want to be the jury in this case. But we see so much of what we have learned. I would say the idea that stands out the most is the credibility of a person's statement and evidence found. It is so hard to decide what to include and what to object. It just seems to complicated for me, and so frustrating. There were times I wanted to stand up and just yell objection!
Okay, first off, kudos to the defense attorney. Dude, you are on top of all those "objections" like a real attorney. It was quite impressive that you managed to get the testimony of the handwriting analyst thrown out.
Secondly, thanks to all those who testified today and spoke up louder into the mic. The room we're in is pretty big and it can get really hard to hear what is being said when people don't speak directly into the mic (I'm a juror and I really need to hear what you have to say!). :)
Because of my role in this trial, I want to make sure that I don't try to reveal too much about my take on the case thus far (don't want to cause a mistrial now, lol).
I've got to say, sitting through this trial has been pretty awesome. You can really feel how invested people have become into their roles.
On Tuesday, it was pretty cool to start seeing and hearing about the "evidence" that was collected over the semester. My one question is, where's the murder weapon? I'm kind of surprised that it wasn't introduced into evidence since it is allegedly what killed Beth. Additionally, like Conway mentioned before, why wasn't a diagram of the Union introduced or even the crime scene photos? Because I've only been in the Union a couple of times, I have no idea about the layout and that is a severe disadvantage for me as a jury member.
Like I mentioned above, it was quite impressive that the defense was able to get the prosecution's expert witness testimony thrown out because it was unreliable or not scientifically proven (not quite sure what was exactly said about it). I also thought that the prosecution handled this set-back well by cleverly getting her testimony in through the back door (by having her testify as a professional, not an expert).
I think the defense's expert witness handled her testimony quite well today. It's quite evident that she did a lot of research for her role to be able to explain to us exactly why the fingerprint evidence may not be as strong as the prosecution would like to present it as.
Additionally today, we witnessed the discrediting of the lead investigator. Although I kinda felt bad for him, it was quite comical. All I could think was "damn, my mom was right. I really need to watch what I post online cuz I never know WHEN it might come back to bite me in the butt." I know that others on here have commented that this was an unfair tactic on the side of the defense. Honestly though, it does go to his credibility to perform his job well. In class we've discussed how incredibly easy it is for our memories to be altered and there are some "substances" that could further interfere with our memories.
I'm really looking forward to the final day of trial. That's when it gets really exciting for my role. :)
I had a few predictions about how these two days would turn out. I am delighted that some of it is turning out true.
In the opening remarks, Defence Attorney Kolton was emphasizing that Beth had been seeing other men, sort of establishing her as promiscuous. This is obviously an attempt to get her to look bad, which means he is trying to address the part of the jury that believes is the just world phenomenon, who would be likely to blame Beth and not convict Nathan.
Anyway, the trial day two was absolutely cool. We actually overturned a witness (awesome!) I really hadn't thought it would happen, but it did. The handwriting analysis expert was to be disregarded by the jury. That was awesome. I have strong feelings against handwriting analysis. Although handwriting can be person specific, a single person can write a given letter many different ways. Only two words aren't enough to identify a person though. Nope, I had strong feelings against it and was delighted to see that the judge did too. However, this witness was recalled later as a nonexpert. The thing is, it is hard for the jury to disregard something they hear. The prosecution was obviously trying to take advantage of this. Hopefully, the jury is educated enough not to be fooled.
Also one of the witness's credibility was called into question in terms of drug use. This REALLY blows my mind. Under drug use, any witness is dubious. This is psychologically very well established. However, Nicotine is not that psychoactive. If only Kolton could show it was cannabis, that one is REALLY psychoactive.
There is one thing that really surprised me though. It was the finding of the fingerprints. I knew there had to be DNA evidence because the police were insisting they had strong physical evidence against Nathan D. But it is so muddled up. When all else fails, DNA and fingerprint evidence helps bring the truth to daylight. It is total failure here. Fingerprints and DNA evidence here only make things worse. The wrong DNA is placed in the wrong part. The fingerprints of multiple suspects were present everywhere. So that just complicates everything. Woe on to the day this evidence cannot help. There were two witnesses clashing against each other here. I wanna know who won.
Also the issue of the mole in the police force came out. I used to think it was an attempt of Cass Nova to create dissent among the police (the witness testified to that). But apparently, it is real. I'm beginning to think either Mc Cready or Nathan is the mole. I'm confident, I think.
Also, they brought up exgirlfriend and present girlfriend of Nathan. The one he broke up with made him look bad. The one he did not break up with made him look like an angel. I really think the outcome of the relationship influenced the perception of it. The exgirlfriend thought he was overprotective. She even interpreted pushing as a type of physical violence. It's possible to not see it as physical violence. But the present girl friend said he was too kind to ever murder anyone... oh that is so sweet!
Again, complete clash of witnesses.
There was also the issue of TC (who ABSOLUTELY is the murderer). It is shown by a witness, a friend of Beth's, that Beth was seeing TC and it has also been confirmed by the Police that TC has not been eliminated as a suspect. I think this is will weigh strongly in the jury. I don't think they can convict a person why alternate suspects have not been eliminated, but we'll have to see.
I kind of liked how Kolton demonstrated an eye-witness's inability to judge relative size. The eye witness (Emily Burns) was saying that TC was too large to be the murderer. But then Kolton gave numbers of hieghts and asked if Nathan is about the right size. She said no. It turns out she was wrong. He was closer to the size then she thought. I liked that. Perception is influenced by many things. It is really true that the witnesses only saw Beth from the back so only got the perpetrator's height relative to Beth's. So that's going to belittle his perception, make him seem smaller.
Plus, Nathan actually came to the cite. So the witnesses saw him. The misidentification could have stemmed from there. And they're not even aware of it, even after we talked about it so much in class!
Anyway, I am mega interested in how this thing is going to turn out.
Trial Day 2:
I thought this trail day was a bit more interesting than the first day of trial. Obviously, because the prosecution and defense got a better idea of how things would roll. The prosecution called Katelyn Cole (spelling?) as a witness. She was a forensic analyst and she collected fingerprints off of the valentine's card that was found at the scene of the crime. I thought it was interesting how detailed the witnesses were with their knowledge, considering that they are just pretending and there really was no real evidence.
Trial Day 3:
This day was awesome to watch! I was extremely impressed with the lead defense attorney; he really acted professionally and at times it was refreshing that he didn't read off of a script. The trial did get pretty heated when the defense called a detective as a witness. They tried to make the jury question his credibility because it was public knowledge that the detective was in possession of illegal substances. They defense really did a stand up job making their client look kind and innocent. They managed to, in my eyes, discredit the police department because the police had been discussing through Facebook chats that they needs to make an arrest. The very next day after those chats, Nathan Dollhouser was arrested. The defense also had the defendant's girlfriend as a witness and she painted a picture to the jury that Nathan was a kind, laid-back guy.
Relating the trial to psychology and law, I thought there were a few clear examples. The fact that the defense and prosecution really now feel comfortable in their roles made the trial seem much more realistic for everyone taking part. Also, the judge really has stepped into his role well. He seemed completely comfortable with his judgments and telling the attorneys to approach the bench.
Also, today the defense brought up the notion of perception. When the defense attorney was questioning one of the witnesses about the height of the defendant, there was some interesting twists. The witness seemed to think that the defendant was a different height than he actually was. But then, the defense told her that the defendant was really 5' 11'. She seemed surprised by this notion because she was comparing the height of the defendant to TC.
Trial days 2 and 3 began to heat up the courtroom. The attorney’s were listening to every key word to give them any chance of objecting.
The defense attorneys did good job at questioning the credibility and competency of the law enforcement. Something like drugs would definitely come up in an investigation. The cognitive state any authority figure is in would play an important role in any case. Cognitive psychology played a large role in this case. The defense questioned whether “authority” figures know what they are actually doing. It seems like they discredited the prosecuting expert witness, the prosecuting character witness, the CSI, and the Investigators. The defense is stopping at nothing to bring justice to Mr. Daulhauser.
Both expert witnesses did a good job on stand, especially since it got pretty heated. The prosecuting expert witness took a little heat on the first day, getting her testimony thrown out and all. I think it was a bad decision on the prosecuting side to bring her back on the stand. She really didn’t add anything to the case. On the first day she stated she did not have much (or really any) previous cases. On the second day she stated that she worked on forty-some cases previous to this, and that was “a lot”. Well, that’s called perjury.
The defense expert witness did a much better job and actually researched a lot of information for her role. I like how she explained, in detail, what an eight-point match was. One thing that was not so good on her part, was she could be tried as a hostile witness. She was getting a little sassy at the end (which was funny to watch, and not always a bad thing). In my eyes, she discredited the prosecuting expert witness AND attorneys.
Overall, both sides have shown strengths and weaknesses. It also shows how much time and effort they put into researching their roles in the court system. In my opinion, the defense has shown more strengths than the prosecution. It is all up to the jury now.
Wow the second day of court was a lot more intense than the first day. I liked that the jury didn't have to wait as long to enter the court room and that we could get right to testimonies. Some of the people that were called to testify, I didn't really understand the entire role in the case, I wish they would have explained a little bit more. Also I think in general it would have been useful for either side to have drawn up a lay out of the crime seen. I dont know about everybody else but Im a very visual person and I think having something in front of me to look at would have helped.
Another aspect of this whole project is that I dont always know who is acting as themselves and what they are adding to their role to make them seem more accredited. Like for the CSI people, they were asked if they ever collected fingerprints before and obviously they hadn't which I thought was already established and I didn't understand why they didn't act more like the role they were playing, and experienced CSI member. Also with the supposed mole on the law enforcement team. I didn’t understand if this really happened or if it was something already planned into the plot line. Even when the defense questions one of the investigators about his subsistence use and if it had any influence on his memory, I didn’t really see how that was relevant to the case in terms of what he actually does outside of the class room.
I think both sides did a really good job of presenting the facts that they collected and for making a case that revolved around this crime and making it believable. They seemed to have really done some research to prepare for their parts and I can see how involved they are and upset they get when something is challenged or doesn’t go as they had hoped.
The witnesses also did a pretty good job of researching their roles, I think the first day’s witnesses were a little unprepared and that made people who were testifying the next day to go back and make sure they knew their stuff. Im not sure if there are certain guidelines for calling the defendant to testify, if the prosecution can do that or if they have to have permission from the defense to allow their client to be questioned.
I am excited as part of the jury to see what everybody else has to say about what was presented in court. As I was listening to some of the testimonies I was also trying to keep some of the information that I learned in class in mind. The eyewitness testimony and even the evidence that was collected. I think that there will be some interesting points brought up in closing arguments and definitely when the jury goes to deliberate.
For trial day 2 things really started to pick up! The prosecution started off strong telling the jury of how Beth was brutally murdered and taken far too soon. They had evidence to present, and had a pretty legit alibi. The card that Beth was given had Nathan's finger prints on it. Nathan's ex was also brought to the stand in which she pulled him a part. Saying he was abusive and very jealous. This added an abusive side to Nathan that was not known until that day.
The defense has quite a bit of rebuttals. Colton the defense attorney was on a roll. He completely discredited the lady who is a finger print expert. She was unable to state what her specialty was and had no credibility while on the stand. The judge even had her dismissed for not knowing any information.
I had no idea that the judge could do this. If anything it helps the defense the longer she is up there. She basically discredited the prosecution's evidence. The defense then brought up the detective who was made to look like a fool. The detective was reminded of his past 'drug' use based on pictures that surfaced on facebook. This was a lesson to us all that things should not be posted that can make us look bad to future employers or when going to court. This brief mentioning, completely made the detective look as though he had no idea was he was doing. The defense was on a roll. I could not believe how personal things were getting, but I suppose that is how a real trial would go. Basically you have to get them where you can and make them look as bad as possible to the jury. I feel as though the defense did a really good job of this.
The prosecution tried hard to go the more emotional route. Trying to get the jury to feel for Beth and understand that she was murdered by Nathan. The murder weapon was also shown in which finger prints were found on the weapon. Nathan's finger prints were on there. This was shocking. The finger print expert was examined by the defense in which she said that she had nothing to do with the prints and that they were sent to the lab and that was were the prints were discovered. Once again the defense discredited her information.
One of the detectives who interviewed Nathan was also brought to the stand. She spoke of how Nathan was nervous and had nervous body language compared to the other suspects. The defense talked about how anyone would be nervous if interviewed for a serious murder. The lady then commented on the fact that Nathan was wearing a shirt that said prisoner. Although this was probably not the best shirt to be wearing, it is not enough to convict him of anything based on what he was wearing. The defense stated that that shirt he was wearing was Nathan's high school graduating shirt.
All in all the defense was on a role. The prosecution needs to step up a bit. They have a good story as to the emotional side of things, but the defense is really getting into the psychological aspects of the intents and motives of all the people brought to the stand. I really enjoyed watching the trial.
As a juror in the mock trial I have really found day 2 and 3 of court to be very interesting! First off I want to say that the defense attorneys are doing a fabulous job, the male student is awesome! He really has done his homework and is very intense with his questioning, he really has the upper hand, the prosecution attorneys are doing a good job as well, I feel bad for them at times when the prosecution calls an objection, and he really gets into it. I have found most of the people that have been called to the stand are having a hard time when being questioned by the defense, he really has shed light on the fact they really don’t know what they are doing (in my opinion) and they didn’t do everything possibly could to find the correct killer to charge with the murder of Beth. It’s been easy to follow the case and I enjoy what we are doing, at first I thought this trail was going to be a joke, but it’s very intense and I like how we have to process a lot of information that is being thrown at us to decide the verdict in the case. I think Aleah did a great job on the stand as his X-girlfriend, his current girlfriend as well, but the last girl to be called the stand who talked about the finger print being an “8 point match…” She had all her ducks in a row and brought good information with her to back up her facts! Both sides are doing a great job, I feel they have great arguments, the defense is painting a great portrait of what kind of person Nathan is and the prosecutors have brought some great information up at the trial. I am curious what will happen if CSI has to be called back to the stand, to explain the mole situation and more facts about the finger print and the lab’s job. I feel the handwriting analysis is bullshit, nothing something even reliable, and from the sounds of it the police may have been rushed to make an arrest, and why didn’t they press harder to get a hold of TC?
I was rather excited for these trial days, mainly because I had been out for so much of the last few weeks before and I was interested to see what the prosecuters had made of their case and to see what the defense attornies would be like. When each side did their opening statements I thought they both did a remarkable job and were very persuasive. Then once the questioning got going it got even more interesting. Honestly I thought it was going to be rather boring but both sides had some very good questions for the witnesses and some of them were rather entertaining. Overall I thought both sides did very well to play their "angle". I wasn't too nervous to get up in front of the class or to be questioned. I knew what had happened and I knew what I had done in the case so I was rather confident. I noticed that the defense attorney would try to get the witnesses rattled so they seemed less competent and twisted some things rather successfuly. When looking back through the semester to certain things we learned about a few in particular come to mind. When we talked about eye witness testimony and how most of the time it is rather unreliable, it made me think why a given attorney did not argue that in order to make the jurors question the witnesses competency. Also, I remember the chapter over interrogations and the legal ways of interrogating someone and I figured that since the defense did not question the interrogations, we did a pretty good job of keeping things by the book. I also remember printing out the Reid technique in order to use in one of the interrogations but don't think I ended up using it because we had several pieces of evidence linking the suspect to the murder and had a good feeling that he would not confess because he was much smarter and more cocky about getting away with the murder. He isn't about to give up that easy. We did use the lying techniques in order to get more out of the suspect, even if it was just a hint of, "Oh boy, I'm caught." I thought it was also interesting to see the difference in body language used when we were just questioning the suspect to when we brought up the evidence against him and how uncomfortable he got. He seemed less confident and cocky and more worried that he could actually be caught. A lot of things throughout the semester have played out and rang true. It's been very interesting and exciting to see.
As day 2 began I was very nervous. I was called to testify yet felt unprepared and unsure of what to do. Outside of the courtroom in depositions I was confused as how to answer questions, whether or not to play my “role” or be truthful about class. It was difficult to separate the two at times. While watching the trial unfold I finally realized the phrase “you can’t un-ring a bell”. At times attorneys would object to something that was said by the other side, however, the jury members already heard it and are more likely to remember it when told not to.
One thing that caught my attention was the lack of objections made by either side. At one point, I was even angry when a witness for the defenses asked the prosecution a question on the stand. While thinking about how rude the witness was, I was distracted from the trial at hand. In US courtrooms, there are many common objections that can be used. They are used by attorneys to make a witness’s testimony or part of a testimony unacceptable, an opposing attorneys question improper, or evidence that is going to be entered insufficient. After the objection, it is up to the judge to allow it (overruled) or force the attorney to change question, or not allow evidence (sustained).
In this trial there is not real DNA evidence that can prove ‘who done it’. More circumstantial evidence is needed to create a larger body of corroborating evidence. In a real murder trial DNA evidence can potentially make or break a case without a confession. Crime Scene Investigators have one shot to find what the killer or assailant left behind unless a few random things come up. As technology increases it is the DNA evidence that solidifies a conviction and allows people that are wrongly accused to be exonerated. Without it there are always going to be what ifs.
Trial Day 2:
Oh what can I say about this day. I showed up in sweats and a t shirt because I did not think I would be called up on stand again but I couldn't have been more wrong. As soon as I was called up the defense had a blog post entry that I had posted ready for me to read a loud to the class. Because it had not been submitted to the court previously, the prosecution got it dismissed fairly quickly. However, it was public record for the defense to find and I am extremely impressed with the work ethic of the defense. In the post I had discussed my problems with law enforcement over thanksgiving break. This information is public to the entire country so because the defense is so diligent they were able to find these records and question me, under oath, about them. Although I did not want to talk about my personal life to the entire class, I opened myself up to it by signing up for detective. It is not the defense's fault for simply being very thorough with their background checks of law enforcement. I do wish that there were some more restrictions on the attorneys though. They asked Kaitlyn about how many previous cases she gathered DNA evidence for? I mean come on. This is a class project I dont think she was aware that she needed to come up with some elaborate story about how many cases she had done previously. I certainly was not aware of that. Overall though it was a very cool, interesting, day in court and I seriously applaud the defense for their effort.
As far as connections to psychology and law go, every day in court connects to issues we covered in the book like jury bias, hearsay evidence, wrongful convictions, I mean the list goes on and on. I think that this experience is a really good mini-mirror of actual court proceedings and it's probably one of the coolest class experiences I've ever been a part of. It really lets people who are interested in these different careers get a glimpse of all of the hard work and dedication it takes to be truly successful. I wish that I had spent more time and put forth more effort as a detective but I didn't think that it would be as realistic an experience as it was. But, this case was not a case your average detective would come across as the murderer had a mask covering everything INCLUDING HIS EYES, the cameras right where the murder occurred were NOT AVAILABLE to us, there was a MOLE in the police department, we were NOT ABLE to determine IP addresses and try to confirm identity through a facebook account, along with COUNTLESS other things that were not like your typical investigation. But like I said, it was really cool mini-mirror of a real life case and I am SO happy I took the course. I would take it again if I didn't have to pay thousands of dollars. I should have probably saved this paragraph for the final trial day but I'll have more to say then.
I was very excited to come to court as a defense lawyer, I was scared about asking my witness question not knowing what the prsicution was going to ask in the cross, i was scared because they knew we came hard the first time and we came hard on our open statement too so i was wondering what tricks they had up their hats for me and Kolton. but at the end of the day we still did a great job because we had all our witnesses ready for any thing and may i say thanks to all. Kolton did a wonderful job portraying our opening statements and I felt like our case went really well. I believe we did a very good job as far as pushing our case though today. even though we did not any evidence to work with we did have an idea of how to carry out our case and we stock to it, we plained to discredited the prosecution expert witness and we did because we believed that she was not rally ready to be an expert when we interviewed her 2 days before the trial. as the prosecution try's to rebuild their expert witness i do not believed it truly worked because in the eyes of the jury's she was already a bad witness. as the case went on we are truly sorry that we put Ben personal life in the case but we had to used something to find out that their was a mood in the case and that mood was not my client.
during day two i noticed that even thought me and kolton study a lot of different objections we truly did not use much of it because we was not really sure on how to uses them in this case but we did use at least 3 different ones.
during the case i also noticed that The prosecution tried hard to go the more emotional route. Trying to get the jury to feel for Beth and understand that she was murdered by Nathan. but I believe they should not have used the words "Nathan Killed Beth" i stated this because Nathan was very Much So innocent until proving guilty and the Jury knew that he was too until they can prove that he was not.
i love working on this case and being a huge part of this case.
As a person of the media, I was finally able to catch a bit of video of some of these two days, so I was extremely excited! As far as the trial goes, I think both the prosecution and the defense did extremely well at presenting their cases. The prosecuting attorneys were very on track, in order, and effective in questioning the witnesses. By effective in questioning, I mean that they were able to speak not only to the witnesses and the audience, but also to the jury and truly paint a picture of the case in their hands. They were very well-spoken, very organized, and very professional.
The defense attorneys also did a wonderful job, considering the difficulty of defending such a case. They were organized, well-planned, and well-spoken. Some of their defense strategies were very clever. For example, pointing out that Mr. Dahlhauser was not the same height as the perpetrator that the eyewitness claimed to have seen at the time of the murder in Maucker Union.
However, I do have to agree with Ben. I do feel that digging into his personal life for the sake of the class project was inappropriate. I certainly would never want my personal life or blog assignments to be discussed and scrutinized in front of my classmates and peers. Although it is public Iowa law information and visible on the blog site, it is unlikely that the entire class would know these about his personal life, had the defense not used it in the mock trial case. I think this project could use some future boundaries in those regards. It may be a good idea for each student to come up with a complete role to play, with the fake individual's name, background, hobbies, and so forth.
I think the mock crime overall was a difficult case for everyone. It was difficult for the police officers and investigators to figure out the perpetrator, just as it was difficult for us media representatives to write and publish information that we either did not have or that was completely random and made no sense. I cannot imagine the immense brain overload that the jurors must have endured during the trial, especially after not knowing a great deal of information about the crime or investigation, other than the fact that it occurred. The fact that the murderer was completely covered made it nearly impossible for the profiler, detectives, and police to determine a suspect. Also, the self-proclaimed pseudonym "Cass Nova" made things far too personal for this class. Facebook is certainly a fun tool to use, especially when you have the excuse to use it for an educational purpose. However, it was extremely obnoxious for Cass Nova to be constantly involved in my personal-life activities on Facebook that are completely outside of this class. Because I also run a great deal of my paranormal investigation group on Facebook, it became extremely difficult to weed through Cass's things in order to find necessary important messages and notifications.
While I realize that this is a hybrid-format class and that we were warned about getting very deeply involved in our roles, I think some things simply should be kept separate. I also think that we should be able to discern those things for ourselves and it should not be required for a professor to tell us.
I hope no one reads this post and is offended, because I do not mean to offend anyone in any way. I simply wanted to incorporate my opinions and feedback for future students who take this class. I have had a wonderful semester with my classmates and you (Dr. Maclin) in taking this course. It was a very interesting course with fantastic material. I would recommend this class to any student!
I wasn’t aware that I couldn’t use my freebee for the trial days, so I’m sorry for the tardiness. It is a little bit hard to reflect back so far, after already going through with the final day of the trial, but I will do my best.
On the second day, the real trial started, we began with opening statements. The prosecution had a good opening, but they weren’t able to prove all of it in court. They didn’t establish real motive or clear connection to the victim. In my opening, I wanted to paint a picture of how the trial was going to play out and I really wanted to hammer home reasonable doubt, because the investigation was full of it and I felt that was the best way to present our case. Establishing that there were many other scenarios that could have happened and that law enforcement didn’t explore them.
The prosecution began by calling the first witness CSI Katelynne Kohl. Katelynne was very professional and somewhat well prepared. When she was questioned by the prosecution, she stated that she collected fingerprint and DNA evidence at the scene. She also said that she did not collect the fingerprint found on the screwdriver, but the state lab did and she was aware of it. She incriminated Nathan by stating that his fingerprint was found on the screw driver and his DNA was found on the evelop. When I cross-examined her, I was really surprised to find out that not only did she not know that Aaron Quinby’s DNA was found on the envelop, but she didn’t even know who Aaron Quinby was. I’m not really sure if that was true or if she was just playing dumb, but either way that showed how little she knew about what was going on and really shook her credibility. I also asked her about the fingerprint on the screwdriver, because she talked about it quite a bit in her initial examination, I thought she knew a bit about it and about the Galton scale. But when I asked if she knew what an 8 point match on the Galton scale actually meant, she had no idea. Then I was able to establish that it was the lowest type of fingerprint match acceptable. I also at some point asked her how many times she had practiced collecting this type of evidence. I understand that people are upset about me questioning this, but I would have thought that she might have practiced a few times before actually jumping into a murder scene. Although she is playing a role, I don’t know how we would expect the CSI’s to accurately collect evidence if they have never done it before.
I believe the prosecution then called Ashley McCready. The prosecution questioned her about what lea law enforcement to believe Nathan was the murder. She talked about the evidence and stated that he was fidgety, and wore an orange prison shirt. I really didn’t think these were very moving with the jury. In cross-examination I asked her if she thought it was weird that a person suspected of murder, was fidget when being questioned by the cops. I also asked her if she was aware that was Nathan’s graduation shirt and that he wears it about once a week. I don’t think Ashley’s testimony swayed the jury in one way or the other.
Following that, Ben Potter was put on the stand and they gave him similar questions pertaining to the investigation and specific questions about the interview of Emily Berns. In cross examination, I also questioned been about some of the Emily Berns interview and it showed that been was a bit forgetful and it lead to the question of Ben’s substance use and that is where I was cutoff, but this issue would come up later in the trial.
Following this Heather and Aleah were put on the stand. Aleah did well, playing an ex-girlfriend of Nathan’s, she made him appear to be an aggressive jealous boyfriend. In cross examination, I tried to discredit her a bit, but she was prepared and I was set back by a sustained objection from the judge, that probably shouldn’t have been. She ended up being one of the prosecutions best witnesses.
Heather was put on the stand as an expert in handwriting analysis, also known as graphology. I knew this wasn’t often admissible in court, and luckily about five minutes before the trial, I did some research and found the case law regarding handwriting analysis. I asked Heather four questions that were established in a federal court case and they outlined the criteria the analysis must meet for it to be admissible in court, not knowingly she answered just as I would have liked her to and I was able to get her testimony dismissed. It felt good to really one up the prosecution, at the same time I also know I made Heather feel bad as well, but if I hadn’t done that I wouldn’t have been doing my job. Heather was also put on the stand in the third day of the trial, as a professional witness. I don’t think the prosecution wanted to do this, but they wanted the handwriting analysis to be submitted into evidence. Either way, I don’t think this had any affect on the jury.
Emily Berns was the last witness the prosecution called to the stand, she was used as an eyewitness and a character witness. In cross examination I was able to establish that she thought Nathan may have been to small to the murderer, or to discredit her ability as an eyewitness and establishing that it could have been Aaron or TC as well, whichever way the jury took it. I did this by showing that she thought TC was to big and that Aaron was to small and then showing that the defendant was actually smaller than Aaron, showing a lot of reasonable doubt. Through Emily I was also able to establish that Aaron used sports supplements that made him angry at times and prone to outbursts. Showing both of these things were big for our defense.
My goal was to at least be even with the prosecution after they presented their case. If were able to do this I knew we would have a really good chance of winning after we presented our case and after Emily’s testimony, I knew we were at east even if not ahead.
The first person we put on the stand was Devon. She was our character witness, acting as Nathan’s manager at Kohls. We were going to have her act as an ex-girlfriend of Aaron’s, but we saw this as an unneeded risk and decided not to. She did well to establish that Nathan was a level headed and happy employee.
Next we put Alexandra the sketch artist on the stand. With her testimony I attempted to establish that there was a mole in the police department and that overall the police department was suspicious, individualistic, and overall not satisfied with the arrest of Nathan. I think we were successful in doing this, she was a good witness and really displayed that the law enforcement didn’t explore all the avenues that were possible.
We then called Ben back up to the stand. I had him read a topical blog from class, one in which he revealed that he had gotten into trouble for being in possession of drug paraphernalia. I knew this was not allowed because the blog wasn’t evidence, but he read it before the prosecution had time to object, and I felt that it might mean more to the jury if he read his own blog post. The prosecution then objected after he read it, and the post was dismissed, but the damage had been done. I then questioned him on the subject. I will say he handled it decently, one mistake I made was asking what he used it for, I should have known he would have said tobacco. I should have just let the jury assume what they were already assuming. The issue of substance that may have hurt him the most is when I asked if he thought people that were impaired by drugs should be aloud to serve in positions that were in charge of protecting peoples lives and he replied, no. I also tried to establish through Ben that the police department really didn’t explore Aaron or TC even though they had evidence and motive against them. I think this was successful, however, I also tried to establish that the police department mole could have played a part in this and this wasn’t as successful. If I could have just told the story to the jury I think it may have been more successful, but I had trouble painting the picture through witnesses. Through Ben I also established that no one definitively saw the murder weapon and that he found the weapon through a completely unreliable source. Now I understand a lot of people were upset about me questioning Ben and his trouble with law enforcement, but we were trying to make the mock crime and trial as realistic as possible and the simple fact is this would have come up in a real life trial. Ms. MacLin said we could do anything to help our case. I did have second thoughts on doing this, but I was in it to win it. I weighed the options of how this would affect the jury, if they thought it would be dirty of me and make myself and the defense look bad, or if it would help to discredit Ben as the lead detective, I obviously went with the second option. I did apologized to Ben after the fact and to my surprise, although I don’t think he liked that I did it, he did realize it was part of my job and had no hard feelings about it.
Next we put Ashley Mcready on the stand, we established that she was the one in contact with Cass Nova. I think we also placed a lot of reasonable doubt in the juries minds, showing that Cass could have been anyone and he played a role in leading their investigation. We were also able to show through messages with Cass that the police department was put on a timeline and that they were not necessarily confident in their decision.
The last witnesses were our expert and Nathan’s current girlfriend. Breanna was a criminalist, but we used her to analyze the fingerprint found on the murder weapon. She was a really good witness, she was prepared and she did all she could to discredit the fingerprint found on the murder weapon. There were also some pretty entertaining arguing in the cross examination between Breanna and the prosecution, and although it isn’t always allowable in court, it does happen and it was intense and cool to see.
Finally, we put Nathan’s girlfriend Kate on the stand and she helped to show that Nathan was a warm and loving boyfriend that really couldn’t hurt anyone. She was a good witness, although it wasn’t an in your face testimony, I think it did show the jury that Nathan is a good guy.
I didn’t really think about it until I analyzed it in this blog, but psychology was used in almost everything I did throughout the trial, mainly behavioral and cognitive. Behavioral psychology was used to coach the witnesses and Nathan, to present them to the jury in a way that would benefit us the most. Behavioral psychology was also use to tread the fine line of being a defense attorney, at times a had to be serious and intense to get what I wanted from witnesses, but I also tried not to cross the line and seem like a jerk to the jury. The goal of this behavior was to positively affect the cognitive minds of the jury. Cognitive psychology was also used when we decided which order we wanted to present the witnesses. We put Devon first, because her testimony was safe and helped to show that Nathan was a good guy right out of the gate. But because it was safe and she wasn’t in direct relation to Nathan, it wasn’t as strong, therefore we put her first. We put Alexandra second, because we wanted to establish the mole and the faults of the police department. We followed this up with members of the police department, trying our best to question their work and discredit them. We chose to put Breanna and Kate last, because I felt they were our strongest witnesses and I wanted them to be the last things left on the minds of the Jury. Especially the emotional testimony of Kate. Finally, I used cognitive psychology to build an overall rapport with the jury. In a trial it is important to build a good connection with the jury, although I probably wasn’t going to win any affection competitions I did try and build this connection other ways. This is preformed through you presentation throughout the whole trial, but is crucial in the objection process. I did familiarize myself with the objections and if I wanted to I could have done so throughout the trial, however, these frequent stops can be annoying and shows weakness among your case. Therefore I tried to minimize my objections to statements and evidence that were obviously objectionable, but most importantly, were going to hurt our case and my client. I thought we did a good job of this, it helped to stymie the opposition and what they were trying to present, while presenting our case in as strong of a manner as possible and attempting to stay liked by the jury.
Wow this is dauntingly long, congratulations if you make it this far.