; 2007_Judges_Competition_Overview_1_
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>



  • pg 1
									Copyright ©2006 Ohio Center for Law-Related Education 1700 Lake Shore Drive P.O. Box 16562, Columbus, OH 43216-6562 614-485-3510 or 877-485-3510 www.oclre.org This publication was funded by the Supreme Court of Ohio. However, the opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the position of the Court, and no endorsement of the Court should be inferred. This Ohio Mock Trial program is made possible in part by a grant from the Ohio State Bar Foundation The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Ohio State Bar Foundation. The purchaser of this copy if hereby authorized to reproduce these materials for non-profit educational use only. Reproduction for sale is prohibited without the written permission of licensing rights from the Ohio Center for Law-Related Education.


TABLE OF CONTENTS Mock Trial Bench Brief Copyright Introduction A Note on Civility Competition Terms Scoring/Judging Guidelines Procedural Rules of Competition Simplified Ohio Rules of Evidence - *Unique to Mock Trial Additional Articles Examples of Common Objections and Trial Procedures 2007 MOCK TRIAL CASE “CITY OF STRAWBERRY HILLS V. CHRIS WASHINGTON” Overview for Competition Judges Order Plaintiff’s Memo Defendant’s Memo Witness Statements Sydney Carnegie Jordan Taylor E.B. Martin Chris Washington F.W. Saarinen Pat Garrett Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Page 1 3 4 5 6 9 16 19 23

29 30 34 35 39 44 49 54 58 61 66 70 71 72 73




THE OHIO CENTER FOR LAW-RELATED EDUCATION 2007 OHIO MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION MANUAL Introduction Ohio Mock Trial provides an opportunity for high school students to participate in an academic competition. The Ohio Mock Trial Competition is designed to foster a better understanding of the American democratic legal system and to encourage development of analytical and communication skills. In moving from the classroom to the courtroom, high school students add an important dimension to their learning experience in citizenship education. Students develop an appreciation for our justice system and the role of laws in our society. Through first-hand experience, the Mock Trial Competition can teach students about their rights and responsibilities under the Constitution. The Mock Trial experience prepares students for possible future involvement as parties, witnesses and jurors in trials; familiarizes students with the rules and procedures involved in litigation and the roles and responsibilities of judges and attorneys. The Mock Trial Competition also develops students’ critical thinking skills, poise and public speaking ability. By working in partnership with the legal community, teachers and students learn how our legal system works and learn important democratic principles reflected in and protected by our justice system.


Civility You may have seen trials portrayed in the movies and TV shows in which the lawyers show, or barely conceal, contempt for one another and even towards the judge. This makes for good drama, but real trials are rarely conducted in this manner, and should never be. The general duty of an attorney is set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Ethical Consideration 9-6, as follows: Every lawyer owes a solemn duty to uphold the integrity and honor of his profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts and the judges thereof; to observe the Code of Professional Responsibility; to act as a member of a learned profession, one dedicated to public service; to cooperate with his brother lawyers in supporting the organized bar through the devoting of his time, efforts, and financial support as his professional standing and ability reasonably permit; to conduct himself so as to reflect credit on the legal profession and to inspire the confidence, respect, and trust of his clients and of the public; and to strive to avoid not only professional impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. Specific requirements in the Code of Professional Responsibility include the following: showing respect for judicial rulings (EC 7-22), being respectful, courteous, and aboveboard in relations with a judge or hearing officer before whom the lawyer appears (EC 7-36) refraining from unfair or derogatory personal references to opposing counsel and refraining from using haranguing or offensive tactics (EC7-38), being punctual in fulfilling all professional commitments (EC 7-37), cooperation between lawyers and tribunals that does not impinge upon the lawyer’s obligation to represent the client zealously (EC 7-39), refraining from asking questions intended to degrade a witness or other person and not relevant to the case (DR 7-106(C)(2)), and refraining from engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct that is degrading to a tribunal (DR 7-106(C)(6)). Students who participate as attorneys in the Ohio High School Mock Trial Program should strive to follow these principles of civility while representing the interests of their clients, and can expect the scoring judges to be favorably impressed as a result. The failure to maintain civility can be expected to have a negative impact on the scoring judges. The same rules do not apply to students appearing as witnesses. Nevertheless, with the rare exception where the character the student is playing might genuinely require some departure from the high standards of civility set for the legal profession, it will usually be more effective for a witness to respond courteously to the attorneys’ questions, not to interrupt the attorney, and to wait while an attorney interposes an objection to the question just put to the witness. It is never a good idea, no matter how obstreperous the character being portrayed, for a witness to show disrespect to the court. As for the attorneys, not only is civility expected, it can be surprisingly effective. Being civil does not mean being a push-over. Stridency often distracts from the inherent forcefulness of the argument being made. Cross-examination does not have to be badgering to be thorough and effective to the point where the witness’s testimony is completely discredited; indeed, a badgering tone may only engender sympathy for the witness. It is expected that advisors, coaches, and parents will at all times model civil behavior towards and respect for the court and members and supporters of the opposing team.


COMPETITION TERMS The following list presents important terms to know to participate in the Ohio Mock Trial Competition. A glossary of legal terminology can be found at the back of the case section of this notebook. Case Summary: A narrative setting forth the facts of the case; it may not be used for purposes of impeachment during the trial. Cooperating Program: A school affiliated group that runs a local mock trial competition using Ohio Mock Trial materials and sends its winners to the Ohio Mock Trial State Competition, e.g. The Maumee Valley Home School. Debriefing: A discussion by the judicial panelists of the teams’ and individual performances. Deliberations: A consideration of team performances by the judicial panel, which determines the results of the trial. District Competition: The first round of competition run by volunteer district coordinators in which each team participates in two trials, one as plaintiff/prosecution, and one as the defense. The district winners (teams who have won BOTH trials) advance to the regional competition. Judicial Panelist: An attorney, judge, or magistrate that volunteers to evaluate teams participating in the competition. Legal Advisor: An attorney, judge, or referee that volunteers to coach teams participating in the competition. Pretrial Conference: A brief meeting of judicial panelists, legal advisors, teachers and student attorneys before each trial to address questions and unresolved issues. Regional Competition: The second round of competition run by volunteer regional coordinators in which each team that advances from the district competition will participate in two trials, one as plaintiff/prosecution, and one as the defense. The regional winners (teams that have won BOTH trials) advance to the state competition. State Competition: Rounds of competition take place in Columbus, in which the teams that won BOTH regional trials compete with teams from across the state. Teams are guaranteed one trial and teams that win their trial advance until two teams remain to compete in the Championship Round. Simplified Ohio Rules of Evidence: Rules regarding the admission and exclusion of evidence. Team: A group of 5-11 students from a school that are called upon to present both the prosecution/plaintiff and defense sides of the Mock Trial case using students as attorneys, witnesses and bailiff/timekeeper.



Judging and Scoring Guidelines A. Every effort will be made to provide each trial with a three judge panel but in some instances a trial will have to move forward with only two judges. If this scenario occurs and the two judges tie on which team won the trial, the judges will then add up each team’s total points. If a tie still persists the scoring judge’s decision will be the determining score. The judicial panel will hear the trial as a “bench trial.” This is not a jury trial and students should address the Court and not a jury. One judge will serve as the presiding judge and will control the courtroom and rule on motions and objections. The other judges will serve as scoring judges and evaluate the team and individual performances.. All attempts will be made not to have the same judicial panel assigned to judge the same team more than one time. All judges will receive a bench brief, competition rules and scoring procedures. If judicial robes are available, judicial panelists are asked to wear the robe during competition. Only the presiding judge is to speak during a trial. The presiding judge’s comments are limited to ruling on objections and do not include questioning witnesses or counsel. The trial will be judged based on individual and team performance, not the merits of the case. Attorney and witness awards will be based on the scoring judges’ points added together and are not to be considered as “consolation” prizes.

B. C. D. E. F.

Scoring Process 1. Each judge will evaluate each team member on a scale of 1-6. The team will be scored on a 2-12 point scale for its overall performance. a. At the district, regional and state trials, each scoring judge will score individual and team performances on a 1-6 point scale (must use whole numbers) and add the points at the end of the trial to determine which team each judge thinks has won the trial. A judge CANNOT have a tie between the two teams. If both scoring judges agree on the winner, that team will advance. If the scoring judges are split, the presiding judge will decide which team wins. The presiding judge will complete the tie-breaking ballot before joining the scoring judges in deliberations. b. All teams who win both of their trials, determined by receiving two ballots per trial, will advance in competition from districts to regionals and regionals to states. c. At the state competition, teams will be eliminated after they lose a trial, though OCLRE retains the ability to allow each team to compete in two trials depending on the number of teams advancing to the state competition. Each scoring judge will score individual and team performances on a 1-6 point scale (must use whole numbers) and add the points at the end of the trial to determine which team each thinks has won the trial. A judge CANNOT have a tie between the two teams. If both judges agree on the winner, that team will advance. If the scoring judges are split, the presiding judge will decide which team wins and therefore advances. The presiding judge will mark the tie-breaking ballot before joining the scoring judges in deliberations.


SCORING JUDGE RUBRIC VII. Scoring Benchmarks A. Scoring Judge Rubric 1. Attorney Performance Indicators:  Advocacy skills: creative, organized and convincing presentation  Understanding of legal issues: ability to apply law and facts to case  Oratorical skills: poised, able to think on feet, extemporaneous delivery  Demeanor/Professionalism  Mastery of trial technique: effective use of objections, appropriate form of questioning, ability to recognize and rehabilitate own weaknesses, mitigate opponent’s good points Witness Performance Indicators:  Knowledge of case facts and theory of team’s case  Observant of courtroom decorum  Believability of characterization and convincing in testimony  Effective on cross examination  Articulate and responsive Points Performance 6 Evaluation Criteria Exhibits mastery of all procedural and substantive elements Proficient in most procedural and substantive elements. Significantly advances team effort Moderately comfortable with procedural and substantive elements of the trial. Helps team on the whole Lacks polish. Imprecise use of procedural and substantive trial elements Does not advance team effort. Minimal comprehension of procedural and substantive elements NO evidence of procedural and substantive elements




Very Good











Team Effort Indicators:  Did the team establish a credible theme for its argument?  Did the team select appropriate witnesses to prove the argument?  Was witness examination organized?  Did witness examination develop the argument?  Was the team’s case carefully crafted and skillfully delivered? a. A team will be penalized one point for each of the following:  Egregious invention of fact on direct or indirect examination  Consistently abusing time limits  Communication during trial between team members and their teacher, legal advisor, or any observer  Timekeeper error  Failure to use witnesses as prescribed  Failure to use attorneys as prescribed  Incivility b. If the panel finds a material violation of a rule, it may impose one or both of the following sanctions: an admonition in open court to the individuals and the team involved, and/or a deduction of ten points from the team’s total score.


PART TWO PROCEDURAL RULES OF MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION I. Trial Rules and Procedures A. Preparation The case and competitions sections of the Ohio Mock Trial notebook contain all materials necessary to participate in the competition. Students may cite only the materials provided in witness statements and legal briefs and introduce only those documents included in the case portions of the notebook. For purposes of the mock trial, all documentary facts are stipulated as admissible evidence so they need not be formally introduced in court. Supplemental materials are also provided, separately from the notebook, to help teachers teach the case and explain the legal issues and procedures involved. These materials may not be introduced into the trial; they are for educational purposes only. If a legal citation is referred to in the case, it may be utilized in development of the legal theory and cited. However, only facts and information given about that citation in the case materials may be communicated to the court. For example, if the Defendant’s brief states, “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a person from uninvited governmental intrusions when that person has a legitimate expectation of privacy that society is willing to recognize as reasonable. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987),” and the case law provided in Mock Trial Case materials includes Katz but not O’Connor, then teams may use the full Katz case. However, they may not use any part of O’Connor which is not quoted or summarized by the case materials. It is the responsibility of the mock trial team to present and advocate the law and facts of the case to the judges. As in real life, the mock trial team should not assume judges know the facts of the case. Time Limits 1. A trial is scheduled for two hours including all activities beginning with the pretrial conference and ending with the closing of court. The presiding judge will enforce the time limit and may, at his/her discretion, grant a time extension in the interest of fairness. 2. Each team must supply a student timekeeper. However, the team playing the Prosecution side will supply the Official Timekeeper. Both teams may flash the cards in such a way that all participants can see them. 3. Timing begins after the introductions of the team. When the attorney begins his/her Opening Statement, start the clock. 1. If the Official Timekeeper makes a mistake that affects either team's time, the presiding judge will rule before the trial continues. A penalty may be deducted during deliberations, at the presiding judge's discretion. Any penalty that may be imposed pursuant to this provision shall not limit the ability of the judging panel to take any other actions that may be appropriate to remedy injury to either team resulting from the Official Timekeeper's mistake. 5. The time clock will stop for objections and responses.




The timekeeper will guide the judges comments by showing a 1:00 minute card and a stop card 11 minutes and 12 minutes into the judges comments.


Courtroom Setting 1. Plaintiff/Prosecution’s counsel on the right (facing bench). 2. Defendant’s counsel on the left (facing bench). 3. Witnesses behind counsel tables. 4. Judges on the bench (or, if necessary, in the jury box). 5. Bailiff in front of the bench. 6. The Timekeepers (unless also acting as bailiff) and video camera person in the jury box, if possible. 7. Teachers and legal advisors behind the teams. Conduct During Trial and Trial Sequence 1. The presiding judge controls the courtroom. He/she may ask anyone to leave, if necessary. While teams are encouraged to videotape the trials, the presiding judge may decide not to allow it or may stop the videotaping if it disrupts the trial. 2. During the actual trial, performing team members involved in that particular trial may communicate among themselves. However, they may not communicate in any way; i.e., may not talk to, signal, coach, or otherwise communicate with, teachers, legal advisors or any other observers. This restriction includes breaks during the trial. 3. Attorneys may speak from a lectern in the center of the courtroom, if one is available. Lecterns or other furnishings may not be moved into or out of any courtroom. At the discretion of the presiding judge, attorneys may walk about the courtroom. The preference of the presiding judge should be raised and determined at the pre-trial conference. Plaintiff’s side is responsible for returning lectern and chairs to original position inside the courtroom following the trial. 4. No furnishing/equipment may be moved into the courtroom. Not all courtrooms are equipped with the same furnishings; therefore, blackboards and other visual aids may not be used. The rule on exhibits prevails. 5. The trial, including judges’ comments, should not last longer than two hours. 6. Preparing Ballots for Pretrial Conference Prior to the pre-trial conference, both teams complete the ballots for the round. This requires the teams to disclose which witnesses they will be calling. Teams must also disclose which segment of the trial each attorney will perform. All information will be recorded in the (2) two scoring ballots and the presiding ballot. These completed ballots and roster will be given to the judicial panel at the pre-trial.



Pretrial Conference (10 minutes) Student attorneys will participate in a pretrial conference with their judicial panelists. Teachers, legal advisors and/or designated adult supervisors are


encouraged to attend. This brief orientation will include a discussion of competition rules and any questions raised by the participants. No pre-trial motions will be entertained during the pre-trial conference. Pretrial Conference may occur at the judge’s bench or in a separate room at the judge’s discretion. Completed ballots will be given to the judicial panel at the pre-trial. The Official Timekeeper will be identified and all time cards approved by the presiding judge. 8. Opening the Court When the judicial panelists enter the courtroom, the bailiff opens the court by saying: “All rise. Hear ye, hear ye, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Ohio [or whatever the name of the court may be], Mock City, Ohio [or whatever town in which the court is located] is open pursuant to adjournment. All having business before this honorable court draw near, give attention, and you shall be heard. You may be seated.” Opening Statements (4 minutes maximum per statement) The presiding judge should ask counsel for the Plaintiff/Prosecution if they wish to make an opening statement. Plaintiff/Prosecution counsel should introduce themselves and their team members and the roles they are playing and then present the opening statement. The same procedure is used with defendant’s counsel. The timekeeper will stop, then reset, the stopwatch to zero after opening statements. Swearing in Witnesses a. The bailiff swears in with: “Will all witnesses and parties who are to give testimony in these proceedings please step to the front?” b. Then the bailiff holds up his/her right hand and says: “Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and your testimony will comply with the Rules of the Ohio Mock Trial Competition?” c. Witnesses answer and sit down. They will remain in the courtroom during the trial. d. No motion for separation of witnesses will be entertained. Testimony of Witnesses (Direct/redirect 20 minutes; Cross/recross 18 minutes) a. Counsel for the Plaintiff/Prosecution and Defense will each call two witnesses. b. Counsel for the Plaintiff/Prosecution will present his/her case first. The presiding judge will ask counsel for Plaintiff/Prosecution to call his/her first witness. The witness will then testify in the following examination sequence: Direct Cross Redirect





c. d.



g. 12.

Recross When the Plaintiff/Prosecution’s counsel calls the second witness, the witness will be called to the stand and the procedure repeated. The presiding judge will then ask counsel for Defense to call his/her first witness. Defense follows the same procedure as the Plaintiff/Prosecution. Witnesses are bound by their written statements, including affidavits and deposition summaries. If there is inconsistency or ambiguity between the case narrative and witness statement, the witness is to rely upon the information contained in his/her statement. Fair extrapolations are permitted if they are (i) consistent with the facts contained in the case materials and (ii) do not materially affect the witness’ testimony. If a witness invents an answer that is likely to affect the outcome of the trial, the opposition may object. Teams that intentionally and frequently stray outside the case materials may be penalized. If an attorney who is cross-examining a witness asks a question, the answer to which is not included in the witness’ written statement or deposition, the witness is free to “create” an answer as long as it is not contrary to the statement. If the answer is contrary to the statement, the cross-examination attorney may impeach the witness. Witnesses stipulated as experts may not have their qualifications challenged or impeached.

Exhibits: Only exhibits that are part of the case materials may be used as visual aids. If used, 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. The trial proceedings are governed by the Simplified Ohio Rules of Evidence found in this casebook. Closing Arguments (5 minutes maximum each, with an additional 2 minutes Plaintiff/Prosecution rebuttal) The presiding judge will allow attorneys two minutes (no longer) before closing arguments to incorporate results from cross or to collect their thoughts. During this time the timekeeper will stop both stopwatches and reset to zero. No one shall leave the courtroom and all rules on communication during the trial prevail. The presiding judge will ask Plaintiff/Prosecution’s and Defendant’s counsel if they are ready to present his/her closing arguments. Counsel for the Plaintiff/Prosecution will present his/her closing argument first, followed by Defense’s closing argument. Counsel for the Plaintiff/Prosecution has the option of a two minute rebuttal after Defense’s closing argument. These two minutes do not have to be requested in advance. The optional rebuttal is limited to the scope of the Defense’s closing argument. Objections During the Trial In addition to evidentiary objections, objections may be made during the trial by an attorney who believes that any rule set forth in the Competition




Instructions has been violated. For example, if an exhibit is mounted or modified, the other team’s attorney may state an objection. Similarly, if an attorney observes what appears to be communication between a team and their teacher during trial, the attorney may state an objection. In making these objections, the procedure set forth for stating evidentiary objections (Simplified Ohio Rules of Evidence and Common Objections) should be followed. As with evidentiary objections, the objection must be made at the time of the claimed violation, and the attorneys knew or should have known of the violation. The presiding judge may make rulings as appear appropriate, including prohibiting use of an exhibit that has been modified, requiring compliance with the rule, admonishing individuals or teams, deducting penalty points from the team’s score (such as deductions to be done only by the entire panel during post-trial deliberations;), etc. All judges will not interpret the rules and guidelines the same way. The judge’s decision, however, is final, and no appeals procedure is available. The clock stops for objections and judge’s ruling. 15. Post-Trial Objections After closing arguments are completed, and after the scoring judges have been excused to begin deliberation in chambers, the presiding judge will ask, “Does either team have serious reason to believe that a material violation of any rule has occurred during this trial? I will remain on the bench for three minutes, during which time any protest or objection may be brought to my attention by a team attorney. The team attorneys may communicate with all student team members involved in this particular trial but may not communicate in any way with legal advisors, teachers, or anyone outside their performing team members.” a. Motions for directed verdict or dismissal of the case are not permitted. b. Objections that could have been raised during the trial, including evidentiary objections, may not be raised at this time. If no objection is made within three minutes, the presiding judge will mark his/her tie breaking ballot and then retire to assist with deliberations. If there is an objection, one of the attorneys for the team will stand and state the objection and the ground for objection. The judge may conduct an inquiry in the manner he/she deems appropriate; the judge in his/her discretion may solicit a response and/or inquire further into the facts. The presiding judge does not announce a finding but retires to assist with deliberations. The presiding judge then consults with the scoring judges and may consult with a member of the OCLRE staff. If the panel finds a material violation of a rule, it may impose one or both of the following sanctions: an admonition in open court to the individuals and the team involved, and/or a deduction of ten (10) points from the team’s score by the entire judging panel. [If a gross rules violation is found that appears to merit a ten-point deduction, the Competition Committee should be consulted, and that Committee may assess penalties greater than ten points, including disqualification]. All objections must be made before the presiding judge retires to deliberate; after that, complaints may be made


only in writing after the competition using the complaint form* and such complaints will not alter the decisions of the judicial panel. 16. Deliberation Judicial panelists retire to chambers to discuss their decisions and remarks to the teams. Panelists also determine the recipients of the outstanding witness and outstanding attorney awards. The Official Trial Scoresheet will be completed immediately after each trial and returned to the competition coordinator. Judges may not hang on to scoresheets between trials. Conclusion of Trial The bailiff calls court back in session with: “All rise. Court is now back in session.” After the judges are seated, the bailiff says: “You may be seated.” Debriefing and Announcement of Outstanding Witness and Attorney The presiding judge will provide debriefing comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each team’s performance. The debrief should be precise, and last no more than 12 minutes. The timekeeper will give the judge a one minute warning and then a “stop.” a. Any penalties assessed on a team will be announced. b. The scoring judges will announce the outstanding witness and attorney awards, discuss the highlights of their performances, and present their certificates. c. The winning team and scoring information will not be announced. Results will be announced and posted by the Competition Coordinator at the end of the district and regional competition and at the conclusion of appropriate rounds of state competition. The Official Score Sheet may be posted by the district/regional coordinator at the end of the competition and individual team score sheets will be mailed/e-mailed by OCLRE within two weeks of competition. d. Decisions of the judicial panel are final. Fill out an Official Competition Complaint Form and send it to OCLRE. The staff will investigate and answer the complaint. 19. Closing of Court a. The presiding judge will recognize and thank the teachers, legal advisors, students, and families for their support and will turn the court back to the bailiff. b. The bailiff closes the official proceeding with: “All rise. The honorable court is hereby adjourned.” c. The plaintiff team is responsible for leaving the courtroom in the same condition as it was found. Both teams are responsible for taking their own papers and notebooks out and disposing of them properly.


18. Awards


Please refer to the Competition Forms section of this casebook.



Condensed Trial Sequence and Time Guidelines (Running Clock):

Part of Trial Pre-trial conference Opening Statement – Plaintiff Opening Statement – Defense Direct and Redirect (2 witnesses) Cross and Recross (2 witnesses) Direct and Redirect (2 witnesses) Cross and Recross (2 witnesses) Intermission to gather thoughts Closing Statement – Plaintiff Closing Statement - Defense Rebuttal – Plaintiff only (optional) Subtotal Comments TOTAL

Minutes 10 4 4 20 18 20 18 2 5 5 2 108 12 120 = 2 HOURS


PART THREE SIMPLIFIED OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Rules Unique to Mock Trial I. Invention of Facts and Extrapolation (special rules for the Ohio Mock Trial Competition) The object of these rules is to prevent a team from “creating” facts not in the material to gain an unfair advantage over the opposing team. Invention of Facts - Direct Examination. On direct examination the witness is limited to the facts given their written statement. If the witness goes beyond the facts given (adds new facts or speculates about facts), the testimony may be objected to by the opposing counsel as speculation or as invention of facts outside the case materials. If a witness testifies in contradiction of a fact given in the witness statement, opposing counsel should impeach the witness’ testimony during cross-examination. (See also, Competition Instructions, “Testimony of Witnesses—Guidelines.”) Invention of Facts - Cross-Examination. If on cross-examination a witness is asked a question, the answer to which is not contained in the facts given in the witness statement, the witness may respond with any answer, so long as it is responsive to the question, does not contain unnecessary elaboration beyond the scope of the witness statement, and does not contradict the witness statement. An answer which is unresponsive or unnecessarily elaborate may be objected to by the cross-examining attorney. An answer which is contrary to the witness statement may be impeached by the cross-examining attorney. (See also, Competition Instructions, “Testimony of Witnesses—Guidelines”). II. Scope of Examinations Scope of Direct Examination Attorney questions witness S/he has called to stand. On direct examination an attorney may inquire as to any relevant facts of which the witness has first-hand, personal knowledge. Scope of Cross Examination The scope of cross-examination shall not be limited to the scope of the direct examination, but may inquire into any relevant facts or matters contained in the witness’ statement, including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts and matters, and may inquire into any omissions from the witness statement that are otherwise material and admissible. Redirect Examination After cross examination, additional questions may be asked by the direct examining attorney, but such questions are limited to matters raised by the opposing attorney on cross-examination. Just as on direct examination, leading questions are not permitted on redirect. Comment: If the credibility or reputation for truthfulness of the witness has been attacked successfully on cross-examination, the attorney whose witness has been damaged may wish to ask questions to “rehabilitate” the witness (save the witness’ truth-telling image). Redirect examination may also be used to strengthen a positive fact that was weakened by the cross-examination. Redirect examination is not required. A good rule to follow is: if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.


Examples: 1. Cross-examination of physician called by Plaintiff/Prosecution in murder case:
Attorney: Witness: Witness: Doctor, you testified on direct that the defendant died of arsenic poisoning, correct? Yes. Attorney: Isn’t it true that you have a deposition in which you testified that you did not know the cause of death? Yes, that’s true. Doctor, why did you testify in your deposition that you did not know the defendant’s cause of death? I had not yet received all of the test results which allowed me to conclude the defendant died of arsenic poisoning. Doctor, isn’t it true the result of test X points away from a finding of arsenic poisoning? Yes.

Attorney: Witness: 2.

Attorney: Witness:

Doctor, Why did you conclude that the defendant died of arsenic poisoning even though test X pointed away from arsenic poisoning? Witness: Because all of the other test results so overwhelmingly pointed toward arsenic poisoning, and because test X isn’t always reliable. Neither one of these redirect examinations should have been conducted unless the attorney had a good idea of what the witness’ response would be. As a general rule, it is not advisable to ask a question if you don’t know what the answer will be. Attorney:


Re-cross Examination After redirect, additional questions may be asked by the cross examining attorney, but such questions are limited to matters raised on redirect examination. Re-cross is not mandatory and should not be used to simply repeat points that have already been made.

Assume the cross-examination in the example above has occurred. A good re-cross-examination would be the following: Attorney: Doctor, isn’t it true that when you gave your deposition you had received all of the test results except the result of test X? Witness: Yes, that’s true. Comment: The cross-examining attorney would then argue in the closing argument that the doctor testified in his deposition that he did not know the cause of death at that time and the only test result received after the deposition pointed away from arsenic poisoning.


III. Hostile Witness Rule- Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation (Subsection C applies in this case but the entire rule is provided). 1. Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. 2. Scope of cross-examination. Cross-examination shall be permitted on all relevant matters and matters affecting credibility. 3. Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. 4. When is a witness hostile? “Where a witness is an unwilling one, hostile to the party calling him, or stands in such a situation as to make him necessarily adverse to such party, his examination in chief may be allowed to assume something of the form of cross-examination, at least to the extent of allowing leading questions to be put to him.” 44 OH Jurisprudence 3d 241, “hostile witness” §. 869 The issue is whether the witness’ hostile attitude toward the party calling him/her is likely to make the witness reluctant to volunteer facts helpful to that party. Hostility may be demonstrated by the witness’ demeanor in the courtroom, by other facts and circumstances, or by a combination thereof. Whether a witness is hostile is confided to the sound discretion of the trial judge.


Article I. GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE 101. Scope of Rules: Applicability; Privileges; Exceptions Applicability. These rules govern proceedings in the Ohio Mock Trial Program and are the only basis for objections in the Ohio Mock Trial Program  No directed verdict or dismissal motion may be entertained. Article IV. RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS RULE 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence" "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. RULE 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. RULE 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Undue Delay (A) Exclusion mandatory. Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury. (B) Exclusion discretionary. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. RULE 404. Character Character evidence generally Evidence of a person's character, other than his/her character for truthfulness, may not be introduced. Evidence about the character of a party for truthfulness or untruthfulness is only admissible if the party testifies. Article VI. WITNESSES RULE 601. General Rule of Competency Every person is competent to be a witness. RULE 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness himself. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses. RULE 607. Who May Impeach (A) Who may impeach. The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party except that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by the party calling the witness by means of a prior inconsistent statement only upon a showing of surprise and affirmative damage. This exception does not apply to statements admitted pursuant to Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(A), 801(D)(2), or 803.


RULE 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness Opinion and reputation evidence of character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise. RULE 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation (A) Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. (B) Scope of cross-examination. For Ohio Mock Trial Rules, see Simplified Ohio Rules of Evidence (Section II). (C) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness. Leading questions are permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness interrogation may be by leading questions. RULE 612. Writing Used to Refresh Memory If a witness uses a writing to refresh his memory while testifying an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing. He is also entitled to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. RULE 616. Bias of Witness In addition to other methods, a witness may be impeached by any of the following methods: (A) Bias. Bias, prejudice, interest, or any motive to misrepresent may be shown to impeach the witness either by examination of the witness or by extrinsic evidence. (B) Sensory or mental defect. A defect of capacity, ability, or opportunity to observe, remember, or relate may be shown to impeach the witness either by examination of the witness or by extrinsic evidence. (C) Specific contradiction. Facts contradicting a witness's testimony may be shown for the purpose of impeaching the witness's testimony. Article VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY RULE 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. RULE 702. Testimony by Experts A witness may testify as an expert if: (1) The witness is qualified as an expert by specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the subject matter of the testimony; and (2) The witness' testimony is based on reliable scientific, technical, or other specialized information. RULE 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by him or admitted in evidence at the hearing. RULE 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable solely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.


RULE 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his reasons therefore after disclosure of the underlying facts or data. The disclosure may be in response to a hypothetical question or otherwise. Article VIII. HEARSAY RULE 801. Definitions The following definitions apply under this article: (A) Statement. A "statement" is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him as an assertion. (B) Declarant. A "declarant" is a person who makes a statement. (C) Hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (D) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if: (1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at trial or hearing and is subject to crossexamination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with his testimony, and was given under oath subject to cross-examination by the party against whom the statement is offered and subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (b) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (c) one of identification of a person soon after perceiving him, if the circumstances demonstrate the reliability of the prior identification. (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (a) his own statement, in either his individual or a representative capacity, or (b) a statement of which he has manifested his adoption or belief in its truth, or (c) a statement by a person authorized by him to make a statement concerning the subject, or (d) a statement by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (e) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy upon independent proof of the conspiracy. RULE 802. Hearsay Rule Testimony which is hearsay is inadmissible. RULE 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (1) Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter unless circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. (2) Excited utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. (3) Then existing, mental, emotional, or physical condition. A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will. (4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. (6) Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, or conditions, made at or near the time by, or from


information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by testimony. RULE 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable (A) Definition of unavailability. "Unavailability as a witness" includes any of the following situations in which the declarant: (4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then-existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; (B) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: (2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant, while believing that his or her death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be his or her impending death. (3) Statement against interest. A statement that was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless the declarant believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability, whether offered to exculpate or inculpate the accused, is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the truthworthiness of the statement. RULE 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules. Article IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION RULE 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification (A)General provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.



I. Procedure for Objections A. An attorney may object if he/she believes that the opposing attorney is attempting to introduce improper evidence or is violating the simplified rules of evidence. The attorney wishing to object should stand up and object at the time of the claimed violation. The attorney should state the reason for the objection. It is not necessary to cite by rule number the specific rule of evidence that has been violated. (Note: Only the attorney who questions a witness may object to the questions posed to that witness by opposing counsel.) The attorney who asked the question may then make a statement about why the question is proper. The judge will then decide whether a question or answer must be discarded because it has violated a simplified rule of evidence (objection sustained), or whether to allow the question or answer to remain in the trial record (objection overruled). Objections should be made as soon as possible; however, an attorney is allowed to finish his/her question before an objection is made. Any objection that is not made at the time of the claimed violation is waived. When an objection has been sustained, the attorney that asked the question may attempt to rephrase that question. Judges may make rulings that seem wrong to you. Also, different judges may rule differently on the same objection. Always accept the judge’s ruling graciously and courteously. Do not argue the point further after a ruling has been made.

II. Examples of Common Objections The following are examples of common objections. This is not a complete list. Any objection properly based on the simplified Ohio rules of evidence is permitted: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Irrelevant evidence: "Objection. This testimony is irrelevant." Irrelevant evidence that should be excluded: "Objection. This is unfairly prejudicial (or
a waste of time) and should be excluded because…" Leading question: "Objection. Counsel is leading the witness." (Remember, leading is only objectionable if done on direct or redirect examination). Narrative Answer: "Objection, this witness's answer is narrative" Commonly used on direct examination when a witness's answer has gone beyond the scope of the initial question Non-responsive Answer: "The witness is nonresponsive, your honor. I ask that this answer be stricken from the record." The witness's answer does not answer the question being asked. Commonly used by the cross examining attorney during cross examination.

Attorney: Isn’t it true that you hit student B? Witness: Student B hit me first. He/she was asking for it, acting like a jerk and humiliating me in front of all my friends. Attorney: Your Honor, I move to strike the witness’ answer as nonresponsive and ask the he/she be instructed to answer the question asked. (Another option is to impeach the witness with prior testimony if he/she testified in his his/her deposition that he/she hit student B.) 6. Beyond the scope of cross or redirect: "Objection. Counsel is asking the witness about matters


7. 8.


that were not raised during the cross or redirect examination." mproper character testimony: "Objection. This is testimony about character that does not relate to truthfulness or untruthfulness." Improper opinion: "Objection. Counsel is asking the witness to give an expert opinion, and this witness has not been qualified as an expert." OR "Objection. Counsel’s question calls for an opinion which would not be helpful to understanding the witness’ testimony (or which is not rationally based upon what the witness perceived.)" Invention of facts: "Your Honor, we object on the basis that opposing counsel’s question seeks evidence that is outside the record in this case. Witness X has never given testimony in this case concerning…" If the witness gives testimony on direct that is beyond the scope of materials, the cross-examining attorney should say "move to strike the testimony concerning…as beyond the scope of the case materials."

If witness X did not personally see arsenic in the medicine cabinet of the decedent’s wife, he cannot testify that she had arsenic in her medicine cabinet. Lack of personal knowledge: “Objection.” The witness has no personal knowledge that would allow her to answer this question. Speculation: "Objection. The witness is speculating/this question calls for speculation." A hybrid between lack of personal knowledge and improper opinion. Hearsay: "Objection. Counsel’s question calls for hearsay." If a hearsay response could not be anticipated from the question, or if a hearsay response is given before the attorney has a chance to object, the attorney should say, "I ask that the witness’ answer be stricken from the record on the basis of hearsay."

10. 11. 12.

Witness X testifies that “Mrs. Smith said that the decedent’s wife had a bottle of arsenic in her medicine cabinet.” This testimony is inadmissible if offered to prove that the decedent’s wife had a bottle of arsenic in her medicine cabinet, since it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the out-of-court statement by Mrs. Smith. If, however, the testimony is offered to prove that Mrs. Smith can speak English, then the testimony is not hearsay because it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the out-of-court statement. However, the testimony is only admissible if Mrs. Smith’s ability to speak English is relevant to the case.

Why should the complicated and confusing condition be added that the out-of-court statement is only hearsay when “offered for the truth of the matter asserted? The answer is that hearsay is considered untrustworthy because the speaker of the out-of-court statement has not been placed under oath and cannot be cross-examined concerning his/her credibility. In the previous example, Mrs. Smith cannot be cross-examined concerning her statement that the decedent’s wife had a bottle of arsenic in her medicine cabinet, since witness X, and not Mrs. Smith has been called to give this testimony. However, witness X has been placed under oath and can be cross-examined about whether Mrs. Smith actually made this statement, thus demonstrating that she could speak English. When offered to prove that Mrs. Smith could speak English, witness X’s testimony about her out-of-court statement is not hearsay. Remember, there are responses to many of these objections that the examining attorney can make after the objection is raised and he or she is recognized by the judge to respond.


III. Other Trial Procedures Direct Examination - Form of Questions. Witnesses should be asked neutral questions and may not be asked leading questions on direct examination. Neutral questions are open-ended questions that do not suggest the answer and that usually invite the witness to give a narrative response. A leading question is one that suggests to the witness the answer desired by the examining attorney and often suggests a “yes” or “no” answer.

Examples: 1. Proper direct examination questions:
a. b. 2. a. b. A. What did you see? What happened next? Isn’t it true that you saw the defendant run into the alley? After you saw the defendant run into the alley, you called the police, didn’t you?

Leading questions (not permitted on direct):

Cross Examination - Form of Questions An attorney should usually, if not always, ask leading questions when crossexamining the opponent’s witness. Open-ended questions tend to evoke a narrative answer, such as “why” or “explain”, and should be avoided. (Leading questions are not permitted on direct examination because it is thought to be unfair for an attorney to suggest answers to a witness whose testimony is already considered to favor that attorney’s side of the case. Leading questions are encouraged on cross-examination because witnesses called by the opposing side may be reluctant to admit facts that favor the cross-examining attorney’s side of the case.) However, it is not a violation of this rule to ask a non-leading question on cross-examination.

Examples: 1. Good leading cross-examination question:
Isn’t it true that it was almost completely dark outside when you say you saw the defendant run into the alley? (This is a good question where the witness’ statement says it was “almost completely dark,” but a potentially dangerous question when the statement says it was “getting pretty dark out.” 2.

Poor cross-examination question:
How dark was it when you saw the defendant run into the alley? (the witness could answer, “It wasn’t completely dark. I could see him.”)


Opinion Testimony by Non-Experts For mock trial purposes, most witnesses are non-experts. If a witness is a nonexpert, the witness’ testimony in the form of opinions is limited to opinions that are rationally based on what the witness saw or heard and that are helpful in explaining the witness’ testimony. Non-experts (lay witnesses) are considered qualified to reach certain types of conclusions or opinions about matters which do not require experience or knowledge beyond that of the average lay person. Note, however, that the opinion must be rationally based on what the witness saw or heard and must be helpful in understanding the witness’ testimony.


1. Witness X, a non-expert, may testify that the defendant appeared under the influence of alcohol. However, it must be shown that this opinion is rationally based on witness X’s observations by bringing out the facts underlying the opinion, e.g., the defendant was stumbling; his breath smelled of alcohol; his speech was slurred. If witness X thinks the defendant was under the influence because he had a strange look in his eye, then the opinion should not be permitted because it is not sufficiently rational and has potential for undue prejudice. Witness X, a non-expert, may not testify that in his opinion the decedent died of arsenic poisoning, since this is not a matter that is within the general knowledge of any lay persons. Only an expert, such as a forensic pathologist, is qualified to render such an opinion.



Opinion Testimony by Experts Only persons who are shown to be experts at trial may give opinions on questions that require special knowledge beyond that of ordinary lay persons. An expert must be qualified by the attorney for the party for whom the expert is testifying. This means that before the expert witness can be asked for an expert opinion, the questioning attorney must bring out the expert’s qualifications and experience. This is usually accomplished by asking the expert himself/herself about his/her background, training and experience.

Attorney: Doctor, please tell the jurors about your educational background. Witness: I attended Harvard College and Harvard Medical School. Attorney: Do you practice in any particular area of medicine? Witness: I am board-certified forensic pathologist. I have been a forensic pathologist for 28 years. D. Refreshing Recollection (Rule 612) If a witness is unable to recall information in his/her witness statement or contradicts the witness statement, the attorney calling the witness may use the witness statement to help the witness remember. Example: Witness cannot recall what happened after the defendant ran into the alley or contradicts witness statement on this point: 1. Mr./ Mrs. Witness, do you recall giving a deposition in this case? 2. Your Honor may I approach the witness? (Permission is granted.) I’d like to show you a portion of the summary of your deposition, and ask you to review the first two paragraphs on page three. 3. Having had an opportunity to review your statement, do you now recall what happened after the defendant ran into the alley? Impeachment (Rule 607) On cross-examination, the cross-examining attorney may impeach the witness. Impeachment is a cross-examination technique used to demonstrate that the



witness should not be believed. Impeachment is accomplished by asking questions which demonstrate either (1) that the witness has now changed his/her story from statements or testimony given by the witness prior to the trial, or (2) that the witness’ trial testimony should not be believed because the witness is a dishonest and untruthful person. Impeachment differs from the refreshing recollection technique. Refreshing recollection is used during direct examination to steer a favorable, but forgetful, witness back into the beaten path. Impeachment is a cross-examination technique used to discredit a witness’ testimony.

Examples: 1. Impeachment with prior inconsistent statement:
Attorney: Witness: Attorney: Witness: Attorney: Witness: Attorney: Mr. Jones, you testified on direct that you saw the two cars before they actually collided, correct? Yes. You gave a deposition in this case a few months ago, correct? Yes. Before you gave that deposition you were sworn in by the bailiff to tell the truth, weren’t you? Yes. Mr. Jones, in your deposition, you testified that the first thing that drew your attention to the collision was when you heard a loud crash, isn’t that true? I don’t remember saying that. Your Honor, may I approach the witness? (Permission is granted.) Mr. Jones, I’m handing you the summary of your deposition and I’ll ask you to read along as I read the second full paragraph on page two, “I heard a loud crash and I looked over and saw that the two cars had just collided. This was the first time I actually saw the two cars.” Did I read that correctly? Yes. Thank you Mr. Jones. Student X, isn’t it true that last fall you were suspended from school for three days for cheating on a test. Yes.

Witness: Attorney:

Witness: Attorney: 2. Attorney: Witness: F.

Impeachment with prior dishonest conduct:

Introduction of Physical Evidence (Rule 901) Generally, physical evidence (objects) must be relevant and authentic (shown to be what they appear to be) in order to be admissible. Exhibits are generally presented to the court through witness testimony. Specifically, for mock trial purposes, all exhibits contained in the case materials have 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’ 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.

Attorney: Your honor, we have marked this one-page document as Plaintiff/Prosecution’s Exhibit 1 (or Defendant’s Exhibit A). Let the record reflect that I am showing Plaintiff/Prosecution’s Exhibit 1 (or Defendant’s Exhibit A) to opposing counsel. (Exhibit is shown to opposing counsel.) Your Honor, may I approach the witness? Judge: You may. Attorney: Witness X, I’m showing you what has been marked as Plaintiff/Prosecution’s Exhibit 1. Do you recognize that exhibit? Witness: Yes. Attorney: Could you explain to the Court what that is? Witness: It’s a map of the accident scene. (At this point, the attorney may ask the witness any additional relevant questions about the exhibit, and then give it to the judge.



Case Materials


Overview for Competition Judges

This year the Ohio Center for Law-Related Education presents the City of Strawberry Hills v. Chris Washington. This case is based on the government’s ability to take private property under the Fifth Amendment’s ―eminent domain‖ provision. Under that provision, state and local governments may take ownership and possession of private property with or without the consent of the property owner, if the government pays reasonable compensation in return. In this case, the City of Strawberry Hills wants to use its eminent domain power to acquire a house owned by Chris Washington. The City then wants to tear down the house and use the land not for a public project, but rather to permit a private developer to build a mixed-use development on the land as part of an urban ―revitalization‖ project. The home in which Chris Washington lives has been in Washington’s family since the 1930s and was built at the beginning of the 20 century. Washington’s house is well-maintained and meets all applicable housing codes. However, a number of houses in the neighborhood have deteriorated significantly, and three streets over from Washington’s home is a new development in which the original houses, having succumbed to significant blight and deterioration, have been torn down and replaced with small cluster homes or condominiums. The developer seeks to acquire Washington’s property, with the city’s help, as part of a larger revitalization project. This project would turn Washington’s rather self-contained neighborhood into a new, mixed use development. The new development would contain residential housing and a baseball stadium, which the developer hopes will attract a professional minor-league team. The developer contends that continued revitalization of the neighborhood where Washington lives is critical if the entire area is to be restored and be attractive to new owners. For more than a year, the developer has tried to get Washington to agree to sell the house, but Washington is not interested. After Washington refused the developer’s offers, the City of Strawberry Hills initiated condemnation proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas in order to obtain the property. The City did this first by declaring the property condemned and then by taking the property through eminent domain. Now before the Court is Defendant Chris Washington’s motion for injunctive relief, seeking a court order barring the Plaintiff City of Strawberry Hills from acquiring Washington’s property through eminent domain. The Court must determine whether the City can lawfully take the house through eminent domain and then turn the property over to a private developer.


The Court determines that a hearing on the Defendant’s motion is necessary so that the Court can attain a clear understanding of all relevant facts and legal arguments both for and against the City’s proposed taking of the property. In their factual presentations, the parties should be prepared to present evidence concerning the nature of the property at issue; the reasons for the proposed taking of the property; and the proposed new uses for the property. In their legal arguments, the parties should focus in on the differences, if any, between the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and the takings clause in the Ohio Constitution. The Court must then decide whether the City has a legal right to take the property or whether Chris Washington is entitled to an injunction, which would bar the City from proceeding with its efforts to take the land. The Plaintiff will argue that Chris Washington’s request to bar the City from taking his property should be denied. The City’s position will focus on these arguments: 1. The loss of commercial activity, such as entertainment venues and the public recreation center in the city, has led to increased unemployment rates and, as a result of economic distress, property values in the city have declined. 2. Both the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution allow private property to be taken for a ―public use‖ as long as just compensation is paid to the property owners. 3. The city council has determined through research that the City of Strawberry Hills will reap considerable economic benefits if the developer’s plan is implemented. Additionally, The Plaintiff will bring to Court two of the three following witnesses:

1. Sydney Carnegie, principal and owner of Carnegie & Associates, who has been selected by MacGuffin Enterprises to conduct an economic assessment of Strawberry Hills. Carnegie is prepared to testify that, through the use of phone surveys, research on the number of vacant structures, and the crime rate in the proposed revitalization area, rebuilding the area would create many jobs and bring in millions of dollars to the currently blighted area. 2. Jordan Taylor, an Assistant City Planner in Strawberry Hills, will testify that after growing up in Strawberry Hills he/she moved back after attending Cardinal College. Upon moving back to his/her hometown he/she discovered that this once vibrant community had become plagued by increasing unemployment rates. Additionally, Taylor has made contact with the owner of a minor league baseball team who is very interested in bringing his team to the newly rebuilt Strawberry Hills – complete with a new baseball


stadium. The stadium may even be named after Seamus ―Stop Sign‖ O’Toole – a local baseball legend.
3. E.B. Martin is President and CEO of MacGuffin Enterprises. This real estate development company has been in the business of revitalizing struggling communities for the last 50 years. Martin will testify that the economic assessment done by Carnegie & Associates and his/her proven success record in revitalizing other communities is proof enough that taking Chris Washington’s home is, in the long run, in the best interests of the community. The defense will argue that Chris Washington’s motion to keep his/her home should be granted. The defense’s position will focus on these arguments: 1. The City Council would take Washington’s home in order to give it to E.B. Martin for a private redevelopment plan– not for public use. This violates Ohio’s Constitution. 2. Chris Washington’s home is not only valuable to him/her as the place he/she has grown up and raised his/her child but is also the boyhood home of Seamus ―Stop Sign‖ O’Toole, a professional baseball player, which makes the home an historic landmark. 3. The area around Washington’s property qualifies as an ―authentic neighborhood‖, as defined by the Congress for the New Urbanism and deserves to be preserved as such. This means it has a discernible center, there are small shops within walking distance, and a mix of older dwellings as well as a park and schools.

The defense will bring to the Court two of the three following witnesses: 1. Chris Washington is the owner of the house and property located at 1316 West Olive Street. Washington will testify that not only is the home sentimental to him/her but it is also somewhat historic having been built in 1909 as a ―Sears house‖ and having been the boyhood home of the famous baseball player, Seamus ―Stop Sign‖ O’Toole. Furthermore, Washington will testify as to the character of E.B. Martin, describing him as a ―fast talker and slick salesman‖. 2. F.W. Saarinen, a well known and respected architect and urban planner, will testify on the subject of ―new urbanism‖ and the importance of keeping the current design of the neighborhood in tact - as a place to live and raise a family, and not a cookie-cutter subdivion. The area of Strawberry Hills around the Washington property can be described as a mixed-use neighborhood, which is pedestrian-friendly with commercial uses within a short distance of people’s homes. It is his/her expert opinion that the proposed development is not in the public interest, and does not justify the taking of private property.


3. Pat Garrett, a council person for the city of Strawberry Hills, will testify that Jordan Taylor, an Assistant Planner for Strawberry Hills, failed to disclose the fact that he/she partnered with E.B. Martin on a past project in Minnesota, which closely resembles the proposed project in Strawberry Hills. Garrett will explain that this project was barely completed, had serious cost overruns, and the promised tax revenue has never been realized. As a long time resident of Strawberry Hills, Pat Garrett has very serious concerns about the proposed advancement of the revitalization project. The exhibits in this trial include a biography of Seamus ―Stop Sign‖ O’Toole, a photo of Chris Washington’s house, and two maps depicting Strawberry Hills before the proposed revitalization project and after.




) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER


This case is before the Court on a motion for injunctive relief filed by Defendant Chris Washington. Washington seeks a court order barring the Plaintiff City of Strawberry Hills from acquiring Washington’s property through eminent domain. The Court concludes that a hearing on the Defendant’s motion is necessary so that the Court will have a clear understanding of all relevant factual information and the legal arguments concerning the city’s proposed taking of the property and the Defendant’s objections to that taking. In their factual presentations, the parties should be prepared to present evidence

concerning the nature of the property at issue, the reasons for the proposed taking of the property, and the proposed new uses for the property. In their legal arguments, the parties should focus in particular on the distinctions, if any, between the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and the takings clause of the Ohio Constitution. The Court must decide in this case whether the city has a legal right to take the property or whether instead the Defendant is entitled to an injunction barring the city from proceeding with its efforts to take the land. ________________________ JUDGE L. WHITEACRE




) ) ) ) ) ) )



STATEMENT OF THE CASE The city of Strawberry Hills has been plagued by deterioration and urban blight for more than two decades. Since the early 1980s, the city has experienced a significant loss of

manufacturing plants and other commercial businesses. The city council and community leaders have made numerous attempts over the years to attract new business and industry to the city. Although these leaders should be commended for their tremendous efforts to make Strawberry Hills a better community, their prior efforts to revitalize the city have been unsuccessful. The loss of commercial activity in the city has of course led to a critical loss of jobs for the city’s residents. Much of the significant manufacturing activity once performed in the city has moved out of state or to other countries. With no work available, residents have left the city in large numbers to search for jobs elsewhere. As a result of the economic distress, property values in the city have declined. Both single-family homes and apartment complexes have fallen into disrepair, and some have been completely abandoned. In wide swaths of the city, crime has increased, as have violations of city health and safety codes. In addition, because there is little new economic investment in the city, the public schools


and other public services are suffering. Needed repairs in the schools are left undone, police officers and firefighters must do without necessary safety equipment, and trash pickup in the city has been curtailed to save money. Strawberry Hills has also lost a number of entertainment venues, as well as its public recreation center. In short, the city will not survive without a sizeable influx of new capital and economic development. A new opportunity now beckons, and the city council and other community leaders have embraced it. The redevelopment plan approved by the city council will bring an orderly and comprehensive mixed-use development that will include residences and small businesses. Those businesses will bring new jobs, new tax revenues, and new residents to the city. The planned baseball park and professional minor league team also hold the promise of substantial revenue for the city and a fresh start for a neighborhood in decline. Without the ability to take private property, compensate the property owners, and allow the developers to use the property to carry out their comprehensive plans, however, Strawberry Hills is destined to slide further down the economic ladder as more jobs disappear and more of its residents slip into poverty. The city’s authority to use its power of eminent domain is crucial to the success of this one last hope for a dying community. Therefore, the City of Strawberry Hills respectfully requests that the Court uphold its power to take Washington’s home through eminent domain as requested in the city’s verified complaint and deny Washington’s motion for a permanent injunction to prevent that taking.

LAW AND ARGUMENT Both the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 19, of the Ohio Constitution support the proposed taking of property in this case. Both provisions allow private property to be taken for a ―public use,‖ as long as just compensation is paid to the property owners, as will occur if the taking is approved by this court.


The U.S. Supreme Court very recently found that ―public use‖ encompasses the kind of taking at issue in this case. See Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005). In Kelo, the city council in New London, Connecticut authorized a private nonprofit development company to purchase property or to acquire property by exercising the power of eminent domain in the city’s name. The property in question was not blighted or otherwise in poor condition, but the city had concluded that the developer’s plan for the property – which called for the building of a waterfront hotel, restaurants, retail and office space, along with new homes and marinas – would create jobs, generate tax revenue, and help to revitalize downtown New London. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Kelo, the Fifth Amendment’s provision allowing the taking of private property for ―public use‖ allows takings that will serve a ―public purpose,‖ and the Court has adhered for decades to a ―longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.‖ 125 S. Ct. at 2663. In Kelo, as in earlier Fifth Amendment cases, the Supreme Court voted ―in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.‖ Id. at 2664. Just as is true in the case now before this court, the city of New London in the Kelo case had determined that the properties in question were in need of economic rejuvenation and that the takings at issue would provide appreciable benefits to the community, including new jobs and increased tax revenue. ―Promoting economic development,‖ the Supreme Court explained, ―is a traditional and long accepted function of government,‖ and there is ―no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.‖ Id. at 2665-66. It is not the role of the courts to second-guess a city’s considered judgment about the soundness of its economic development plans, including its careful determination that certain lands are needed to carry out those plans. There is no sound reason for this court to interpret the words ―public use‖ in the Ohio Constitution any differently than those same words in the U.S. Constitution have been interpreted


by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the taking in the Kelo case was a ―public use,‖ then surely the very similar taking in this case is one as well. Ohio cases support this view. AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopm. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (showing great deference to a city council’s decision that property was needed for an urban redevelopment project). As the Supreme Court of Ohio explained more than 50 years ago, private property may be taken through the government’s eminent domain power when the ―public welfare‖ justifies the taking, and ―the power may be exercised even where there may be an incidental nonpublic use of the property.‖ State ex rel. Bruestle v. Rich, 159 Ohio St. 13, 26, 27 (1953). The city council in this case has decided that considerable economic benefits will inure to Strawberry Hills if the developer’s comprehensive development plan is implemented. That plan calls for certain lands to be taken and for the owners of the affected properties to be fully compensated for the value of their homes and businesses. Just as the U.S. Supreme Court approved the taking of private property in New London, Connecticut for an economic redevelopment project, this court should likewise permit city officials in Strawberry Hills to press forward with their plans to bring new jobs, additional tax revenues, and renewed optimism to a city that otherwise faces a bleak economic future. Both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions permit government officials to approve and implement the kind of economic revitalization plan that is at issue here, and this court should not stand in the way of the city officials who have concluded after careful consideration that the developer’s plans are vital to the public welfare of Strawberry Hills. Respectfully submitted,

_______________________ A. Goode Attorney 111 McKinley Ave. Strawberry Hills, Ohio 01010




) ) ) ) ) ) )



STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant Chris Washington was born and has lived in the same house for more than 75 years. That house was built in 1908, and it was the boyhood home of Seamus ―Stop Sign‖ O’Toole, a professional baseball player and local hero. Washington, who is widowed, resides in the house with fourteen beloved cats. Washington’s son was born in the house and lives nearby. Washington loves the authentic Sears home with its big sweeping porch, and sloping slate roof. In this neighborhood, the owners of the houses have lived together for generations and are proud that the grocery stores, schools, and churches are within walking distance. Many of the area families have lived in their homes for decades, have raised their families there, and have grown old there. The conditions of the homes in the neighborhood vary, but Washington’s home and yard are neat and well-maintained. The homes that Washington and other area residents treasure are now in jeopardy. The City of Strawberry Hills intends to evict Washington and others, tear down their houses, and hand their property over to a private business developer.


Washington does not want the money that the city has offered to pay for the home, and instead seeks only to stop the city’s use of its eminent domain powers. Washington simply wants to hold on to that most sacred and important of possessions: Washington’s own private property and the beloved home that sits there. Last year, E.B. Martin, a well known developer, announced plans to convert property in Washington’s neighborhood, including land occupied by Washington’s house, into a mixed-use development that would include new homes and small businesses. Those plans also called for construction of a baseball park that the developer hoped would attract a professional minorleague team. The city council in Strawberry Hills approved Martin’s plans and pledged to use the city’s eminent domain authority to acquire the land that Martin hopes to redevelop. Once the city takes the land from the current owners, the city will turn it over to the developer, and the existing homes will be demolished. Martin’s company is not a governmental agency, and Martin holds no public office in the city. Instead, the company is a private, for-profit corporation with a board of directors,

shareholders, and employees. The city has initiated this eminent domain action to determine the value of Washington’s home and to acquire it at that price. Washington in turn has filed a motion for injunctive relief to block the city’s efforts, arguing that the Ohio Constitution does not allow a city to take private property from one owner in order to give it to another. LAW AND ARGUMENT The government’s power to appropriate private property is limited. Under both the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and Article I, Section 19, of the Ohio Constitution, any governmental taking of property in this state must be done for a ―public use.‖ The proposed taking of defendant Washington’s property in this case does not satisfy that legal standard.


Although the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed government officials aligned with private developers to take non-blighted property for economic redevelopment projects, see Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005), the Ohio Constitution has been interpreted more broadly to provide greater protection to private property owners in this state. If the court permits Chris Washington’s home to be taken away under the banner of economic development when the city has not established that the home is in a blighted area, all private property in Ohio will likewise be vulnerable. Homeowners who have paid their taxes and maintained their properties should not be forced to give up their homes to powerful land developers, and no sensible reading of the Ohio Constitution should permit this unjust taking to occur. Article I, Section 19, of the Ohio Constitution provides that ―[p]rivate property shall ever be held inviolate‖ although it is ―subservient to the public welfare.‖ The provision adds that any exercise of the eminent domain power must be ―for a public use.‖ This court should not permit a taking of property in good condition where the property will be used not by the public or by the government itself but rather by a private entity. Any court decision allowing the proposed taking to occur will effectively delete the words ―for a public use‖ from the Ohio Constitution. To be sure, the proposed taking does not appear to violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. But as the U.S. Supreme Court explained in its recent decision in the Kelo case, the 50 states are permitted to place additional restrictions on the power of local governments to exercise eminent domain. See Kelo, 125 S. Ct. at 2668. Ohio should follow the lead of other states where the takings power has been limited. For instance, Alabama enacted a law in 2005 barring cities from using their eminent domain powers to promote private commercial or residential developments. See Ala. Code § 11-47-170. Ohio need not implement a statute restricting local eminent domain powers – as Alabama has done – because our own state constitution bars the kind of taking proposed in Strawberry Hills. Our constitution permits the state and local governments to take property ―for a public use.‖ Under that provision, then, the government may compel an individual to forfeit his or her


property for the public’s use, but not for the benefit of another private person. Under the proposal at issue, Chris Washington’s home and others will be taken not so that the city itself can use the land, but rather so that a private developer not accountable to the public can put the land to new and more profitable uses. Surely the Ohio Constitution imposes some limits on a city council’s authority to summarily conclude that this kind of taking is appropriate. Any contrary ruling threatens the bedrock principle that individual citizens are entitled to be secure from government interference in their own homes. Michigan’s state constitution – like ours – permits property to be taken only for public uses. See Art. 10, Section 2, of the Michigan Constitution. Interpreting that constitutional provision, the Michigan Supreme Court has rejected a taking like that proposed in this case, where a city sought to take private property so that a private developer could build a 1,300-acre business and technology center in an effort to reinvigorate the struggling economy of southeastern Michigan. See Wayne County v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 445 (2004). As Michigan’s highest court explained, ―a private entity’s pursuit of profit‖ is not a ―public use.‖ Id. at 481. This court should adopt a similar reading of our own state constitution. To be sure, the city will argue in the case before this court that deference to the city council’s judgment about the public benefits of the redevelopment project is warranted, and that courts should not question that judgment. Yet if local elected officials can ignore the ―public use‖ requirement in the Ohio Constitution that provision amounts to little more than meaningless fluff. Surely an external judicial check on how the ―public use‖ requirement is interpreted and applied is necessary if this constraint on government power is to retain any meaning. Unless this court steps in to stop the imminent eviction of Chris Washington and others from their homes, their well-maintained properties will be handed over to others solely because the city and a powerful developer believe that they can put the land to more profitable uses. That cannot be an outcome that the authors of the Ohio Constitution intended when they gave


government officials the limited power to take private property ―for a public use.‖ Respectfully submitted, Ima Fine Lawyer 222 Garfield St. Strawberry Hills, Ohio 01010


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

STATEMENT OF SYDNEY CARNEGIE Expert Witness - Plaintiff I am Sydney Carnegie. I’ve been told that I look a bit like my distant relative Andrew Carnegie, the great industrialist, and in his final years when he gave most of his money away to build the public library system, as the great philanthropist. That man was a real visionary. Even if we were not related, I feel a strong kinship with him. Like him, I believe in doing the work that needs to get done to maximize the community’s potential. While it is important to remember the community’s history, we cannot close our eyes to or sacrifice progress for the sake of preserving a dilapidated memory. My training is primarily in urban development. I did my undergraduate work at Buckeye State University (BSU) and majored in economics. In my junior year of college, I had the opportunity to attend the University of Chicago for a year in an exchange program. In my opinion, the University of Chicago is the greatest school of economics in the world. Economics is one of my passions. Unlike other exchange programs, this particular program takes five undergraduate students from each university; the students are selected based on their class ranking and advisors’ recommendations. The competition was intense, but I was lucky. It was a terrific opportunity for me, because my parents would have never been able to afford the tuition and other costs to send me to the University of Chicago. After graduating from BSU, I worked with a small real estate development firm in downtown Columbus, but I soon realized that my contributions to any city planning project were limited without an advanced degree. So I went on at BSU to earn a Master’s degree in public administration, with a special concentration in urban development and city planning.


26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

MacGuffin Enterprises was contemplating launching a multi-million dollar revitalization project so the company solicited bids to conduct an economic assessment of Strawberry Hills My firm, Carnegie & Associates, of which I am a principal, submitted a bid. I liked the idea of transforming Strawberry Hills from a dying community to a booming town. I met E.B. Martin of MacGuffin Enterprises two years ago in a multi-million estate auction. My associates and I were very impressed by his/her genuine character and interest of revitalizing struggling communities. I was most struck by the insight of one of E. B’s observations: ―What do we gain by preserving a little bit of history, usually just dull bit of forgettable history, when we suffocate progress and don’t let the community have the chance to build a new and promising future for itself.‖ This was quite a profound statement coming from a business person whose major motivation to invest in any community, one would think, should be driven by the bottom line. I could tell E. B. Martin really cares about the impact that the real estate development plans have on the entire community. While my firm’s bid apparently was not the lowest, MacGuffin Enterprises obviously recognized my firm’s talent and experience and awarded us the job. Carnegie & Associates undertook the economic assessment in several ways. My firm conducted a telephone survey of 500 adult residents in Strawberry Hills. Among the questions we asked was what kind of attitudes residents had about things like having a new sports team and stadium, a state of the art library, and more retailing choices in Strawberry Hills. In conversations with E. B., all of these items are part of MacGuffin Enterprise’s community revitalization plan as presented to City Council for its


49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

consideration. Overall, our survey demonstrates that the residents recognized the benefit of new commercial space. Another part of the economic assessment was to determine the ratio of vacant structures to occupied buildings. We determined that for every well-maintained, occupied building there are two vacant or nearly run-down structures. Each vacant or run-down property is not only evidence of the desperate need to infuse capital in the town; it also represents loss of income to Strawberry Hills, i.e., code violations and back taxes owed; to name a few. We also concluded that the area in question really does not fit the definition of an authentic neighborhood and is in a ―blighted‖ condition. For example, a number of the homes near the Washington property have been abandoned by the property owners and have been vacant for a significant period of time. These vacant structures have led to a significant increase in crime in the neighborhood, and no new development has been undertaken. According to police reports, robberies and thefts in this area have increased by 3% during the last two quarters. Local businesses have moved out, and no new business has entered the neighborhood. The deterioration in the community’s safety can only stop by taking the appropriate steps to revitalize and bring progress to the community. We further determined that 95% of the vacant structures are located in a prime real estate location in the town with easy access to major roads and highways. We concluded it will not be difficult to find businesses willing to set their business here, if the city makes a commitment to revitalize the area. However, many of the structures are not sufficiently sound and would need to be demolished for a business to operate from


72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

the particular parcel. Recognizing that many structures would have to be demolished, we studied the value of all properties that would be affected in the town and whether there is any significant historical value to saving any of them. While some of the structures were built in the late 19th century, none have historical value to override use for more contemporaneous purposes. It is also worthy to point out that none of the properties listed in MacGuffin Enterprise’s plan is able to generate any revenue or contribute to the town’s progress. The Washington property is a prime example of this finding; the owner has recently claimed that the property was the boyhood home of Seamus O’Toole, a minor ballplayer who had an undistinguished career. Maintaining this structure under the guise of some presumed historic value will only serve to hinder the town’s revitalization. Mr. O’Toole’s past presence in the community will not bring people to spend in the community nor will it bring any type of prestige to the area. It is beyond a fantasy to believe the Washington property could ever be declared a historic site by Ohio Historical Society or any such organization for having been the boyhood home of Mr. O’Toole. Moreover, MacGuffin’s plan includes the building of a stadium; what greater recognition to a neighborhood little league coach than to name the stadium after him, for example. This kind of tribute ties the past to the future and most importantly allows the community to experience progress in the present. Admittedly, MacGuffin’s real estate development plan appears to strike some property owners much harsher than others, yet this is the plan that will result in the most benefit for this dying community. Such aggressive, innovative overhauls are critical in older, blighted communities where development does not ―self-start.‖ A revitalized


94 95 96

Strawberry Hills will create nearly 1,000 new jobs, cause a boost to the local construction industry, and bring millions of dollars in tax revenues.









105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114


115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

STATEMENT OF JORDAN TAYLOR City Official for Developer - Plaintiff My name is Jordan Taylor. I was born and raised here in Strawberry Hills and am very proud to be an assistant planner in the City of Strawberry Hills working towards the improvement of our city. Growing up, I enjoyed playing in the streets with kids from the neighborhood. We would all just get together and have fun. Many times we would play baseball in someone’s backyard. If it wasn’t baseball, it was either kickball or tag. It was a fun time being a kid here. I felt safe and my parents had steady jobs. As I grew up, I was lucky to find some interesting jobs in high school. For example, one summer I worked as a lifeguard at the local public swimming pool. During my free time, I read some books and magazines. I found out that Seamus ―Stop Sign‖ O’Toole lived in Strawberry Hills when he was a kid. I am a huge baseball fan and was very excited to see a hometown connection to some of the major league fielding records. This wasn’t a well publicized fact and I thought it should be highlighted by some memorial or museum. The following summer, I worked at the zoo. It may have not been the most glamorous job, but it was a paying job and I did get to be outside. After high school, I attended Cardinal College. I was unsure of what I wanted to study so I began taking a lot of classes. What I tended to lean toward was a lot of business and economic classes. I always thought it would be nice to own my own business some day. I graduated from Cardinal College and moved back to Strawberry Hills. Unfortunately, the hometown I remembered was no more. The days of familycentered activities and a vibrant booming community were replaced by abandoned


139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161

buildings and increasing unemployment rates. It was even hard for high school students to get jobs. With my college degree, I was lucky enough to get a job with the city in its Department of Finance and Management. It was at this position that I learned that efficient management can make some effective change for the residents of this town. For example, the Housing Division within the Grants Management Section of the Department of Finance and Management has been managed in ways to bring about effective change. One program administered by Housing Division funds is the Deaf Modification Program. This unique program helps individuals with hearing impairments, modify their homes so they can be more independent. The power of efficient fiscal management always amazes me. Seeing how this process works, I wanted to become closer to the community and build relationships to really make some effective change for all residents. As a manager City’s Department of Development, my job is to work with leaders of the community and make Strawberry Hills the best place to live, work and raise a family. To that end, I have many relationships with individuals living in the community and those looking to invest in the community. I have heard from residents numerous times that they are being forced to leave town to look for family entertainment and jobs in other parts of the state. It saddens me to see people not feel comfortable enough to stay and invest in their own community. Residents are yearning for some change to bring them back to the town. On a recent business trip, I was sitting next to Bud Jones, the owner of the Saint Louis Turbos minor league baseball team. He was traveling and researching sites to move his team. He was interested in becoming a central part of the community. His


162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

primary concern was having a new stadium where it could be easily accessible by all. I explained the benefits that Strawberry Hills could offer him with a new development. The baseball stadium could be in the center and we could place single family residences nearby, making it easy for people to attend baseball games. Bud had not been thinking of Strawberry Hills, but the idea of a new development highly interested him. I sent him an overview of the new plan. He was very impressed and he plans a site visit to Strawberry Hills before any decision on the final location is made. In addition to Bud, I have also spoken to several other minor league baseball team owners. They all have the same interest: a new stadium easily accessible by residents. Many owners have also expressed an interest in becoming a crucial part of the community. If you don’t become an integral part of the community, you lose interest and commitment from the residents to attend any games. As a business person, an owner wants to give back to the community to get something in return. My sympathy goes out to the situation Chris Washington and other homeowners around Olive Street find themselves in but, for the sake of the entire community, a revitalization development must go forward. We have already seen that six houses on Cabot Drive, a street within five blocks of Chris Washington’s home have been issued citations by the city for public nuisances. Cabot Drive is the first street outside the new development plan proposed by E. B Martin. The six houses on Cabot Drive are no longer habitable and are more than just an eyesore. When the owner is located, there has been no effort to make the repairs necessary to bring the house up to code. These houses are empty and are places where dealers and vagrants break in to sleep and hang out. This has


184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206

led to an increase in petty crimes in an area very close to the proposed development. No one is going to rebuild or upgrade these houses. Also, on Grove Street, two streets farther east from Cabot, one house has been torn down and the empty lot is not maintained by the owner. It is not mowed and the trash continues to pile up. In the last two years, the city has had to set rat traps because the trash was creating a public health risk. At the far end of Grove Street, another house has been converted to a car repair business. This has led to cars being parked on the street and has caused numerous traffic problems on that end of the street. We also have seen negative changes to the structures on the street where Chris Washington lives. Three houses down from Washington is a house that is owned by a person who lives out of state and has not kept up with the fire codes. The owner has been cited for failing to install smoke detectors. In addition, over the last six years nine different people have rented this house. One of the tenants had 13 friends and relatives living there in violation of Strawberry Hills’ housing ordinances. Because several minor league baseball teams have an interest in making our own Strawberry Hills their home, it would be a shame to let such an opportunity pass. We could bring jobs and families back to our town. Not only would our town be revitalized but our residents would be reinvigorated to stay and invest in our community. The legacy of our own Seamus ―Stop Sign‖ O’Toole could live on in our new baseball stadium and move us forward to a brighter future. In our discussions with the developer, Mr. Martin also believes that the area to be used for the baseball stadium could include in a future phase of development, a recreation facility that would be open to all of the residents of Strawberry Hills. Our community


207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250

lost the only recreation facility it had about ten years ago, and this too would bring families back to Strawberry Hills.


251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274

STATEMENT OF E.B. MARTIN Developer – Plaintiff My name is E. B. Martin, President and CEO of MacGuffin Enterprises, a real estate development company. Our company has been in existence for more than 50 years and I’m proud to say we’ve spearheaded or otherwise been involved in a number of successful urban renewal and revitalization projects. In many cities we’ve rejuvenated blighted urban areas, creating beautiful living spaces, in addition to thriving commercial enterprises that brought jobs and people into area that previously had little of either. It was a real emotional and financial boost to the communities involved. In one instance we utilized a centerpiece consisting of a civic center and theater that brought people in from outside the geographic area – again, resulting in financial benefits to the entire community. Let me emphasize that I am, and MacGuffin Enterprises is, deeply committed to revitalizing struggling communities. It is what we have done and done successfully for more than 50 years. We care about these communities and we care about the residents. We take a long-term view of the community and its future. Our goal is to create a rebirth, if you will, that is self-sustaining and offers long term opportunities for the residents in that community. We want to help the community build a new and promising future for itself. When we consider a project such as the Strawberry Hills project, we take it very seriously from the beginning since we don’t want to do something that the community doesn’t want or that won’t be beneficial to the community.


275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297

Our first step was to hire a top-notch project development firm – Carnegie & Associates. They weren’t the least expensive or the lowest bid, but they are the best – and that’s what we wanted. Carnegie & Associates undertook a thorough economic assessment of the Strawberry Hills project. We had them do an extensive survey of the Strawberry Hills residents. Again, we wanted to make sure the project was something the residents could and would support and that it was in their best interests. Believe me, we didn’t go in there trying to tell people what we were going to do and push a project on them. No, we wanted this to be a collaborative effort with the community. We wanted to know how the residents felt about things like a state-of-the-art library, a civic center, more shopping choices and, most importantly, how they would feel about a stadium and sports team, because that’s what the city was looking to bring into the area. Community support for a sports team and stadium was important because the stadium would be the crowning jewel or centerpiece of the project. I mean, really, if the community didn’t support the concept, the project wouldn’t make sense for anyone. I’m pleased to say that we found was the residents of Strawberry Hills were very enthusiastic about the possibility of having a minor league stadium and the excitement and revenue it would bring to the community. When we got that message, we knew we were on the right track. The residents were also excited about the prospects of what a sports team would bring to the area. They cited new businesses and new nightlife and new people in the area. We did a very similar project in Akron, Ohio. There we built a minor league baseball stadium downtown in an area that had previously been rundown and practically deserted. The stadium is beautiful and new restaurants and shops quickly sprang up


298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320

around it. Lovely new living spaces popped up as well. What used to be an area that was economically dead is now a thriving, exciting place. It really revitalized the area, brought in some community excitement and provided a much-needed boost to the local economy. Another important part of the research and assessment we had done was a determination of the ratio of vacant to occupied structures. The ratio was 2-1. That is not a good indicator for the economy. This represents a serious loss of income to Strawberry Hills. The real eye-opener was the fact that 95% of the vacant or rundown structures were in a prime retail location. From an economic standpoint, that is very bad. From a potential development standpoint that is good since that type of area – a prime retail area – can readily be repopulated with new businesses. However, it also means that many of the buildings would have to be demolished since they aren’t structurally sound. So we knew we would have to expend some serious cash to bring the area up to where the project could work. Finally, we had Carnegie & Associates look at the historical value of the properties that would be affected by the development to see if we should preserve any of them and to make sure we didn’t demolish any properties that had historical merit. In this case we determined that none of the properties had any historical value that would override the commercial value they held for new uses. We looked closely at the

Washington property from a historical perspective and, frankly, determined it did not meet the criteria for being a historical property worthy of being preserved. In any situation such as this there are some unfortunate trade-offs. You can’t make everyone happy. The home of Chris Washington is a perfect example. While it has incredible sentimental value for its owner individually, it does not have historical value to


321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346

the community. I know Ms/Mr. Washington claims the historical value is that it was the childhood home of baseball player Seamus O’Toole, but wouldn’t it be an even greater tribute, of longer lasting and more widespread value, to have the new stadium named after that local hero? A stadium named for him would make him more famous than simply preserving his childhood home at the expense of the rest of the community. Unfortunately, sometimes the good of the whole has to override the desires of the individual. The real key here is the overall public good for Strawberry Hills and the area in general. Our research shows that almost 1,000 new jobs will be created by this project and millions of dollars in tax revenues will be generated. That is money back to the community – not to the developer. While we respect the sentiments of Mr./Ms.

Washington and empathize with his/her situation, we sincerely believe that this project is for the greater good of the community overall.


347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371

STATEMENT OF CHRIS WASHINGTON Property Owner - Defendant I am Chris Washington. I live at 1316 W. Olive Street with my fourteen cats. I have lived here my entire life. I have known many of my neighbors since I was a child. My beautiful home is a Victorian style home with a big sweeping porch and a slate roof. Many of my neighbors own similar homes and raised their families in this neighborhood. My home is also located within walking distance of the downtown area. Our neighborhood has a wonderful small town feel to it. McKinley Park is a small park where many neighborhood children play. Wanda’s Corner Market is also nearby and allows me and many of my neighbors a convenient and friendly place to buy groceries and other necessities. It is where I buy the cat food my cats like so much. Additionally, the church where I was married, and I have belonged to my entire life is only two blocks from my house. My father bought our home during the Depression in the 1930’s. Our home was built in 1909 and it is a #102 ―Hamilton‖ style house that was ordered from the Sears Catalog. My house was the boyhood home the famous baseball player, Seamus ―Stop Sign‖ O’Toole. He played for both the Cleveland Indians and the Cincinnati Reds

during his career and still holds major league fielding records. About a year ago, there was a big article about O’Toole’s accomplishments in our local newspaper, The Gazette. The article mentioned that O’Toole spent his boyhood living in my house. Since that article appeared in the paper, a number of people have talked to me about O’Toole. A few of my neighbors even suggested that I should put a plaque on my house stating that this was O’Toole’s boyhood home.


372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394

Last year, E.B. Martin, a real estate developer for MacGuffin Enterprises approached me about buying my home. Martin told me that the area surrounding my

home was being considered as the location for new residential homes and a minor league baseball stadium. Martin told me that this new development was going to revitalize the city. Shortly thereafter, Martin presented me with an offer to buy my home. I told him that my house was not for sale and turned the offer down. Martin made similar offers to other neighborhood homeowners, and a few of them sold their homes. Martin is a fast talker and a slick salesman. On the date of our first meeting, Martin tried to pressure me into signing the necessary paperwork to sell my home. I have also never felt comfortable talking to Martin about ―his vision‖ for our community. Martin lives in another state and doesn’t even know this area that well. In our

discussions, Martin has never seemed to care about our neighborhood and the lives of my friends and neighbors that will be turned upside down if they are forced to move. I have heard that Martin has been involved in some The Gazette that there has not been any minor league baseball team that has committed to moving to our city. Martin offered to buy my home at a higher price. Martin claims that this offer represents ―just compensation‖ for my property. Martin also told me that if I refused this offer, the City would initiate condemnation proceedings and obtain my property through the process of eminent domain. Again, I turned Martin down. About six months ago, the City initiated legal proceedings to take my house. That’s when I hired a neighborhood attorney and brought the present action to save my house. As I told Martin, money is not the issue. I have lived in this neighborhood my entire life, raised my children here, and have many friends who live close by. Each room


395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420

of my home holds the memories of my life that can never be replaced. I also cannot move because of my precious cats. For example, Duchess and Fluffy are 15 and 16 years old, respectively, and both of them are blind. Neither one of them could be expected to survive the trauma of moving to a house that they are not familiar with. My home also has an important historical connection with a famous major league baseball player that will be lost forever if my home is torn down. .


421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441

STATEMENT OF F.W. SAARINEN1 Expert Witness - Defense I am an architect and urban planner with twenty years experience in private practice, and I am a principal in the architectural firm of Sullivan Vanderoe Associates in Columbus, Ohio. I have my B.A. degree in architecture and a M.A. in architecture and urban planning from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. My firm has worked on a number of successful urban redevelopment projects, including Crawford Square in Pittsburgh and Kelvin Grove in Brisbane, Australia. I am a member of the American Institute of Architects and the Congress for New Urbanism. As you might guess from my professional credentials and affiliations, I am a follower of the ―new urbanist‖ school of architectural philosophy. Before I discuss the specifics of this case, I suppose I should tell you a little bit about new urbanism. Let’s begin with a little history. Up until about 1925, the United States was developed in the form of compact, mixed-use neighborhoods. These communities were pedestrian-friendly, with shops and commercial uses, and streetcar lines, within a short distance of people’s homes, and they developed a real sense of community as a result. The pattern began to change with the emergence of modern architecture, zoning, and the increasing popularity of the automobile. After World War II, a new system of development became popular nationwide, replacing mixed-use neighborhoods with a rigorous separation of uses known as conventional suburban development, or, to use the more common, derogatory term, ―sprawl.‖ Although conventional suburban


―Saarinen‖ is pronounced “Sair-a-nin.‖ Real-life architect Eero Saarinen designed the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. *For teaching purposes only – cannot be used during Mock Trial Competition*


442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465

development has been popular, it carries a significant price. Lacking a town center or pedestrian scale, conventional suburban development spreads out to consume large areas of countryside. Because of how the towns are laid out, a motor vehicle is required for the great majority of household and commuter trips. Those who cannot drive are significantly restricted in their mobility. Meanwhile, the landscape where most people live and work is dominated by strip malls, auto-oriented civic and commercial buildings, and subdivisions without much individuality or character or human scale, in communities which have no real sense of community. They’re great places to live if you’re a car, but not so good for human beings. New urbanism is a reaction to sprawl. We new urbanists appreciate that you can’t un-invent the automobile or deny people the advantages of modern mobility; but what you can do is create modern communities which still have what was right about olderstyle neighborhoods: their human scale and sense of community. The heart of new urbanism is in the design of neighborhoods. Town planners Andrés Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, two of the founders of the Congress for the New Urbanism, have defined 13 elements2 of an authentic neighborhood: 1. The neighborhood has a discernible center. This is often a square or a green and sometimes a busy or memorable street corner. A transit stop would be located at this center. 2. Most of the dwellings are within a five-minute walk of the center, an average of roughly 2,000 feet. 3. There are a variety of dwelling types—usually houses, rowhouses and apartments—so that younger and older people, singles and families, the poor and the wealthy may find places to live.


Actual document. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_urbanism#Defining_elements. *For teaching purposes only - cannot be used during Mock Trial Competition*


466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497

4. At the edge of the neighborhood, there are shops and offices of sufficiently varied types to supply the weekly needs of a household. 5. A small ancillary building or garage apartment is permitted within the backyard of each house. It may be used as a rental unit or place to work (for example, office or craft workshop). 6. An elementary school is close enough so that most children can walk from their home. 7. There are small playgrounds accessible to every dwelling—not more than a tenth of a mile away. 8. Streets within the neighborhood form a connected network, which disperses traffic by providing a variety of pedestrian and vehicular routes to any destination. 9. The streets are relatively narrow and shaded by rows of trees. This slows traffic, creating an environment suitable for pedestrians and bicycles. 10. Buildings in the neighborhood center are placed close to the street, creating a well-defined outdoor room. 11. Parking lots and garage doors rarely front the street. Parking is relegated to the rear of buildings, usually accessed by alleys. 12. Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings. These provide sites for community meetings, education, and religious or cultural activities. 13. The neighborhood is organized to be self-governing. A formal association debates and decides matters of maintenance, security, and physical change. Taxation is the responsibility of the larger community. A new urbanist community, like the ―old urbanist‖ communities that are its philosophical ancestry, is a human-scaled community. It’s a place to live and raise a family, not a cookie-cutter subdivision you move out of before the balloon payment comes up. What does all of this have to do with Strawberry Hills? Well, according to Duany and Plater-Zyberk, any community which has most of these elements is considered an authentic neighborhood, and the area of Strawberry Hills around the Washington property certainly qualifies. It has a discernible center; there are small shops (not all of them currently in use) within walking distance of most of the homes; there’s a mix of older dwellings, mostly balloon-framed two-story houses (including a number of Sears Catalog


498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517

homes3 in fair to excellent condition) with nice front porches and detached garages; there are tree-lined streets on a square grid; the buildings are close to the street; there’s a school and a couple of small playgrounds in walking distance. It’s an historic treasure—not because it’s the home of anyone famous (except for, perhaps, Seamus O’Toole), but because it’s one of the best-preserved ordinary neighborhoods in Ohio. It’s the kind of neighborhood that produced the Greatest Generation, and the kind of place that people are looking for today. Certainly, the neighborhood has its problems at present, but it’s not unsalvageable, and I would never go so far as to call it ―blighted.‖ The housing stock is relatively well-preserved, with very little ―Section 8‖ or other low-income rentals. There is enough of a community and a sense of community that this area could bounce back with just a little encouragement and perhaps some rehabilitation grants. What MacGuffin proposes is to bulldoze an authentic neighborhood and replace it with another car-oriented sprawl development. The MacGuffin plan envisions a

commercial development around a sports stadium. It might be a place that people from out of town will drive to a few times a year, but it won’t be a place anyone will want to live and raise a family. Further, there is reason to be concerned that MacGuffin may not have the ability to pull this project off. I’ve studied their track record, and they have a marked tendency to overstate the projected benefits of a development and understate its cost. I don’t

Between 1908 and 1940, you could order a house from Sears. They shipped you a kit in a boxcar, and you got to build it yourself. The Sears designs are pretty typical for the period, and are actually considered something of a collector’s item among people who are interested in old houses. There’s a general encyclopedia article on Sears Houses here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears_Catalog_Home; and a collection of old catalog illustrations and floorplans here: http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/bydate.htm; *For teaching purposes only - cannot be used during Mock Trial Competition*


518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547

believe anyone is necessarily being systematically dishonest, but I do think they often let their enthusiasm for a project interfere with their objective assessment of it. I might also point out that the supposed economic benefits of any publiclyfinanced sports stadium are often illusory. Often, the only economic beneficiary is the team owner, who gets his infrastructure built with other people’s money. Most important, however, is that the MacGuffin plan is not what the community wants. Quite apart from economic considerations, urban planning should have as its objective the needs and wants of the existing community, not the needs and wants of a few well-connected developers. There was an editorial in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago that made this point as well as I ever could: We're all for redevelopment, and we have nothing against stadiums or high-rises, especially when they are privately financed. What we're not for is what looks likely to happen in Brooklyn: Land will be forcibly taken from some property owners and sold to those who, at least according to New York's city and state governments, will bring in more revenue. This is the "economic rationale" for such cases of eminent domain. Ever since Detroit's move in 1981 to take property away from the businesses and homeowners in the Poletown neighborhood--giving it to General Motors for a new factory--eminent domain has been sliding down a slippery slope. Today the result is that even perfectly fine neighborhoods are labeled "blighted" to justify what are called "takings." But the economic rationale took a big hit this summer when Michigan's high court at last reversed its decision of decades earlier. As the state justices ruled: "If one's ownership of private property is forever subject to the government's determination that another private party would put one's land to better use, then the ownership of real property is perpetually threatened by the expansion plans of any large discount retailer, 'megastore,' or the like."4 For all these reasons, it is my expert determination that the proposed development is not in the public interest, and does not justify the taking of private property.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005591. *For teaching purposes only – cannot be used during Mock Trial Competition*


548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572

STATEMENT OF PAT GARRETT Councilperson for the City of Strawberry Hills - Defense My name is Pat Garrett, and I am a councilperson for the city of Strawberry Hills, and have been so for the past 15 years. I was born and raised here in Strawberry Hills,

enjoying the small town atmosphere with some of the amenities of a larger community. I have been a member of the volunteer fire department for the past 25 years, as well as being a small-business person. For the past ten years, I have owned and operated a

heating and cooling business that I inherited from my parents. I have been terribly concerned by the decline of our fair city over the past several decades. Our once thriving commercial center has deteriorated and most of our young people move away at the first opportunity. I was initially quite excited when I heard that MacGuffin Enterprises was exploring a wide-ranging development in Strawberry Hills. However, I was shocked and disappointed to learn that Jordan Taylor, a fellow councilperson had failed to disclose the fact that he is in a joint partnership with E.B. Martin on a project in Johnstown, Minnesota. When I researched this situation, I found out that the project in Johnstown, Minnesota closely resembled the project here. can hardly be called a glowing success. was forced to bail out the project. That project was barely completed, and

There were serious cost overruns and the city

Half of the businesses who promised to move in

abandoned the project. Martin’s company promised the city officials of Johnstown that the $19 million project would generate an additional $5 million dollars in tax revenue every year. Five years after the project was completed, Johnstown has only seen


573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595

$100,000 in additional tax revenue. In addition, although Martin’s redevelopment plan included Phase II to build the community a medical center for low income residents, Martin has never started phase II and now claims that it would not be economically feasible to build the medical center. I confronted Jordan Taylor and E.B. Martin about this disastrous project, and asked about Taylor’s failure to disclose his involvement with Martin. They had all sorts

of excuses about the failures there. When I demanded to know whether Taylor was going to get any of the money from the Strawberry Fields project, he swore that he was not getting any money. But then E.B. Martin mentioned another project, this time in

Virginia. He told me that he could get me in on the project from the beginning. I told them that I was appalled and that I could not be bribed. I stomped out of the office and have not spoken to Taylor since, because I do not like to spend time with crooks. I told the third councilperson, L.J. Hayword, about that the den of thieves that are trying to insinuate themselves into Strawberry Fields. Hayword appreciates my concerns, but thinks that even with Martin’s questionable ethics; the development opportunity is too good to pass up. I have voted against every proposal related to Strawberry Hills. But I have been outvoted 2-1 every time, with Taylor and Hayward voting against me. redevelopment, but not with crooks. I also am concerned because the city has not received a commitment from Bud Jones or any other baseball team owner that a minor league team will definitely come to Strawberry Hills if the baseball stadium is built. Although Mr. Jones has said he is very I want to see


596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618

interested in bringing his team here, he has only been to Strawberry Hills once and has not met with E.B. Martin. I also know that Bud Jones has initiated discussions with the city of Springfield to bring the Saint Louis Turbos team there. Springfield already has a baseball park and it could accommodate a minor league baseball team with some minor revisions. If we do not actually get a baseball team to come here, I believe there will actually be a severe economic loss to the community. Throughout my career I have seen that while Strawberry Hills has undergone some changes, there remain several important aspects of our community that cannot be replaced and will be lost if the E.B. Martin development plan is adopted. For example, we use the park that surrounds the courthouse for a number of public events including our annual 4th of July parade. During the parade, booths for local artists and food sales are set up. The floats and cars drive around the square. Based upon our attendance counts, the majority of the local residents turn out for this parade every year. I often get letters from the residents telling me that this is the best part of living in Strawberry Hills. I understand that if E. B. Martin’s redevelopment plan is adopted, the city square will be changed and the park will be eliminated so that it will not compete with the proposed baseball park. Most of the streets of Strawberry Hills are connected in a grid pattern. Olive Street, where Washington lives, runs east and west and most of the streets in the area are lined with trees and have sidewalks. In the three blocks around Olive Street, there are a variety of houses and apartments. Since most of these houses were built in the early 1900’s, they don’t have attached garages. The garages were added after the houses were built and are in the back of the house. Most of the houses on Olive Street are very well


619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627

maintained and all are up to the city safety codes. While there may be a lot or two along Olive Street and the two streets on either side that may not have been as well maintained, I think overall, this area remains consistent with the city master plan and provides a great sense of history for our community. The elementary school is in walking distance of Olive Street and the residents can walk to Wanda’s Corner Market and church. I do not believe that Chris Washington’s neighborhood is anywhere near blighted. While I agree that there are some houses and lots that are of concern, I see these as relatively small pockets, and with better city enforcement of code violations, the properties could be restored.


Exhibit A From Casey’s Comprehensive Baseball Almanac, Gazetteer & Encyclopedia (2002 edition) O’Toole, Seamus Patrick (“Stop Sign”) Birth Name: Seamus Patrick O'Toole Nickname: Stop Sign Born On: 11-11-1915 Born In: Strawberry Hills, Ohio Zodiac: Scorpio Died On: 01-23-1989 Died In: Jacksonville, Florida Cemetery: St. Maureen's Roman Catholic Cemetery, Strawberry, Ohio College: None Attended Bats: Right Throws: Right Height: 6-00 Weight: 183 Draft: Not Applicable Minor League Career: Played for: Gotham City Bats (B) 1934 Oxford Condors (A) 1935 Morgantown Mice (AA) 1936 Buffalo Indians (AAA) 1937 (called up) Major League Career: First Game: 09-08-1937 (Age 21) Played for: Cleveland Indians 1937-39 Cincinnati Reds 1940-41 Last Game: 09-16-1941 Seamus O’Toole was born on Thursday, November 11, 1915, in Strawberry Hills, Ohio. O’Toole was 21 years old when he broke into the big leagues on September 8, 1937, with the Cleveland Indians. Though never a power hitter by any means—his lifetime batting average was a mere .224, and he hit only .245 in his best year (1939)—O’Toole was an excellent fielder. He earned the nickname ―Stop Sign‖ while playing for the minor league Oxford Condors because, it was said, ground balls never got past him. Traded to the Reds after the close of the 1939 season, O’Toole left professional baseball when he volunteered for the Navy after Pearl Harbor. O’Toole was a tail gunner in Bombing Squadron 6, and participated in the Battle of Midway, where he lost part of his left leg to a bullet wound. After being discharged from the service, he founded a successful contracting business and was active in Little League baseball as a coach and umpire.


Exhibit B – Photo of Chris Washington’s House


Exhibit C


1. Chris Washington’s House (1316 West Olive Street) 2. Church 3. Wanda’s Corner Market 4. Municipal Offices 5. Courthouse * MAP NOT DRAWN TO SCALE


Exhibit D


1. Seamus O’Toole Stadium *Name of Stadium subject to change upon sale of naming rights 2. Future Commercial Developments 3. Future Housing Developments 4. Future Recreation Center Development * MAP NOT DRAWN TO SCALE


Acknowledgements The steadfast support and expert advice of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Center for Law-Related Education is appreciated Richard A. Dove, Esq., The Supreme Court of Ohio Thomas Friedman, Esq. Daniel G. Hilson, Esq., Roetzel & Andress Rachelle Johnson, Esq., Ohio Education Association Marion Smithberger, Columbus Bar Foundation Andrea Troyer, Ohio Attorney General’s Office Benson A. Wolman, Esq., ACLU of Ohio Foundation The Case Committee who generously devoted many hours to create the 2007 Ohio Mock Trial case is gratefully acknowledged: Henry G. Appel, Esq. Senior Assistant Attorney General Vladimir P. Belo, Esq., Bricker & Eckler LLP Brandon Duck, Esq., Attorney Lisa Eschleman, Esq., Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation* David Gormley, Esq., The Supreme Court of Ohio Laura Jurcevich, Esq., The Legal Aid Society of Columbus Barbara A. Knapic, Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP Doug Kohrt, Esq., The Supreme Court of Ohio Brett Kravitz, Esq., Ohio Attorney General’s Office Brandin Marlow, Esq., Gorman, Veskauf, Henson & Wineberg Diana Ramos Reardon, Esq., Ohio Criminal Justice Services Michael P. Morley, Esq., Brennan, Manna & Diamond LLC Alexandra T. Schimmer, Esq., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP *Committee Chair

******************** OCLRE Sponsors Ohio State Bar Association The Supreme Court of Ohio Attorney General of Ohio American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation OCLRE Staff Pam Allen, Deborah DeHaan, Cathy Godfrey, Robin Hegedus, Samantha Hogan, Andrew Mackey, Addie Natalie, Jared Reitz, Michael Sammons, Kate Strickland We would also like to thank Carey Champoux and his crew at MVP Video (www.mpvideo.net) for contributing their time and equipment to film the 2006 Mock Trial Championship Round.


To top