Q: Stipulation 8 lists Stevie’s time of death as 11:24 am (pronounced by the treating physician). Is that the time he was declared dead at the hospital or is that the time he fell?

A: Stipulation 8 states in relevant part: “Stevie Gorman was pronounced dead by the treating physician, on April 28, 2024, at 11:24 a.m.” Stipulation 8 does not state the treating physician determined 11:24 a.m. was the time that Stevie fell.

Q: There doesn’t seem to be any list or other method of determining which exhibits witnesses are familiar with.

A: That is correct. The stipulations may be a helpful starting place. Otherwise, please review the witness statements and exhibits for that information.

Please note Stipulation 12 will be modified to read as follows:

12. Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 12 were produced in discovery from the corporate files of The Storm Chase, LLC. Each was retrieved using forensically-sound means appropriate to the technology on which it was stored.

Please also note Stipulation 14 will be modified to read as follows:

14. Exhibits 7, 8, 11, and 13 were produced in discovery by Ty Cole. Exhibit 7 was not taken on April 28, 2024, and does not reflect the weather conditions that day.

Q: The jury instructions provide for both ordinary negligence and regular negligence. May the plaintiff choose to focus on one or the other (i.e. argue only for regular negligence or argue for recklessness) and abandon the other? In other words, must the plaintiff argue for BOTH regular negligence AND recklessness? Likewise the defense has available waiver, modified comparative fault, and arguing that the elements of negligence were not met. Is the defense required to argue all of those defenses or may the defense team abandon one of them (e.g. ignoring waiver)?

A: Neither party may abandon any claim or defense at trial; both parties must present the claims and/or defenses asserted in the case materials. Teams, however, are not required to give each claim or defense equal attention.

Q: Stipulation 15 states that “Defendant reserves its right to argue at an appropriate time that Plaintiff failed to state a claim in whole or in part.” How would this be done in a mock trial setting since motions except to strike are barred under Competition Rule 4.3?

A: Stipulation 15 will be deleted. Please note current Stipulations 16 and 17 will be renumbered to Stipulations 15 and 16, respectively.

Q: Can you provide a preferred pronunciation for the last name of witness Keller Correo?

A: Core-Ray-O.

Q: Do we have the street addresses for both the Crusoe Umbrella and the Insurance Exchange Building?

A: Please review the witness statements and exhibits for information on the Insurance Exchange Building’s location. For clarity, information on the location of the Crusoe Umbrella will be added to a new stipulation (Stipulation 17) that will read as follows:

17. Cowles Commons is an outdoor space in downtown Des Moines. It is located between 3rd Street and 4th Street and between Locust Street and Walnut Street. The Crusoe Umbrella is at the corner of Cowles Commons at Locust Street and 3rd Street.

Please see the earlier Q&A regarding current Stipulation 15 and the related renumbering of stipulations.

Q: It’s unclear when Stevie watched the videos on the Reddit board r/city games.

A: No answer or clarification will be given. Please review the witness statements and exhibits for relevant information.

Q: When did Sal join Paws in Pursuit?

A: No answer or clarification will be given. Please review the witness statements and exhibits for relevant information. 

Q: Does Exhibit 6 reflect a record of voice communications between Keller, Sal, Tech_Kim and HQ_Admin or a texting record?  Multiple witnesses refer to hearing or making statements on radio, but Ty’s affidavit says that “Within a short time, no more than a few minutes, Keller arrived, checked the clue, and then started furiously typing.” Ty’s Affidavit; lines 142-143.

A: Exhibit 6 captures both spoken and written communications made on the HQ Radio Channel. 

Q: Because it is the company that is being sued, could negligent or reckless actions by Keller Correo or DJ Hacket be used as evidence of liability?

A: No answer or clarification will be given. Please review the case materials, including but not limited to the jury instructions, for relevant information.

Q: Based on Stipulation 17 and National Mock Trial Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, we assume that any opinion testimony must be preceded by appropriate foundational questions to satisfy the Mock Court Rule of Evidence 702. Is this assumption correct?

A: If opposing counsel believes any part of National High School Mock Trial Rule 702 has not been met, they may object to the opinion testimony based on the subpart of Rule 702 they believe is lacking.

Q: We understand that no formal “tender” of the witness is required, e.g., “we tender Mr X as an expert in the field of …..”.   Is this assumption correct? 

A: Yes.

Q: How do counsel and the Court know in what area the witness is qualified to opine? What prevents a lay witness from giving opinion testimony? Or is this simply a matter to be resolved by appropriate objections to opinion testimony?  Please advise.

A: Formal certification or recognition of a witness as an expert is neither required nor allowed. This means that during the trial, students need not present any “official” or “formal” documentation to establish someone as an expert in a particular field. Instead, students may establish a witness as an expert in a particular field based on that witness’s knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Students may object to a witness’s opinion testimony, arguing (among other things) that the witness is not qualified to give an opinion on the asserted topic because said topic is beyond their field of expertise. Students may respond to such objections by articulating (among other things) the basis of the witness’s expertise and focusing on their relevant knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in the field. 

Q: Is the clue that Jo Gorman provides in their affidavit stipulated to be the correct clue? Would it be an unfair extrapolation for witnesses to agree or disagree with the wording of that clue?

A: The clue’s wording is not intended to be a disputed fact. Please review the witness statements and exhibits for relevant information. Please also review National High School Mock Trial Rule of Competition 7.4.1 on extrapolations.

Q: In Keller Correro’s witness statement, they say the name of their company is “Correo Produccion.” Pg. 35 Ln. 13. They also state their company name to be “Correa Produccion.” Pg. 22 Ln. 23. Is the word “Produccion” meant to be the Spanish word for “production,” or were both of these typos? Additionally, was the “Correa” a typo in the second instance of this? 

A: Keller Correo’s company is Correo Produccion. “Correa” at page 36, line 32 will be amended to “Correo.”

Q: Sal Pfeffer states that they prepared the team captain orientation agenda that was presented the morning before Day One of Paws in Pursuit. Does this solely include Segment Two, Safety and Participant Expectations, which they presented, or does it include all additional segments that were presented by different people? 

A: Sal Pfeffer prepared the full agenda. Page 68, lines 58 to 59.

Q: According to Stipulation 12, many exhibits were found in Storm Chase’s corporate files. Are we to assume that employees at Storm Chase were familiar with these exhibits, i.e. the rules presented to team captains, or just Storm themself? 

A: The stipulations may be a helpful starting place when deciding who is familiar with what exhibit(s). Please review the witness statements and exhibits for the other relevant information. A list detailing the exhibit(s) that each witness is familiar with will not be provided. Please see the earlier Q&A addressing this topic generally.

Q: Out of the witnesses for the defendant, are they all agents of Stormchase and therefore do their actions fall under Jury Instruction #5 

A: No answer or clarification will be given. Please review the case materials, including but not limited to the jury instructions, for relevant information.

Q: Charge 15, on recklessness, closes by stating that P cannot recover if it doesn’t prove at least one instance of recklessness.  Is that correct?   

A: If the Estate failed to prove any of the propositions in Jury Instruction No. 15, the Estate is not entitled to recover on its claim of recklessness. Jury Instruction No. 15 will be amended, in relevant part, to read as follows: “If the Estate failed to prove any of these propositions, the Estate is not entitled to recover on its claim of recklessness.”

Q: The rosters say “prosecution” and “defense”. Will they be updated to say “plaintiff” or are we just operating on the assumption that judges will understand? 

A: No. Please complete your plaintiff team roster using the “prosecution” roster form. Thank you for your flexibility given this oversight.

Q: Regarding Exhibit 6, a prior answer to a case question states that “Exhibit 6 captures both spoken and written communications made on the HQ radio channel.” How are parties to know which was written or verbal as nothing in the exhibit indicates which statement made is written or verbal? Would it be an invention of fact if a party testifies that one of those statements in Exhibit 6 was either text or verbal if that statement does not otherwise appear in an affidavit? E.g. the statement by @Tech_Kim at 10:40, would it be an invention of fact for a witness who is familiar with that exhibit to testify that Tech_Kim’s statement was written or verbal?  

A: For clarity, Exhibit 6 is generally intended to capture spoken communications unless context provides otherwise. Please review National High School Mock Trial Rule of Competition 7.4.1 on extrapolations.

Q: Are witnesses constructively sequestered? If not, can we ask that they are as a preliminary matter? Or can we assume they are in the courtroom for all of the other witnesses’ testimonies?  

A: No, National High School Mock Trial Rule of Competition 4.3(B) prohibits actual and constructive sequestration or exclusion of witnesses.