People V Cobey 2021 22 2

PEOPLE v.
COBEY
Murder and Manslaughter

Featuring a pretrial argument on the Fourth Amendment
OFFICIAL MATERIALS FOR

THE CALIFORNIA MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION
A Program of Constitutional Rights Foundation
Co-Sponsored by:
American Board of Trial Advocates Foundation
Daily Journal Corporation
Constitutional Rights Foundation 1 People v. Cobey

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Developed by:
Keri Doggett, CRF, Vice President of Program and Operations
Damon Huss, CRF, Senior Editor and Curriculum Specialist
Lourdes Morales, CRF, Senior Program Director
Jonathan Shapiro, CRF Board Member
Laura Wesley, CRF, Associate Director of Program
Caitlyn Cochran, Law Student Intern
Special Thanks to:

Hon. Raquel Márquez, Superior Court of California, Riverside County
Justice Steven Z. Perren, California Second District Court of Appeal
Case Reviewers:
Hon. George Bird, Los Angeles County
Robin Bernstein-Lev, Esq., Los Angeles County
Commr. Doreen Boxer, Los Angeles County
David A. Carrillo, Esq., San Francisco County
Linda Dunn, Esq., San Luis Obispo County
Carla Garrett, Esq., Contra Costa County
Jon Garzoli, Esq., San Joaquin County
Sharon Matsumoto, Los Angeles County
Nathalie Miller, Esq., San Diego County
Senior Lead Officer Maligi A.”Junior” Nua, Jr., Los Angeles County
Hon. Ron Rose, Retired, Los Angeles County
Hon. Randall Sherman, Orange County
Michael Tiktinsky, PhD., San Francisco County
Alexander Wesley, Los Angeles County
Joseph Whitton, Riverside County
CRF Staff and Board Contributors:

Kimberly Dunne, Chair, Board of Directors
Amanda Susskind, President
Gregorio Medina, Senior Program Director
Sarah Badawi, Senior Program Director
Andrew Costly, Senior Publications Manager
Sean-Michael Ramirez, Program Coordinator
Jasmin Espinoza, Program Assistant
Cover Drawing: Grace Kim, 2021 California Mock Trial Courtroom

Art Contest Finalist
Copyright 2021, Constitutional Rights Foundation. All Constitutional Rights Foundation (CRF)
publications, including these California Mock Trial materials, are protected by copyright. The
California Mock Trial case and characters are fictional. These California Mock Trial materials are
intended for use solely by teachers, coaches, students, and other participants in the 2021-2022
California Mock Trial competition. It is a violation of this copyright to forward, print, or distribute
the mock trial materials to individuals or groups that are not participants in the 2021-2022
California Mock Trial competition, or to use these materials for commercial purposes or financial
gain, without prior express permission from CRF. Any team in violation of this copyright may be
disqualified from participation in the competition. All rights reserved. CRF, 601 S. Kingsley Dr.,
Los Angeles, CA 90005. 213.487.5590 - www.crf-usa.org - crf@crf-usa.org

__________________________________________
Justice James A. Cobey
____________________________________________
The 2021-2022 California Mock case is dedicated to the Cobey

Family, Justice James A. Cobey, his wife Virginia Cobey, and his
children Christopher Cobey and Lisa Cobey Kelland. Justice Cobey
was a former Constitutional Rights Board Chair who cared deeply
about the principles and mission of Constitutional Rights
Foundation (CRF). He served as Board Chair of CRF from 1974–1975
and remained actively involved until his death in 1993. After his
death, Justice Cobey’s friends and family established the Justice
James A. Cobey Endowment at CRF. The endowment supports the
annual Justice James A. Cobey volunteer reception, where CRF
recognizes those volunteers who have made outstanding
contributions to CRF. Lisa Cobey Kelland, her husband Peter
Kendall, and Christopher continue to support CRF and our mission
by representing their family at the annual event. Additionally,
Christopher Cobey is a longtime volunteer of CRF’s mock trial
program locally and at the state level. It is with great pleasure that
we honor the family’s legacy and belief in a strong democracy, by
dedicating this year’s case to the Cobey family.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ...........................................................2
Program Objectives ..........................................................5
Code of Ethical Conduct ...................................................6
Introduction to 2021–2022 Mock Trial Competition...........7
California Mock Trial Fact Situation ..................................8
Sources for the Trial ........................................................13
Statement of Charges .....................................................13
Physical Evidence ...........................................................13
Stipulations .....................................................................13
Legal Authorities .............................................................15
Pretrial Motion .................................................................20
Prosecution Witnesses Statements ................................29
Defense Witnesses Statements ......................................40
Exhibits ...........................................................................52
Forms and Substance of a Trial ......................................57
Team Role Descriptions ..................................................58
Procedures for Presenting a Mock Trial Case ................63
Diagram of a Typical Courtroom .....................................68
Mock Trial Simplified Rules of Evidence .........................69
Allowable Evidentiary Objections ....................................70
Summary of Allowable Evidentiary Objections................85

2021-2022
CALIFORNIA MOCK TRIAL PROGRAM
Each year, Constitutional Rights Foundation creates the mock trial
case for students across the state of California. The case provides
students an opportunity to wrestle with large societal problems
within a structured forum and designed to provide a powerful and
timely educational experience. It is our goal that students will
conduct a cooperative, vigorous, and comprehensive analysis of
these materials with the careful guidance of teachers and coaches.
Program Objectives
For the students, the mock trial program will:
1. Increase proficiency in basic skills (reading and speaking),
critical- thinking skills (analyzing and reasoning), and
interpersonal skills (listening and cooperating).
2. Develop an understanding of the link between our constitution,
our courts, and our legal system.
3. Provide the opportunity for interaction with positive adult role
models in the legal community.
For the school, the program will:
1. Provide an opportunity for students to study key legal concepts
and issues.
2. Promote cooperation and healthy academic competition among
students of varying abilities and interests.
3. Demonstrate the achievements of young people to the
community.
4. Provide a hands-on experience outside the classroom that
enables students to learn about law, society, and themselves.
5. Provide a challenging and rewarding experience for teachers.

CODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT
All participants (including observers) are bound by all sections of
this Code and agree to abide by the provisions.
1. All competitors, coaches, and other participants, including
observers will show courtesy and respect for all team
members and participants, including their opponents and all
courthouse staff, judges, attorney coaches, teacher coaches,
and mock trial staff and volunteer personnel. All competitors,
coaches, and participants, including observers, will show
dignity and restraint, irrespective of the outcome of any trial.
Trials, contests and activities will be conducted honestly,
fairly, and with civility.
2. Team members and all student participants will conform to
the highest standards of deportment. Team members and
participants will not employ tactics they believe to be wrong
or in violation of the Rules. Members and participants will not
willfully violate the Rules of the competition in spirit or in
practice. All teams and participants are responsible for
ensuring that all observers are aware of the Code.
3. Teacher Coaches agree to focus on the educational value of the
Mock Trial Competition. They shall discourage willful
violations of the Rules and/or this Code. Teachers will instruct
students as to proper procedure and decorum and will assist
their students in understanding and abiding by the letter and
the spirit of the competition’s Rules and this Code of Ethical
Conduct.
4. Attorney Coaches agree to uphold the highest standards of
the legal profession and will zealously encourage fair play.
Attorney Coaches are reminded that they must serve as
positive role models for the students. They will promote
conduct and decorum among their team members and fellow
coaches in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the
competition’s Rules and this Code of Ethical Conduct and will
demonstrate the same through their own behavior. They will
emphasize the educational value of the experience by
requiring that all courtroom presentations (e.g., pretrial,
questions, objections, etc.) be substantially the work product
of the student team members.
By participating in the program, students, teacher coaches and
attorney coaches are presumed to have read and agreed to the
provisions of the Code. Violations of this Code of Ethical Conduct
may be grounds for disqualification from a contest and/or
suspension or expulsion from the program.

INTRODUCTION TO 2021–2022
MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION
This packet contains the official materials required by student
teams to prepare for the 41st Annual California Mock Trial
Competition. In preparation for their trials, participants will use
information included in the People v. Cobey case packet. The
competition is sponsored and administered by Constitutional
Rights Foundation. The program is co-sponsored by the Daily
Journal Corporation and American Board of Trial Advocates.
Each participating county will sponsor a local competition and
declare a winning team from the competing high schools. The
winning team from each county will be invited to compete in the
state finals in Los Angeles, March 18-20, 2022. The winning team
from the state competition will be eligible to represent California at
the National High School Mock Trial Championship in Kalamazoo,
Michigan, May 5–7, 2022.
The Mock Trial is designed to clarify the workings of our legal
institutions for young people. As student teams study a
hypothetical case, conduct legal research, and receive guidance
from volunteer attorneys in courtroom procedure and trial
preparation, they also learn about our judicial system. During
Mock Trials, students portray each of the principals in the cast of
courtroom characters, including counsel, witnesses, court clerks,
and bailiffs. Students also argue a pretrial motion. The motion has
a direct bearing on the evidence that can be used at trial.
During all Mock Trials, students present their cases in courtrooms
before actual judges and attorneys. As teams represent the
prosecution and defense arguments over the course of the
competition, the students must prepare a case for both sides,
thereby gaining a comprehensive understanding of the pertinent
legal and factual issues.
Because of the differences that exist in human perception, a
subjective quality is present in the scoring of the Mock Trial, as
with all legal proceedings. Even with rules and evaluation criteria
for guidance, no judge or attorney scorer will evaluate the same
performance in the same way. While we do everything possible to
maintain consistency in scoring, every trial will be conducted
differently, and we encourage all participants to be prepared to
adjust their presentations accordingly. The judging and scoring
results in each trial are final.

1 CALIFORNIA MOCK TRIAL
2 FACT SITUATION
3 Burnsley, California, is an unincorporated community in
4 Burnsley County in the high desert of Eastern California. It
5 is a semi-rural town with a population of 3,000 people.
6 Jamie Cobey lives in a small, two-bedroom rental house at
7 46603 Raptor Road in Burnsley. For the past 10 years,
8 Cobey lived there along with Cobey’s mother. Cobey’s
9 mother had a chronic respiratory disorder that disabled
10 her and required her to use an oxygen machine. Cobey
11 has lived in the desert for many years and is well-known
12 in the town as a committed gardener and specialist in
13 succulents and cacti. Cobey is also known outside of
14 Burnsley as an award-winning horticulturist having
15 received several ribbons and trophies in regional
16 horticulture shows for Cobey’s cacti and succulents.
17 Cobey owned several different gardening tools, including
18 a medium-sized (16” x 8.5” x 7”), rectangular, metal-wire
19 animal trap.
20 Before the 2020 pandemic, Cobey had worked for years at a
21 local restaurant in Burnsley, The Blue Agave. When the
22 restaurant had to close during the pandemic lockdown,
23 Cobey lost Cobey’s job. By necessity, Cobey became the full-
24 time caregiver for Cobey’s mother and collected
25 unemployment.
26 Erik Smith was Cobey’s 70-year-old landlord who lived
27 next door to Cobey on the same two-acre parcel of land at
28 46601 Raptor Road in Burnsley. Their respective
29 backyards were each surrounded by a six-foot-high
30 wooden fence through which no one could see. The fence
31 extending around Cobey’s backyard had a four-foot-tall by
32 three-foot-wide chain-link fence-gate in the back of the
33 property that opened to a state park that abutted the entire
34 parcel. The gate did not have a locking mechanism. The
35 front yard of each property was surrounded by a four-foot-
36 tall chain-link fence, and each had a similar chain-link
37 fence-gate in the front.
38 Smith had other tenants at three other small rental properties
39 in Burnsley in addition to the one where Cobey lived. Most
40 houses and mobile homes in the town of Burnsley are on
41 one- or two-acre parcels and are often spread far apart, so
42 that one’s “neighbors” are often not close by.
43 Though Cobey was unable to pay rent after losing the
44 restaurant job, the state enacted an eviction moratorium

1 to help people weather the economic hardships the
2 pandemic caused. The moratorium saved Cobey and
3 Cobey’s mother from eviction. Even so, Cobey paid part of
4 Cobey’s rent from time to time.
5 Cobey had been aware for years that Smith was a daily
6 user of recreational cannabis and that Smith grew several
7 cannabis plants in his own garage. Smith told Cobey it
8 was for Smith’s high blood pressure, but Smith also once
9 told Cobey that Cobey’s house and yard would be ideal for
10 a large-scale, unlicensed “pot farm.” But during the
11 pandemic, Cobey’s neighbor Dani Emling told Cobey that
12 it was well-known that Smith sold cannabis to people in
13 town. Emling also told Cobey that Smith sold cannabis to
14 minors. Cobey strongly disapproved of Smith’s use and
15 growing of the plants, but even more so the idea that
16 Smith was an illegal seller.
17 Between 2017 and 2021, the local sheriff’s deputies
18 responded to over a dozen calls from either Cobey or
19 Smith, each complaining about a nuisance from the other.
20 On one of the calls from Smith, on October 10, 2020,
21 Deputy Sheriff Toni Garrett walked around Smith’s
22 property and gave Smith a free smart camera. The deputy
23 explained that the camera could help Smith gather
24 evidence against Cobey. The deputy suggested Smith hang
25 the camera (which was 12” x 8” x 10”), on a 10-foot-tall
26 post in Smith’s backyard. Smith placed the camera high
27 on the post angled toward Cobey’s backyard in a way that
28 captured all of Cobey’s fenced-in backyard. Above the
29 camera on the post was a 24” x 36” sign that depicted a
30 smiley face and the message: “Smile, You’re On Camera.”
31 Garrett explained that the smart camera (which is also
32 publicly available for purchase), could track a person’s
33 movement, could record people from “head to toe,” and
34 could detect motion from up to 125 feet away.
35 In exchange for the free smart camera, Smith agreed to
36 share the information it gathered directly with the sheriff’s
37 department. All of the footage collected by the camera was
38 stored digitally in the cloud, in a searchable format, such
39 that police could comb through it at will with Smith’s
40 permission. Smith adjusted the sharing settings so that the
41 footage was automatically shared to the sheriff’s
42 department cloud account.
43 The relationship between Cobey and Smith deteriorated in
44 recent years with both engaging in unneighborly behavior.
45 The tension between the two intensified once the
46 pandemic eviction moratorium went into effect. Often
1 Smith would say to Cobey “I want you and your mother
2 off my land.”
3 Shortly thereafter, Smith shut off the electricity on
4 multiple occasions throughout the pandemic, which
5 caused Cobey’s mother to temporarily lose power to her
6 oxygen machine. In addition, Smith shut off the water
7 despite the harsh, dry conditions of the desert. Cobey
8 informed Smith that Cobey needed the water and
9 electricity for the health and well-being of Cobey’s mother
10 and asked Smith to stop these harmful actions.
11 Smith shut off the electricity again on April 22. The lack of
12 oxygen sent Cobey’s mother into cardiac arrest, and
13 Cobey called 911. Due to the remoteness of the location
14 (the hospital was 45 minutes away), Cobey’s mother died
15 on the way to the hospital.
16 On April 28, Cobey’s mother was laid to rest at a church
17 cemetery in the town of Burnsley. Witnesses at the funeral
18 say Cobey was visibly angry, verbally blaming Smith for
19 having killed Cobey’s mother. Cobey and Smith shouted at
20 each other, and Cobey returned home around 6:00 PM.
21 One witness at the funeral, Terry Edwards, was concerned
22 about Cobey’s mental state and drove to Cobey’s house
23 later that night. There, Edwards stopped and briefly spoke
24 with Cobey, who was in the front-yard garden.
25 The next day, on April 29, a lineworker named Angel
26 Russell was working about 100 feet from Smith’s home at
27 the top of a utility pole. Russell saw Smith walk to Smith’s
28 mailbox in front of the parcel on which Smith lived. The
29 mailbox has a slot in the top, into which envelopes can be
30 dropped, that is about one-and-three-fourths-inch wide
31 and six-inches-long. As Smith opened the mailbox door, a
32 snake that was coiled in the box bit deep into Smith’s left
33 wrist.
34 Russell saw Smith step back from the mailbox, swinging
35 the left arm to shake off the snake. Smith collapsed and
36 fell to the ground next to the mailboxes, the snake
37 hanging from Smith’s wrist. Russell climbed down the
38 pole and rushed to Smith’s side. Russell called out for
39 help, but no one came. Smith attempted to stand up and
40 walk home, but Russell convinced Smith to remain still.
41 Smith sat back down on the ground.
42 Russell killed the snake by beating it with a breaker bar,
43 one of the tools Russell had been working with. Russell
44 also attempted first aid by sucking the venom out of the

1 wound. Then, as Smith stood up to return home, Russell
2 heard Smith say, “Jamie!” Smith then told Russell that
3 Smith felt okay, just startled by the bite. Russell kicked the
4 snake’s carcass into a shrub in front of Smith’s house.
5 The following morning on April 30, around 8:00 AM,
6 Russell returned to the area to complete work on the
7 powerlines. Russell saw Smith, wearing pajamas, lying
8 face down in Smith’s front yard. Smith’s front door was
9 open. Russell checked for a pulse but did not feel one.
10 Russell called 911 for an ambulance.
11 Deputy Sheriff Garrett responded to the 911 call, arriving
12 at 8:40 AM. Garrett confirmed that Smith had no pulse.
13 The paramedics and ambulance arrived at 8:50 AM.
14 Deputy Garrett escorted the paramedics to the Burnsley
15 hospital, where Smith was pronounced dead at 9:45 AM.
16 Deputy Garrett returned to the scene on Raptor Road,
17 Garrett interviewed Russell. From Russell, Garrett learned
18 that at approximately 12:00 PM the day before, Smith
19 opened his mailbox and was bitten by a snake that was
20 inside it. Garrett saw the snake that Russell had killed and
21 identified it as a Mojave rattlesnake. Garrett noted that the
22 snake’s rattle was missing.
23 Garrett also knocked on Cobey’s door and briefly
24 interviewed Cobey, who told Garrett that Cobey had seen
25 nothing of the snake bite incident. Cobey explained that
26 Cobey had had an ongoing landlord-tenant dispute with
27 Smith.
28 The next day, Garrett interviewed Terry Edwards, who
29 lived down the road from Smith. Edwards told Garrett that
30 Edwards had observed a heated argument the evening
31 before Smith’s death between Cobey and Smith at the
32 funeral for Cobey’s mother. Edwards also told Garrett that
33 Edwards heard Cobey say, “I am going to kill him!”
34 [On May 2, Garrett retrieved Smith’s smart camera footage
35 from the morning of April 29, the last footage available.
36 The brief footage of only a few seconds showed an image
37 of 15-inch snake-feeding tongs in the northwest corner of
38 Cobey’s backyard, next to a small object, visible to anyone
39 who could lean their head over the back chain-link gate
40 and look around.]
41
42 On May 2, at about 3:00 PM on the same day, Garrett
43 went to Cobey’s home and asked to look around, and
44 Cobey consented. In Cobey’s house, Garrett found a
45 gallon-sized plastic tub with four or five rattlesnake
1 rattles, books about desert snakes, and a vial of liquid
2 labeled “antivenom.” Garrett asked Cobey about Cobey’s
3 interest in snakes, and Cobey explained that Cobey owned
4 these items because, as a gardener in the desert, it is
5 essential to be well-informed about rattlesnakes. Cobey
6 claimed that Cobey collects the rattles when Cobey finds
7 them around the desert.
8 Before leaving, Garrett inspected Cobey’s garage, which
9 was closed but connected to Cobey’s kitchen by a door. In
10 the garage, Garrett found long-sleeved animal handling
11 gloves and knee-high “snake-proof” boots on a table near
12 the door to Cobey’s kitchen.
13 Garrett obtained an arrest warrant for Jamie Cobey in the
14 murder of Erik Smith. Garrett served the warrant on June
15 3, 2021, and took Cobey into custody.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

1 SOURCES FOR THE TRIAL
2 The sources for the mock trial are a “closed library,”
3 which means that Mock Trial participants may only use
4 the materials provided in this case packet. The materials
5 for the trial itself include Statement of Charges, Physical
6 Evidence, Stipulations, California Penal Code, Jury
7 Instructions, Fact Situation, Witness Statements, and the
8 Mock Trial Simplified Rules of Evidence.
9 STATEMENT OF CHARGES
10 The prosecution charges Jamie Cobey with:
11 First Degree Murder — Cal. Pen. Code § 187 —
12 Unlawful killing with malice aforethought, express or
13 implied, premeditated first degree; or
14 Voluntary Manslaughter — Cal. Pen. Code § 192a —
15 The unlawful killing of a human being without
16 malice, during a sudden quarrel, in the heat of
17 passion.
18 PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
19 Only the following physical evidence may be introduced at
20 trial. The prosecution is responsible for bringing:
21 Exhibit A | Photograph Cobey’s Snake-Feeding Tongs
22 Exhibit B | Photograph of Smith’s Mailbox
23 Exhibit C | Aerial Map of the Crime Scene
24 Exhibit D | Photograph of the Mojave Desert Snake That
25 Bit Smith
26 Exhibit E | Photograph of Cobey’s Humane Animal Trap
27 *All reproductions can be as small as the original
28 document found in the case materials but no larger than
29 22” X 28”.
30 STIPULATIONS
31 Stipulations shall be considered part of the record.
32 Prosecution and defense stipulate to the following:
33 1. All witness statements were taken in a timely manner.
34 2. For the purpose of the pretrial argument, the photo of
35 the snake tongs (Exhibit A) may be used ONLY if the
36 defense motion to exclude the photo is denied. If the
1 defense motion is granted, the photo cannot be
2 admitted into evidence, nor can it be used for
3 impeachment purposes.
4 3. If the bracketed information is excluded from trial, it
5 may not be used for impeachment purposes.
6 4. All physical evidence and witnesses not provided in
7 the case packet are unavailable and their availability
8 may not be questioned. This includes but is not
9 limited to the video footage from Smith’s camera.
10 5. Dr. Charlie Dunn and Dr. Tyler Clay are qualified
11 expert witnesses and can testify to each other’s
12 statements. They may also testify to any relevant
13 information they would have reasonable knowledge of
14 from the fact situation, witness statements, and
15 exhibits.
16 6. [Exhibit A is a photograph of Cobey’s snake-feeding
17 tongs found in Cobey’s backyard.] Exhibit B is a
18 photograph of Smith’s mailbox. Exhibit C is an aerial
19 map of the crime scene created by Deputy Garrett.
20 Exhibit D is a photograph of the Mojave Desert Snake
21 that bit Smith. Exhibit E is a photograph taken by
22 Cobey of a humane animal trap that Cobey used to
23 own.
24 7. During the investigation, the officer properly collected
25 the evidence listed as Exhibit [A], B, C, D and E.
26 8. The search of Jamie’s garage was a valid search and
27 may not be objected to.
28 9. Jamie Cobey, the defendant, is present during the trial.
29 Under the conditions of an online trial, any witness
30 that knows or should know the defendant, is assumed
31 to have correctly identified Jamie Cobey as the
32 defendant in this case.
33 10. Angel Russell, the lineworker, can correctly identify
34 the defendant as the person Russell saw near the
35 mailbox, hours before the rattlesnake-bite incident.
36 11. The weather in April for the city and county of
37 Burnsley is generally a low of 50 degrees Fahrenheit
38 and a high of 72 degrees Fahrenheit. On April 29, 2021
39 at 12:00 PM, the temperature was 68 degrees
40 Fahrenheit.
41 12. It is estimated that the temperature inside the mailbox
42 on April 29, was 68 degrees Fahrenheit.

1 13. On April 29, 2021, sunset in Burnsley was at 7:36 PM.
2 14. Jamie Cobey’s house is located at 46603 Raptor Road
3 and Erik Smith’s house is located at 46601 Raptor
4 Road.
5 15. The defendant’s humane animal trap was large
6 enough to transport a three-foot long snake.
7 16. The snake that bit Erik Smith was two feet long and
8 two inches wide at its widest point and was
9 photographed by Dr. Charlie Dunn at the coroner’s
10 office. Dr. Dunn did not perform an autopsy of the
11 snake.
12 17. The victim’s body temperature when found, put the
13 approximate time of death between 3:00 AM and 6:00
14 AM on April 30.
15 18. The arrest warrant of Jamie Cobey was based on
16 sufficient probable cause and properly issued.
17 19. Any resemblance to real persons or entities is purely
18 coincidental.
19 LEGAL AUTHORITIES
20 Statutes
21 California Penal Code § 187. Murder defined
22 Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with
23 malice aforethought.
24 California Penal Code § 188. Malice defined
25 Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
26 there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to
27 take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when
28 no considerable provocation appears, or when the
29 circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned
30 and malignant heart.
31 California Penal Code § 189. Degrees of murder
32 All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
33 device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction,
34 knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to
35 penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or
36 by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated
37 killing…is murder of the first degree.
38

1 California Penal Code § 192a.
2 Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being
3 without malice.
4 (a) Voluntary — upon a sudden quarrel or heat of
5 passion.
6
7 Jury Instructions
8 CALCRIM 223 (Direct and Circumstantial Evidence)
9 Facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence
10 or by a combination of both. Direct evidence can prove a
11 fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies, he saw it
12 raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that
13 testimony is direct evidence that it was raining.
14 Circumstantial evidence also may be called indirect
15 evidence. Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove
16 the fact to be decided but is evidence of another fact or
17 group of facts from which you may logically and
18 reasonably conclude the truth of the fact in question. For
19 example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come
20 inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water,
21 that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may
22 support a conclusion that it was raining outside. Both
23 direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of
24 evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge,
25 including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a
26 conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than
27 the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than
28 the other. You must decide whether a fact in issue has
29 been proved based on all the evidence.
30 CALCRIM 224 (Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of
31 Evidence)
32 Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to
33 conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty
34 has been proved, you must be convinced that the People
35 have proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond
36 a reasonable doubt. Also, before you may rely on
37 circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you
38 must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion
39 supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the
40 defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more
41 reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence
42 and one of those reasonable conclusions points to
43 innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one
44 that points to innocence. However, when considering
1 circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable
2 conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable.
3 CALCRIM 520 (Murder with Malice Aforethought)
4 The defendant is charged with murder. To prove that the
5 defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove
6 that:
7 1. The defendant committed an act that caused the death
8 of (another person/[or] a fetus); and
9 2. When the defendant acted, (he/she) had a state of mind
10 called malice aforethought; and
11 3. (He/She) killed without lawful (excuse/[or]
12 justification).
13 There are two kinds of malice aforethought, express
14 malice and implied malice. Proof of either is sufficient to
15 establish the state of mind required for murder. The
16 defendant acted with express malice if (he/she)
17 unlawfully intended to kill.
18 The defendant acted with implied malice if:
19 1. (He/She) intentionally committed an act;
20 2. The natural and probable consequences of the act were
21 dangerous to human life;
22 3. At the time (he/she) acted, (he/she) knew (his/her) act
23 was dangerous to human life; and
24 4. (He/She) deliberately acted with conscious disregard
25 for (human/ [or] fetal) life. Malice aforethought does not
26 require hatred or ill will toward the victim. It is a mental
27 state that must be informed before the act that causes
28 death is committed. It does not require deliberation or the
29 passage of any particular period of time.
30 CALCRIM 521 First Degree Murder (Pen. Code, § 189)
31 The defendant has been prosecuted for first degree murder
32 under the theory that the murder was willful, deliberate,
33 and premeditated.
34 The defendant is guilty of first-degree murder if the People
35 have proved that (he/she) acted willfully, deliberately,
36 and with premeditation. The defendant acted willfully if
37 (he/she) intended to kill. The defendant acted deliberately
38 if (he/she) carefully weighed the considerations for and
39 against (his/her) choice and, knowing the consequences,
40 decided to kill. The defendant acted with premeditation if
1 (he/she) decided to kill before committing the act that
2 caused death.
3 The length of time the person spends considering whether
4 to kill does not alone determine whether the killing is
5 deliberate and premeditated. The amount of time required
6 for deliberation and premeditation may vary from person
7 to person and according to the circumstances. A decision
8 to kill made rashly, impulsively, or without careful
9 consideration is not deliberate and premeditated. On the
10 other hand, a cold, calculated decision to kill can be
11 reached quickly. The test is the extent of the reflection,
12 not the length of time.
13 CALCRIM 570 Voluntary Manslaughter: Heat of Passion
14 — Lesser Included Offense (Pen. Code, § 192(a))
15 A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to
16 voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed someone
17 because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. The
18 defendant killed someone because of a sudden quarrel or
19 in the heat of passion if:
20 1. The defendant was provoked;
21 2. As a result of the provocation, the defendant acted
22 rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that
23 obscured (his/her) reasoning or judgment; AND
24 3. The provocation would have caused a person of
25 average disposition to act rashly and without due
26 deliberation, that is, from passion rather than from
27 judgment.
28 Heat of passion does not require anger, rage, or any
29 specific emotion. It can be any violent or intense emotion
30 that causes a person to act without due deliberation and
31 reflection. In order for heat of passion to reduce a murder
32 to voluntary manslaughter, the defendant must have acted
33 under the direct and immediate influence of provocation
34 as I have defined it. While no specific type of provocation
35 is required, slight or remote provocation is not sufficient.
36 Sufficient provocation may occur over a short or long
37 period of time.
38 It is not enough that the defendant simply was provoked.
39 The defendant is not allowed to set up (his/her) own
40 standard of conduct. You must decide whether the
41 defendant was provoked and whether the provocation was
42 sufficient. In deciding whether the provocation was
43 sufficient, consider whether a person of average
1 disposition, in the same situation and knowing the same
2 facts, would have reacted from passion rather than from
3 judgment.
4 If enough time passed between the provocation and the
5 killing for a person of average disposition to “cool off” and
6 regain his or her clear reasoning and judgment, then the
7 killing is not reduced to voluntary manslaughter on this
8 basis.
9 The People have the burden of proving beyond a
10 reasonable doubt that the defendant did not kill as the
11 result of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. If the
12 People have not met this burden, you must find the
13 defendant not guilty of murder.
14
15
16
17
18

1 PRETRIAL MOTION
2 (Middle school students do not argue the pretrial motion
3 and therefore the bracketed information and Exhibit A may
4 be used at trial.)
5 This section of the mock trial contains materials and
6 procedures for the preparation of a pretrial motion on an
7 important legal issue. The presider’s ruling on the pretrial
8 motion will have a direct bearing on the admissibility of
9 certain pieces of evidence and the possible outcome of the
10 trial. The pretrial motion is designed to help students learn
11 about the legal process and legal reasoning. Students will
12 learn how to draw analogies, distinguish a variety of
13 factual situations, and analyze and debate constitutional
14 issues. These materials can be used as a classroom activity
15 or incorporated into a local mock trial competition. The
16 pretrial motion is the only allowable motion for the
17 purposes of this competition.
18 The pretrial issue involves the Fourth Amendment
19 protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
20 The question is whether Erik Smith’s use of the smart
21 camera provided by Deputy Sheriff Toni Garrett to capture
22 an image of snake-feeding tongs on the property of
23 defendant Jamie Cobey on the morning of April 29
24 constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and
25 therefore required a search warrant by the Burnsley
26 Sheriff’s Department, or if it was a search, it fell outside
27 the warrant requirement.
28 The defendant seeks to exclude the image of the snake
29 tongs (Exhibit A) from evidence admitted at trial as the
30 product of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
31 If the use of the camera was unconstitutional, Exhibit A
32 may not be used at trial, and neither may the evidence
33 within brackets in the Fact Situation and witness
34 statements. In that case, neither the attorneys nor
35 witnesses may refer to or discuss Exhibit A or the
36 bracketed information during the subsequent trial.
37 Legal issues are matters exclusive to the pretrial hearing.
38 For trials in which there is no pretrial hearing, evidence in
39 brackets and Exhibit A may be admissible at trial.
40 In the area of criminal due process, the Fourth
41 Amendment protects individuals, their homes, and
42 belongings from unreasonable police searches and
43 seizures. (“Police” here refers to any law enforcement
44 agency.) The Fourth Amendment originally protected

1 citizens from actions by the federal government, but
2 Fourth Amendment protections are applied to the states
3 through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
4 Law enforcement officers often must search or seize
5 persons or their property when investigating crimes or
6 apprehending suspects. The tension between personal
7 freedom and governmental power has led to numerous
8 debates and court decisions over the years. The key issues
9 for both the defense and prosecution are (1) whether there
10 was a search or seizure; and (2) whether the search or
11 seizure was lawful.
12 In this case, the court must consider whether the
13 defendant’s backyard was part of the curtilage
14 surrounding the defendant’s home and therefore entitled
15 to the heightened Fourth Amendment protection
16 traditionally afforded to the home; and whether the video
17 surveillance that produced the still photo of the snake-
18 feeding tongs (Exhibit A) constituted a search in violation
19 of the Fourth Amendment.
20 Pretrial Arguments
21 The prosecution will argue that a private citizen may place
22 a video camera on their property and can voluntarily
23 provide footage captured by a video camera to the police.
24 Therefore, the video surveillance from the smart camera
25 was not a search by law enforcement requiring a warrant.
26 Furthermore, the still image taken from the video
27 surveillance footage is admissible because the image was
28 taken from an area that was not part of the curtilage of
29 Cobey’s home. (Curtilage is private land connected to a
30 home, usually within an enclosure.) The prosecution will
31 also argue that Cobey’s backyard was partially open to
32 public land that bordered the parcel on which Cobey’s
33 home was located and was therefore in a law enforcement
34 officer’s plain view, making the search an exception to the
35 warrant requirement.
36 The defense will argue that the smart camera was
37 provided to Smith by the sheriff’s deputy, and that the
38 deputy told Smith where to place the camera.
39 Furthermore, the deputy had constant and permanent
40 access to the video captured by the camera, thus making
41 Erik’s conduct surveillance as an agent of law
42 enforcement and not in the role of private citizen. The
43 backyard itself constitutes the curtilage of Cobey’s home
44 and therefore entitled Cobey to the heightened Fourth
45 Amendment protection traditionally afforded to the home.
46 The defense will also argue that the image of the snake-

1 feeding tongs must be excluded because Cobey had a
2 reasonable expectation of privacy in Cobey’s own backyard,
3 requiring the deputy to obtain a search warrant prior to
4 accessing the video footage taken from the smart camera.
5 Sources
6 The sources for the pretrial motion arguments are a
7 “closed library,” which means that Mock Trial participants
8 may only use the materials provided in this case packet.
9 These materials include: any relevant testimony to be
10 found in any witness statements, excerpts from the U.S.
11 Constitution, and edited court opinions. Relevant witness
12 testimony is admissible in the pretrial hearing without
13 corroborative testimony for the purposes of the pretrial
14 motion only.
15 The U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court holdings,
16 California Supreme Court and California Appellate Court
17 holdings, as well as Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
18 holdings are all binding and must be followed by
19 California trial courts. All other cases are not binding but
20 are persuasive authority. In developing arguments for this
21 Mock Trial, both sides should compare or distinguish the
22 facts in the cited cases from one another and from the
23 facts in People v. Cobey.
24 SOURCES FOR PRETRIAL HEARING

25 CONSTITUTIONAL
26 U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV
27 The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
28 houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
29 and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
30 issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
31 affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
32 searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
33 U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV
34 “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
35 States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
36 of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.
37 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
38 abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
39 United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
40 life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
41 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
42 protection of the laws.”

1 Federal Cases
2 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
3 Facts: FBI agents attached an electronic listening device to
4 the outside of a public phone booth in order to hear the
5 defendant’s end of the conversation in which the
6 defendant transmitted gambling information in violation
7 of a statute.
8 Issue: Did the government’s eavesdropping technique
9 violate the privacy which the defendant relied on, thus
10 constituting a search and seizure within the meaning of
11 the Fourth Amendment?
12 Holding: Yes. The government’s activities in electronically
13 listening to and recording the defendant’s words
14 constituted a search and seizure requiring a warrant. The
15 court established a two-part test to determine what
16 protection the Fourth Amendment gives to people. First,
17 has the person shown an actual (subjective) expectation
18 of privacy in the object searched or seized? Second, does
19 society view that expectation as reasonable? “Objects,
20 activities, or statements that [a person] exposes to the
21 ‘plain view’ of outsiders are not protected because no
22 intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited.”
23 Kyllo v. U.S. 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
24 Facts: During an investigation of a suspected marijuana-
25 growing operation, police used a thermal imaging device
26 to detect heat through the walls of the defendant’s home.
27 The device detected heat that was consistent with the
28 presence of heat-lamps used to grow cannabis illegally
29 indoors.
30 Issue: Was the use of a thermal-imaging device an
31 unreasonable search of the defendant’s home?
32 Holding: Yes. The defendant did have a reasonable
33 expectation of privacy in what takes place within the
34 defendant’s own home. The thermal imager was not readily
35 available for general public use, and it explored “details of a
36 private home that would previously have been unknowable
37 without physical intrusion.” Even though the thermal
38 imaging was not a “‘significant’ compromise of the
39 homeowner’s privacy,” the court looked to the original
40 meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which was “a firm line
41 at the entrance to the house.” Therefore, “the surveillance is
42 a Fourth Amendment ‘search,’ and is presumptively
43 unreasonable without a warrant.”

1 United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)
2 Facts: During the course of surveillance of the defendant’s
3 truck, DEA agents took aerial photographs of the truck
4 backed up to the defendant’s barn on the premises of the
5 defendant’s ranch. The ranch was completely enclosed by
6 a fence. Based on the surveillance, agents crossed the
7 perimeter of the fence. At the barn, they smelled
8 chemicals and shined a flashlight through the locked gate
9 of a barn and saw evidence of an illegal narcotics
10 laboratory.
11 Issue: Was a search warrant needed for the DEA agents to
12 peer into the open side of a barn that is located in a field
13 on private property?
14 Holding: No. The court held that the Fourth Amendment
15 protects a home and its curtilage and established a four-
16 part test to use when examining issues of curtilage. The
17 test includes: the proximity of the area claimed to be
18 curtilage to the home; whether the area is included within
19 an enclosure surrounding the home; the nature of the uses
20 to which the area is put; and the steps taken by the
21 resident to protect the area from observation by people
22 passing by. The Fourth Amendment does not protect
23 “open fields” (land outside the curtilage). Open fields
24 need not be “open” nor “fields;” they can be unoccupied
25 or undeveloped land. They are not houses or effects as
26 specified in the Fourth Amendment. The barn was
27 separated from the house by a fence and was a substantial
28 distance away from the house. The agents had other data
29 that led them to suspect the defendant, and the defendant
30 did little to protect the barn from observation. Even if the
31 defendant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in
32 the barn, the search still did not violate the Fourth
33 Amendment because the officers never entered the barn.
34 United States v. Jones 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
35 Facts: Without a warrant, officers attached a tracker to the
36 defendant’s vehicle and used it to follow him for a month.
37 Evidence from the 24-hour per day, month-long
38 surveillance was used to convict the defendant of a
39 criminal conspiracy.
40 Issue: Did the warrantless use of a tracking device on the
41 defendant’s vehicle used to monitor its movements on
42 public streets violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment
43 rights?
44 Holding: Yes. The court held that the installation of a GPS

1 tracking device on the defendant’s vehicle, without a
2 warrant, constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth
3 Amendment. The court emphasized that the Fourth
4 Amendment provided some protection for trespass onto
5 personal property. The court also emphasized that a
6 Fourth Amendment search occurs whenever the
7 government violates a subjective expectation of privacy
8 that society recognizes as reasonable, which is particularly
9 important in an era where physical intrusion is
10 unnecessary to many forms of surveillance.
11 California v. Ciraolo 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
12 Facts: The police received an anonymous tip that the
13 defendant was growing marijuana in his backyard. Unable
14 to observe the yard from the ground due to a high fence
15 which encircled it, the police secured a private plane and
16 flew over Ciraolo’s house at an altitude of 1,000 feet. The
17 fly-over confirmed the presence of marijuana and the
18 evidence was used to charge the defendant for illegally
19 growing marijuana.
20 Issue: Did the warrantless, aerial observation of the
21 defendant’s back yard constitute a search and violate the
22 Fourth Amendment?
23 Holding: No. Fourth Amendment protections regarding
24 the home are not absolute. Since the observations were
25 “nonintrusive” and “took place within public navigable
26 airspace,” their actions were consistent with the Fourth
27 Amendment. “Any member of the public,” the court’s
28 decision read, “flying in this airspace who glanced down
29 could have seen everything that these officers observed.”
30 United States v. Karo 468 U.S. 705 (1984)
31 Facts: Defendants ordered fifty gallons of ether from a
32 government informant, intending them to be used to
33 extract cocaine from clothes imported into the United
34 States. The informant and owner of the ether gave consent
35 to the police to install a tracking device into one of the
36 cans containing the ether before delivery to the
37 defendants.
38 Issue: Did the installation of a tracking device into a
39 container, with the permission of the original owner,
40 constitute a seizure within the meaning of the 4th
41 Amendment?
42 Holding: No. The Court found that although the cans of
43 ether may have contained an unknown and unwanted
44 object, no meaningful interference with the defendants’
1 interest in their possessions occurred, and therefore it did
2 not violate the defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights.
3 United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)
4 Facts: The defendant’s employer suspected the defendant
5 was stealing chemicals that could be used to make drugs.
6 With the consent of the employer, the police installed a
7 radio transmitter in the container of chloroform that the
8 defendant would receive. By tracking the radio
9 transmitter, officers were able to track the chemicals to a
10 cabin and obtained a search warrant for the cabin. During
11 the search of the cabin they found a fully operable drug-
12 manufacturing lab.
13 Issue: Did the police planting and tracking of a radio
14 transmitter violate the Fourth Amendment?
15 Holding: No. The Court held that since the radio
16 transmitter was used primarily to track where the
17 chloroform traveled and where it stopped, the surveillance
18 did not violate the defendant’s right to privacy in his
19 home. Additionally, the use of the radio transmitter did
20 not serve any function that the police could not have
21 performed visually; the transmitter merely made the
22 process easier.
23 U.S. v. Romero-Bustamente, 337 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2003)
24 Facts: Border Patrol agents saw two people jump a border
25 fence and enter Romero’s backyard. Romero’s property
26 was surrounded by, in parts, a brick wall and, in other
27 parts, a wire link fence. In the enclosed backyard behind
28 the house was a shed, and there was a space of about two
29 and half feet between the shed and the fence. The
30 following day, the agents entered Romero’s yard and
31 found two undocumented individuals hiding behind the
32 defendant’s shed. The defendant (Romero) was charged
33 with harboring illegal aliens.
34 Issue: Was the agent’s warrantless search of the
35 defendant’s backyard a violation of the Fourth
36 Amendment?
37 Holding: Yes. The defendant’s backyard was small,
38 enclosed, adjacent to his house, and located behind his
39 house. Under United States v. Dunn (480 U.S. 294), as a
40 matter of law, the warrantless search of the defendant’s
41 backyard was a violation of the defendant’s Fourth
42 Amendment rights.

1 Shafer v. City of Boulder, 896 F. Supp. 2d 915 (D. Nev.
2 2012)
3 Facts: Based on information from Shafer’s neighbors, the
4 police initiated a narcotics investigation suspecting Shafer
5 of selling drugs. The police gave Shafer’s neighbor four
6 infrared, long-range, weatherproof, silent video
7 surveillance cameras, provided to their department from
8 the Department of Homeland Security. One of the cameras
9 was pointed at Shafer’s bathroom window and one at his
10 backyard. The cameras were on 24 hours per day for 56
11 days. When Shafer learned the police provided the
12 cameras, he sued the police for unconstitutional video
13 surveillance of Shafer’s home.
14 Issue: Was the defendant’s backyard included in the
15 curtilage of his home, and if so, was the video
16 surveillance of plaintiff’s backyard a search under the
17 Fourth Amendment?
18 Holding: Yes. The court held that Shafer’s backyard
19 constitutes the curtilage of his home. The yard was in close
20 proximity to the house and was surrounded by a solid-
21 paneled, four-to-five-foot-high wooden fence. Shafer called
22 the police after he saw the cameras were focused on his
23 property and after he asked his neighbor to take down the
24 cameras multiple times. Shafer even added additional feet of
25 plywood to his backyard fence to block the cameras. As to
26 the question of whether or not the video surveillance of
27 Shafer’s backyard on behalf of the police violated Shafer’s
28 Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable
29 government searches, the court looked at (1) the duration of
30 the surveillance, and (2) the government’s ability to collect
31 information they would otherwise have been able to
32 observe. The court found that the cameras provided by the
33 police undoubtedly contained video-recording capabilities
34 superior to a video camera purchased from a department
35 store. As such, this case presents similar facts to Kyllo where
36 “the Government uses a device that is not in general public
37 use to explore details of a home that would previously have
38 been unknowable without physical intrusion.” Additionally,
39 the court found that the duration and intensity of the
40 surveillance violated Shafer’s reasonable expectation that his
41 home would not be the subject of unwarranted government
42 video surveillance.
43

1
2 State Cases
3 People v. Weaver (12 N.Y. 3rd. 433) NY Court of
4 Appeal
5 Facts: Without a warrant, police placed a GPS device on
6 the defendant’s van while the van was parked on a public
7 street. The GPS monitored the van’s locations for a total of
8 65 days. The tracking history was transmitted to and
9 saved by a computer in the investigator’s vehicle. The
10 police used the data collected to convict the defendant of
11 two burglaries.
12 Issue: Was the police use of the tracking device for 65
13 days a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment
14 rights?
15 Holding: Yes. Unlike United States v. Knotts, where the
16 device was installed for a single trip, here officers used the
17 device for 65 days where they would not normally have
18 that much access to surveillance data. In the absence of
19 exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a GPS
20 device to monitor an individual’s whereabouts requires a
21 warrant supported by probable cause. The court further
22 stated that “technological advances have produced many
23 valuable tools for law enforcement and, as the years go
24 by, the technology available to aid in the detection of
25 criminal conduct will only become more and more
26 sophisticated. Without judicial oversight, the use of these
27 powerful devices presents a significant and, to our minds,
28 unacceptable risk of abuse.”

1 WITNESS STATEMENTS
2 PROSECUTION WITNESSES
3 Prosecution Witness 𑁒 Dr. Charlie Dunn (Medical Expert)
4 My name is Dr. Charlie Dunn. I earned a bachelor’s degree in
5 biology at the University of Central California in 2001. After
6 graduation I attended medical school at the university and
7 finished in 2005. I completed my residency, specializing in
8 clinical toxicology in 2009. I completed a fellowship in forensic
9 toxicology in 2010 during which I became familiar with
10 venomous and poisonous animals. I have an interest in poisons,
11 and as a desert resident myself, I am particularly interested in
12 toxins from animals that live in desert communities.
13 In 2015, I became the chief medical examiner for Burnsley
14 County. I am still in this position today. In my time in this
15 position, I have seen three deaths due to venomous bites (one
16 from a snake and two from spiders) in the area. It is true that
17 it is rare to die from a rattlesnake bite because most people
18 seek immediate medical care. Nationally, it is estimated that
19 7,000 to 8,000 people are bitten by venomous snakes each
20 year, and about five of those people die. Without proper
21 medical care, the number of deaths would be much higher.
22 On May 31, I began the autopsy of Erik Smith. When I
23 conducted a visual examination of the body, I found two
24 puncture wounds on the body’s left wrist. Around the
25 wounds the skin was red and swollen. It was clear that the
26 wound site was where the snake had bitten the victim. From
27 Deputy Garrett, I learned that the snake had been inside the
28 victim’s mailbox when the snake bit the victim. Snakes are
29 known to squeeze into tight spaces, and even into
30 mailboxes, although that is rare. Usually, desert snakes seek
31 more easily accessible cool spaces to hide in, such as under
32 rocks or in crevices. I am familiar with wire humane animal
33 traps like the one Jamie Cobey claims to have had. Though
34 snake-tongs are the best way to handle deadly rattlesnakes, I
35 have seen a few reptile specialists and park rangers (wearing
36 gloves) open a humane animal trap and dump out a
37 rattlesnake from inside the trap onto the ground or into
38 another space, such as a terrarium. If Cobey had placed a
39 small amount of food in the mailbox, that would have made
40 luring the snake out of the humane animal trap much easier.
41 I was also given the body of a dead rattlesnake. I did a
42 quick visual examination of the rattlesnake but did not
43 conduct an autopsy of the snake. I noted it was two feet
44 long and two inches wide at its widest point in diameter and
45 that it was missing its rattle. Based on my studies, I know that
46 a snake’s rattle can come off in the wild, but it takes a good

1 amount of force. [I was asked to view a photo of tongs located
2 at the defendant’s property. The small object located near the
3 tongs is consistent with the size and shape of the rattle that
4 could have come off the snake I examined — though I can’t be
5 sure.] I further inspected the snake and recognized it to be a
6 Mojave rattlesnake. These types of snakes have venom which
7 contains a mixture of neurotoxins, which can cause paralysis,
8 and hemotoxins that enter the bloodstream and can cause
9 swelling and hemorrhages. The venom from these snakes is 16
10 times more potent than other rattlesnake species.
11 As I continued the autopsy of the victim’s body, I found
12 that the kidneys showed acute tubular necrosis, which is a
13 kidney disorder that can lead to kidney failure. The
14 rattlesnake’s toxins can exacerbate a pre-existing
15 condition. However, in most cases of death by snake bite,
16 necrosis happens as a direct cause of the bite.
17 Upon examination of the heart, I found the heart had
18 experienced epicardial hemorrhaging, which causes bleeding
19 within the pericardium (the membrane surrounding the
20 heart). Epicardial hemorrhaging is often a direct byproduct
21 of the hemotoxins within the snake’s venom which causes
22 red blood cell death and thinning of the blood.
23 The neurotoxins in the venom from this species of snake
24 also attacks both the nervous system as well as the
25 respiratory system. When neurotoxins enter the body,
26 they can cause paralysis and unconsciousness because of
27 the enzymes and peptides emitted through the venom.
28 Based on the state of the body when I examined it, I
29 believe that after the bite, Smith may have felt relatively
30 fine except for local pain in the left wrist and
31 arm. However, as the venom spread throughout his body,
32 Smith likely began to fall in and out of consciousness but
33 did not die instantly.
34 Based on the victim’s body temperature taken during
35 intake and the state of rigor mortis, I would estimate that
36 the victim succumbed to lethal envenomation and died
37 somewhere between 3:00 AM and 6:00 AM on April 30.
38 Based on the wound site and autopsy, I believe that Smith
39 was killed by the snake bite and would not have been able
40 to survive the bite, regardless of any underlying health
41 conditions. Any intervening factors, namely Smith’s
42 getting up and moving around, Angel’s sucking the venom
43 out of the wound, and Angel taking a few minutes to look
44 for the snake, all were ill-advised but well-intentioned.
45 However, they would not have changed the fact that the
46 bite itself was lethal without Smith having almost
47 immediate access to the antivenom.

1 Prosecution Witness 𑁒 Deputy Sheriff Toni Garrett
2 My name is Toni Garrett, and I have been a deputy sheriff
3 with the department for the last 20 years here in
4 Burnsley.
5 I have known Erik Smith for the entire time I have worked
6 for the sheriff’s department here in Burnsley. All I know is
7 that Smith grew up in Northern California but moved east
8 to Burnsley as a young man, working as a contractor for
9 construction jobs before acquiring a few properties here
10 that he rented out for the last 15 or so years. Smith was
11 well-known in town for his expertise in desert living. He
12 also served on the town council off and on for most of the
13 time he lived in Burnsley. Smith had a reputation for
14 being rude to some fellow council members and to
15 residents speaking in front of the council. But several local
16 businesses liked the policies he promoted.
17 I became aware of Jamie Cobey when Cobey moved here
18 with Cobey’s mother about 10 years ago. I was aware that
19 Cobey’s mother had a disabling respiratory illness and that
20 Cobey was her primary caretaker. About four years ago, our
21 department received a call from Smith complaining that
22 Cobey was refusing to move Cobey’s car from Smith’s
23 driveway. I responded to the call, and we resolved the
24 dispute. But since then, I have personally responded to half a
25 dozen or so calls from either Smith or Cobey, each
26 complaining about the other. Cobey’s calls were usually noise
27 complaints about Smith in the morning hours. On at least two
28 occasions, Smith complained that Cobey left animal feces on
29 Smith’s doorstep. Cobey admitted to it, but then Smith would
30 also admit to provoking Cobey with rude outbursts or playing
31 loud music and damaging Cobey’s prized cacti and
32 succulents. Frankly, I was tired of wasting my time
33 responding to these calls. Both parties were acting Iike
34 children. I strongly suggested they seek mediation, but I doubt
35 they ever did.
36 Last October, I responded to one of Smith’s calls in which
37 he suspected that Cobey had broken into his house. There
38 was no evidence of that, but I provided Smith with a state-
39 of-the-art security camera from our department. I showed
40 Smith how to set it up on a pole on the property and, with
41 the motion-detector, catch Cobey coming into Smith’s
42 yard through the gate. The camera feed would
43 automatically upload to Smith’s data storage, and I
44 explained how Smith could change the settings so that it
45 could share with our department, too, if Smith chose.

1 I responded to a call on April 30, 2021, in the morning at
2 about 8:40 AM after an older man’s body was reported
3 found at 46601 Raptor Road. I was well aware that it was
4 Smith’s address. At the scene I found a lineworker, Angel
5 Russell standing next to Smith’s face-down body. I did a
6 quick pulse check and was unable to find one. I
7 conducted a visual inspection of the body, and I noticed
8 the distinctive puncture marks of a rattlesnake on Smith’s
9 left wrist. Russell directed me to the body of a dead
10 rattlesnake in some shrubs by the road in front of the
11 house. I say it was a rattlesnake because of its fangs and
12 markings, but its rattle was missing. The ambulance
13 arrived about 10 minutes after I did. The paramedics
14 carefully loaded Smith into the ambulance, and I escorted
15 them to the hospital. I learned shortly after we arrived at
16 the hospital that Smith had been pronounced dead.
17 I returned to the scene and asked the lineworker, Angel
18 Russell, if Russell had seen anyone in the area or seen
19 what happened to Smith. Russell had witnessed Smith get
20 bitten by a rattlesnake that was in Smith’s mailbox the
21 day before, at around 12:00 PM. I asked if Russell knew
22 how the snake died, and Russell said that Russell killed it
23 with a breaker bar the day before, hitting the snake on its
24 head and then throwing it into a shrub.
25 On the day Smith was bitten, Russell said Russell had just
26 arrived at work, when Russell had seen someone come
27 out of 46603 to stand near the mailbox. The person was
28 holding what looked like a small, wire-looking cage and a
29 canvas gardening tool bag. Russell said the bag appeared
30 to have items in it, but that Russell could not identify
31 what was in the bag. Russell had not seen anyone else on
32 the road that day, except Smith.
33 I investigated the mailbox and saw a slot opening about
34 six inches long and one-and-three-fourths inches wide on
35 top. I did not see any patent (visible) fingerprints on the
36 mailbox, so I dusted and then lifted latent fingerprints
37 (which are not visible to the naked eye) from the exterior
38 of the mailbox and the handle of the mailbox.
39 The mailbox was open and empty. In Smith’s home, I
40 found three envelopes on the kitchen counter, which I
41 later learned contained rent checks from Smith’s renters,
42 except Cobey, all of whom I interviewed and determined
43 were not involved in Smith’s death. I took all of these
44 items as well as the lifted prints back to the station. I also
45 made a cursory visual search of the ground around the
46 mailbox and saw nothing out of the ordinary. I asked

1 Russell if Russell knew Smith, and Russell did not.
2 I knocked on Cobey’s door and spoke with Cobey. I asked if
3 Cobey had seen or heard anything yesterday, relating to
4 Smith. Cobey said no. I asked about what Russell told me
5 about the day before. Cobey said Cobey was gardening the
6 morning before and had an animal trap, looking to trap snails
7 or rabbits. Cobey said Cobey had the trap when Cobey went
8 to drop off Cobey’s rent in Smith’s mailbox slot. Cobey also
9 said Cobey was still grieving over Cobey’s mother who died
10 recently, and whose funeral had been a few days before.
11 I left the scene with the dead snake’s carcass and the lifted
12 prints from the mailbox. I also took a photo of the
13 mailbox. Something about the situation just did not sit
14 right with me. It seemed that if the mailbox was high off
15 the ground and closed, how would a snake get in?
16 Knowing what I knew about the two neighbors, I believed
17 the snake bite may not have been an accident.
18 On May 1, I returned to Raptor Road and interviewed
19 another neighbor of Smith’s named Terry Edwards.
20 Edwards lived about half a mile down the road from
21 Smith. Edwards had been a friend of Smith and an
22 acquaintance of Cobey. Edwards had hired Cobey for
23 some gardening work that Cobey apparently never
24 finished. Edwards told me that Smith often complained
25 about Cobey because Cobey could not pay rent. I noticed
26 that the other tenants Edwards mentioned were named on
27 the envelopes, but I did not see one from Cobey. I asked if
28 Edwards knew if Cobey paid rent, and Edwards
29 mentioned that there was a constant dispute between
30 Smith and Cobey over rent.
31 Edwards told me that Edwards saw Cobey looking
32 disoriented at the funeral on April 28. Edwards also
33 overheard an argument between Cobey and Smith at the
34 funeral. Edwards heard Cobey yell at Smith, “Leave! You
35 weren’t invited here! My mom hated you!” Edwards also
36 heard Smith yell at Cobey, “It’s your fault your mom
37 died!”
38 Edwards said that a few hours after the funeral, Edwards
39 drove to Cobey’s home to check on Cobey’s well-being.
40 Edwards drove up in front of the home and saw Cobey
41 gardening in Cobey’s front-yard cactus garden. Edwards
42 rolled down Edwards’s side window and asked if Cobey
43 was okay. Cobey blurted out, “I am going to kill him!”
44 Edwards thought Cobey was just venting and left.

1 I also went to speak to another neighbor of Smith’s,
2 Francis Yazzie. Francis told me that Francis was good
3 friends with Cobey, and they both hung out most
4 evenings. I asked Francis about the dispute at the funeral,
5 and Francis told me that Francis witnessed the dispute.
6 [The next day on May 2, I remembered the video feed
7 from Smith’s security camera. I went into the cloud
8 account we’d set up for Smith to share video feed with
9 our department. I saw a video from 7:00 AM on April 29.
10 An animal or person nearby may have triggered the
11 camera’s motion detector, but I did not see anyone in the
12 video. The video showed Cobey’s backyard and on the
13 ground, there was what I recognized to be snake tongs
14 which is a tool people use out here in the desert to grip
15 deadly snakes safely from a distance. We even have a pair
16 in our department. There was also a small unidentifiable
17 object next to the tongs. It could be a piece of wood or
18 even a rattle. It is hard to tell from the photo.]
19 Later on May 2, I went to interview Cobey at Cobey’s
20 home. I asked Cobey if Cobey had heard the news of
21 Smith’s death and Cobey said that it was a “shame” and
22 that it sounds like a “tragic accident.” Cobey appeared
23 jittery and told me that Cobey was very busy and asked if
24 we could stop the interview. I asked Cobey if I could take
25 a look around. Cobey gave me permission to look around
26 as Cobey tended to the garden.
27 In Cobey’s living room, I saw books on cacti and
28 succulents, a couple of books about venomous snakes and
29 another about poisonous desert animals. A small tub was
30 on the shelf, which contained what appeared to be five
31 rattlesnake rattles, and next to it was a small vial of liquid
32 with a handwritten label on it saying “antivenom.” I went
33 out to the garden and asked Cobey about those items.
34 Cobey responded by saying it was normal for gardeners to
35 be well-informed on pests, including which snakes are
36 most and least venomous in order to protect themselves
37 on the job. Cobey told me that Cobey found the snake
38 rattles in the desert from time to time.
39 [At that point, I asked if Cobey had any snake tongs.
40 Cobey abruptly said that Cobey had snake tongs up until a
41 few days before.] Cobey explained that someone bought
42 some of Cobey’s tools, including Cobey’s humane animal
43 trap, [snake tongs,] hunting knife, and some other tools.
44 I told Cobey that I was just about finished looking around
45 and asked if Cobey knew of anyone who might have
46 wanted to see Smith dead. Cobey responded, “Look. Erik
1 was a bad person. It is a shame Erik is dead, but I was not
2 involved.” Cobey told me about Cobey’s mother, and
3 about Smith shutting the electricity off, leading to the
4 mother’s death. I asked if Cobey paid rent, and Cobey said
5 only a little bit, whatever Cobey could afford when rent
6 was due, but never the whole amount during the
7 pandemic.
8 On my way out, I glanced into the garage, which was
9 located off the kitchen. There I saw a table on which I
10 found a pair of animal handling gloves, a long-sleeved
11 shirt, and what I recognized to be “snake proof” boots, or
12 thick-skinned boots meant to protect against most snake
13 bites. I also saw a large canvas tool bag that looked
14 empty. The bag was about 17 inches long, 8 inches wide,
15 and 10 inches tall. I asked Cobey why the items were
16 together in the garage, and Cobey claimed that Cobey kept
17 the items there when Cobey wanted to garden.
18 On May 31, I received the report from forensics that
19 fingerprints belonging to Cobey, Smith, and Dani Emling
20 were found on the front mailbox-door as well as the top of
21 Smith’s mailbox. There is no method to determine the
22 precise time when fingerprints may have been left on a
23 surface, but the mere presence of Cobey’s fingerprints
24 became a factor in my consideration of Cobey as a suspect
25 in Smith’s death. Based on my interview with Dani
26 Emling, I determined that Emling had an alibi and was not
27 a suspect.
28 Based on evidence collected, I requested and received a
29 warrant and arrested Cobey on June 3, 2021.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

1 Prosecution Witness 𑁒 Angel Russell (Lineworker)
2 My name is Angel Russell and I have been a lineworker in
3 Burnsley County for 15 years. I have worked on just about
4 every line in the town of Burnsley and know many of the
5 residents there. I recognize Smith from around town but
6 not any more than that. I was working on a powerline
7 pole on Raptor Road from morning into the evening of
8 April 29 and again on April 30.
9 On April 29, 2021, I was working on the power lines about
10 100 feet down the road from Smith’s home. In the
11 morning, just after 8:30 AM, I had just climbed up the
12 powerline pole. I looked over the nearest houses, which
13 were 46601 and 46603. I saw someone come out of 46603
14 and walk toward the mailboxes in front of the buildings. I
15 waved, but I guess the person did not see me. The person
16 was wearing jeans and a long-sleeved T-shirt. I noticed
17 the person was carrying something, like a medium-sized
18 wired cage. I do not remember if there was anything
19 inside the cage, but I did see the person look down at the
20 cage a few times. I also saw the person carrying a
21 gardening-type tool bag with some items that I could not
22 identify from where I was working, but the bag looked
23 bulky. I assumed it was full of gardening tools. I looked
24 down at my own tools for a second, then I looked back
25 and saw the person standing next to the mailbox in front
26 of 46601. I went back to my work and did not notice
27 when the person left the scene.
28 At around 12:00 PM as I was finishing up for the day, I
29 saw an older man come out of 46601, walking to the
30 mailbox. I saw it was Smith. I waved at Smith and turned
31 around to wrap up my work. A moment later I heard a
32 loud scream coming from Smith’s direction. I looked over
33 and saw Smith stepping away from the mailbox and trying
34 to shake off what looked like a snake from Smith’s hand
35 or wrist. I noticed a few envelopes falling to the ground. I
36 climbed down the pole and ran over to the mailbox and
37 saw Smith sitting on the ground, groaning. I looked
38 around and saw what looked like a rattlesnake, but I
39 noticed immediately that it had no rattle. I yelled for help.
40 In a panic, I looked around to find something to hit the
41 snake with. I had a four-foot steel breaker bar in the back
42 of my truck which was parked next to the powerline pole.
43 I ran to get the breaker bar, and when I came back, the
44 snake was slithering slowly in the middle of the road.
45 Smith stood up and screamed “Jamie!” and started to
46 walk away, kind of in a daze. I told Smith to stay still, and
47 Smith just sat on the ground, near the mailbox.

1 I hit the snake with the breaker bar and killed it before it
2 could get away. I kicked its body into some shrubs in
3 front of Smith’s place. I could see that Smith was in a lot
4 of pain when all of a sudden, I remembered seeing
5 something on T.V. about sucking the venom out of a
6 wound. I bent down and tried sucking the venom out of
7 Smith’s wound, but I do not know if it did much good. His
8 wrist was swollen, and I got mostly blood and spit it out. I
9 thought maybe I should wait and was still feeling
10 panicked, not sure what to do.
11 Smith then stood up again and said that even though his
12 wrist hurt terribly, he felt okay. I suggested he go to a
13 doctor immediately, but Smith said it wasn’t necessary.
14 He said he was going to put ice on the wrist and “tough it
15 out.” Then, he grabbed the envelopes off the ground,
16 went inside his house, and shut the door. I packed up my
17 things and left. I knew I would be back in the morning to
18 finish up a few tasks on the powerlines.
19 When I came back at about 8:00 AM the next day, I was
20 shocked to see Smith wearing pajamas, lying face down in
21 the dirt in his front yard. The front door of his house was
22 open, as if he walked out in a hurry but then fell over. I
23 checked for a pulse on his neck, but I felt nothing. I called
24 911 immediately. I called out for help, too, but no one
25 responded.
26 At about 8:40 AM, a sheriff’s car pulled up. The sheriff
27 asked me what I knew. I told the sheriff that I had been
28 working at the top of the powerline the day before and
29 had seen Smith getting bitten and refusing help for the
30 bite. I also told the deputy that someone came out of
31 46603 the day before in the morning and stood near the
32 mailbox closest to 46601, but I did not see them open or
33 close the mailbox-door. Other than that, I had been
34 focused on my work both days and did not see anyone
35 else or anything else unusual.
36
37
38
39

1 Prosecution Witness 𑁒 Terry Edwards (Neighbor)
2 My name is Terry Edwards. I’m a retired lawyer. A few
3 years ago, I moved to the desert to get away from it all.
4 I have known Jamie and Erik for a long time as we all live
5 near each other. I have lived down Raptor Road from Erik
6 for ten years. Erik and I were friends. I was there when
7 Jamie and Jamie’s mom moved in. Jamie’s mom was a
8 nice person. Jamie, however, could be a real pain. Erik
9 was not the easiest to get along with either, but Erik
10 would never intentionally hurt anyone. Still, Jamie threw
11 animal droppings on Erik’s front porch once or twice.
12 That is unacceptable. I even saw Jamie throw stuff into
13 Erik’s yard, block Erik’s driveway with Jamie’s car, and
14 make tire tracks in Erik’s yard. They did not like each
15 other, and yet Jamie never moved away. It must be
16 because of Jamie’s mom.
17 I had Jamie do some gardening for me about a year ago,
18 but Jamie did not finish planting succulent cuttings and
19 small cactus in my drought-tolerant garden. I have called
20 Jamie and been over to Jamie’s house multiple times to
21 ask Jamie to finish the work, but Jamie ignored me every
22 time. Jamie asked me to pay more money for the work.
23 However, it was a large sum of money that I paid the first
24 go around, and I wasn’t going to finish paying it off until
25 the job was done, Anyway, I would see Jamie around
26 town, but Jamie always avoided me.
27 I ran into Jamie at the grocery store in town just a couple
28 of days after Jamie’s mother died. Jamie told me about the
29 funeral on the afternoon of April 28. Since it is a small
30 town, I decided I would stop by the funeral to give my
31 condolences and put aside our differences for the day.
32 At the funeral reception, I saw Jamie looking angry. I
33 overheard Jamie telling people that “this was it” and
34 Jamie was “finally going to do it.” I did not know what
35 this meant, so I asked Jamie what they were going to do.
36 Jamie did not want to speak to me and told me, “Go
37 away.” I gave Jamie some space and figured this was just
38 Jamie’s grief.
39 I noticed Erik Smith was there. Over the last year, Erik
40 would tell me how frustrated Erik was with Jamie for not
41 paying rent. I reminded Erik about the pandemic
42 moratorium, but Erik said the rent was so low, Jamie
43 could afford it if Jamie just “hustled more gardening
44 work.” Erik had told me that Jamie stopped paying except
45 for a little bit every couple of months, but that Erik had
46 ways to make Jamie pay. Whenever I asked what Erik
47 meant, Erik changed the subject. That is as much as I
1 know about their relationship. At the funeral, though, Erik
2 seemed civil, at first, and seemed to want to pay his
3 condolences with everyone else.
4 After a while, I met with a few more people I knew in
5 town. At one point, I saw Jamie run outside the church.
6 After a minute or so, I heard yelling outside and went to
7 check it out. I saw Jamie was yelling at Erik: “Leave! You
8 weren’t invited here! My mom hated you!” I worried that
9 the argument was going to escalate into a fight. At first,
10 Erik kept responding with statements like “I’m sorry for
11 your loss.” This seemed to only further enrage Jamie.
12 Then, Erik calmly asked Jamie, “So when are you going to
13 move out?”
14 Jamie’s face turned red. Jamie yelled, “You killed my
15 mom!” Erik suddenly pointed at Jamie and yelled, “Me?
16 It’s your fault your mom died! You should have been
17 more responsible and taken care of her!”
18 At that moment, I saw Jamie clench a fist. Then Erik
19 laughed, turned, and threw up Erik’s arms. I know Erik
20 could be rude to people and made some enemies in town,
21 but I thought that was over the line. This was a funeral.
22 I was concerned the argument would escalate into
23 violence, so I stepped up and suggested they separate and
24 discuss this at another time. Jamie said, “Never!” Then,
25 Jamie hurried off in Jamie’s car, and Erik told me Erik
26 decided to go home. Erik got into Erik’s truck and drove
27 off. That was the last time I saw Erik.
28 A few hours after the emotional funeral, at around dusk, I
29 was concerned about Jamie, so I drove to Jamie’s
30 residence to check up on Jamie. When I arrived at the
31 house, I saw Jamie in Jamie’s front-yard garden. I rolled
32 my window down with the intention to talk to Jamie,
33 when suddenly I heard Jamie scream, “I am going to kill
34 him!” Jamie seemed emotionally drained. I ignored the
35 comment and suggested Jamie get some rest. Jamie said
36 Jamie was exhausted and would be heading to bed shortly
37 after Jamie had finished something “important” that Jamie
38 was working on. I told Jamie I would check-in on Jamie
39 the following day, and then I drove home.
40 Thinking back, it was odd seeing Jamie gardening at dusk.
41 Everyone who lives here knows that snakes are more
42 active early in the morning and at dusk. I just assumed
43 that Jamie was trying to stay busy to keep Jamie’s mind
44 off of the intensely emotional day.
45

1 DEFENSE WITNESSES
2 Defense Witness 𑁒 Jamie Cobey (Defendant)
3 My name is Jamie Cobey. I was a tenant of Erik’s for
4 about 10 years at 46603 Raptor Road. For the past 10
5 years, I lived with my mom here and paid Erik rent. The
6 rent was cheap and did not even go up in the first three
7 years we lived there. But Erik was as bad a landlord as the
8 rent was cheap. Erik rarely fixed anything I requested, and
9 even wandered into my garden and house sometimes as if
10 he lived there. It took me years to figure out that a
11 landlord can’t do that without 24 hours’ written notice. I
12 guess I was pretty naive.
13 That was not the worst thing about Erik. Erik would also
14 blast the loudest music in the morning hours. It really
15 disturbed my mom. We live really close to Erik. I would
16 confront Erik about it, but Erik refused to turn it down
17 and would even turn it up. Once Erik yelled, “I own this
18 town!” I called the police several times on Erik, but it
19 never seemed to result in Erik getting arrested or
20 anything.
21 I got so mad at Erik sometimes, that out of anger I did
22 leave dried coyote scat I found in the desert on Erik’s
23 doorstep. I am embarrassed now that I did that. Erik
24 called the sheriff, which I thought was unnecessary. But I
25 still had to realize it was wrong of me. [I guess Erik
26 wasn’t amused with my prank because some time back in
27 October, Erik put up a video camera in Erik’s backyard
28 with an image of a smiley face that said “Smile, You’re On
29 Camera.” I thought the camera was creepy and weird,
30 since it was pointed toward my yard. I told him he didn’t
31 have my permission to aim the camera into my backyard.
32 After a while, I forgot the camera was there.]
33 When the pandemic hit, our lives, and the lives of many
34 people in Burnsley were turned upside down. Within a
35 couple of weeks, the entire county seemed to shut down,
36 including the restaurant, The Blue Agave, where I had
37 worked for years. The owner, Francis Yazzie, decided to
38 do other work instead of doing take-out food like other
39 places. I was out of a job and could not find anything else
40 nearby. My mom needed me, so I could not find a job
41 where I would have to commute far away or be exposed
42 to a lot of people. It was a scary time for sure. I was
43 especially concerned for people like my mother who had
44 preexisting health conditions. I also knew that Erik had a
45 preexisting health condition and needed to be isolated
1 from others due to the pandemic. Although I did not like
2 Erik, I would not wish COVID-19 on my worst enemy.
3 I decided I would try to make ends meet by stepping up
4 my part-time xeriscape work. (That is landscaping that
5 uses very little water, especially good for the desert.) I
6 have a certificate in xeriscaping in addition to my biology
7 degree. But as it turns out, most people in Burnsley and
8 other nearby towns could not afford to pay me for
9 xeriscaping because of the pandemic. A lot of my reliable
10 clients lost their jobs, too. I only had a few jobs during the
11 pandemic.
12 Consequently, my mom and I lived mostly off her modest
13 state disability check. Thankfully, the state provided a
14 pandemic eviction moratorium, so Erik could not just kick
15 us out onto the street when I could not pay rent. That was
16 a huge relief for my mom. Still, I found a way to pay a
17 portion of the rent every few months in good faith just to
18 let Erik know we needed to live there.
19 I hated the fact that Erik used cannabis. In college, I had a
20 dear friend who became very dependent on cannabis. She
21 was depressed and the cannabis did not help her. She just
22 dropped out of my life and the lives of our friends. It was
23 sad. But since Erik was my landlord, I kept my mouth
24 shut about the cannabis plants in Erik’s garage. Erik even
25 told me that Erik had high blood pressure, a kidney
26 condition, and had suffered from congestive heart failure,
27 but Erik chose to use cannabis rather than take Erik’s
28 prescribed medications. Inside, I seethed at how
29 irresponsible Erik was for growing and using this drug.
30 I recall in December 2020, many of my prize-winning
31 variegated succulent plants had been cut at their roots and
32 removed from their pots in my garden. I asked Smith
33 about it, and he told me that he had destroyed the plants
34 because he thought they attracted “pests.”
35 Worse was the time in early January 2021 when Erik told
36 me that the eviction moratorium was a curse because Erik
37 wanted us off the property. Erik said Erik wanted to tear
38 our house down and start a big, desert “pot farm” on the
39 land. I knew that was illegal and said to Erik that would
40 be criminal. Erik laughed and said I would not be able to
41 stop him. “This town is mine,” he told me.
42 One day, I learned from Dani Emling that Erik sold
43 cannabis to people in town, and that Dani spotted Erik in
44 town selling the cannabis to a minor. I was horrified. Erik
45 was on the town council, which did not have a lot of

1 power, but it meant Erik needed to be ethical. Selling the
2 pot illegally and especially to minors was a deeply
3 immoral thing to do, but I knew that his law-enforcement
4 buddies would not do anything about it.
5 I suspect Erik meant what he said when he said he
6 wanted to tear our house down for an illegal cannabis
7 farm. He really meant to drive us off the land. Erik shut
8 off our electricity and water on multiple occasions. I
9 explained that it was detrimental for my mom’s health
10 and asked Erik to stop. Erik said I should take my mom to
11 a safer, better home. Erik would turn everything back on
12 after I got really mad. I think Erik liked to see me mad.
13 Erik continued to shut off my power in the middle of the
14 spring and summer which are the hottest times of the
15 year. On April 22 this year (I will never forget the date),
16 Erik shut off my power again, and my mother’s oxygen
17 tank shut down. I was out gardening and could not hear
18 my mom gasping and trying to call for help inside the
19 house. The lack of oxygen had sent her into cardiac arrest.
20 I happened to come inside and see her struggling. I
21 realized that the power was off again. I knew the hospital
22 was 45 minutes away, so it would take that much time for
23 an ambulance to arrive, so I got mom into my car and
24 sped toward the hospital. She fell unconscious on the way
25 there, and when we arrived, they were not able to
26 resuscitate her. She died on the way there. I was
27 devastated. Over the next couple of days, I made
28 arrangements for her funeral the following week. I became
29 numb and funneled my energy into planning the funeral.
30 I cannot say that I was not angry at Erik, because I was.
31 But I did not blame Erik entirely for my mom’s death. She
32 had been very ill, and I was extremely sad to lose her. It
33 had only been a matter of time.
34 I held it together until the funeral where I admit I got
35 angry at Erik. I never invited Erik and did not want him
36 there. The pain was still fresh, and we got into a very
37 heated argument. I do not remember everything I said to
38 Erik, but Erik asked me when I was moving out. That was
39 so cruel and not lawful, I just lost my temper. I do recall
40 telling Erik that he killed my mother. I regret having said
41 that. Our neighbor Terry separated us from arguing, and I
42 had to get out of there and go home.
43 I left the funeral in a rush and went to my neighbor
44 Francis Yazzie’s house to unwind. We often had tea and
45 talked in the late afternoons and evenings. But I needed
46 space to be alone that day, so I did not spend as much
1 time as usual there. Being a gardener, there is always
2 work to do. I went back home to do some gardening and
3 get my mind off things.
4 I take a lot of pride in my gardens and have a beautiful
5 front yard, including a small bird pond. Working in my
6 front or backyard gardens is very relaxing. In my front
7 garden, I noticed that snails and rabbits had ruined some
8 of my favorite succulents. Even though this frustrated me
9 greatly, it was good to be angry at something other than
10 Erik. I might have said out loud I was going to kill the
11 snails or rabbits: that I was “going to kill them.” But I
12 really did not mean it literally. Sometimes I say things out
13 of frustration, but I have never killed a snail or a rabbit or
14 any living thing for that matter. When I find snails or
15 rabbits in my gardens, I trap them and take them out into
16 the desert to release them. I got over my anger at Erik
17 through talking it out with Francis and through gardening.
18 I just want to continue my gardening. Business in
19 Burnsley for my gardening and xeriscaping has picked up,
20 and I feel I can contribute a lot of good to the environment
21 and to my community in that way.
22 I have been a gardener for a long time out here, so I am
23 very familiar with the different species of snakes. I spend
24 a lot of time researching rattlesnakes and knowing how to
25 spot Mojave rattlesnakes because they are the most
26 dangerous and therefore important to stay away from.
27 From my reading about poisonous desert animals,
28 including scorpions and snakes, I have learned that long-
29 sleeved animal-handling gloves and knee-high “snake
30 proof” boots are good protection, especially in the spring
31 and summer months when rattlesnakes are most active.
32 Those and the canvas gardening-tool bag the deputy
33 found are just some of the things I use occasionally when
34 I garden. I am a member of a couple of animal rights
35 organizations, and my first priority is handling animals
36 humanely and with respect. I would never cut off a
37 snake’s rattle, as I explained to the sheriff, and I only
38 collect rattles that I have found while gardening and
39 hiking.
40 On the morning of April 29, I went to drop off an envelope
41 with $48.00 in cash to pay Erik for part of the rent. I
42 dropped it in the top mail slot in Erik’s mailbox. I am not
43 sure why my envelope was missing later. I know for a fact
44 I put it in Erik’s mailbox. I do not recall touching the
45 mailbox itself on that day, but I may have touched it in
46 the past. At the time, I was holding a humane animal trap
47 in my hand and my canvas gardening tool bag. The trap
1 was a metal, wired, rectangle-shaped, that had a latching
2 wire-door on one side. When I’m gardening, I might leave
3 the trap out and if I catch a snail or rabbit or even a garter
4 snake in it, I can humanely release them in the desert,
5 away from home. I do not remember ever touching Erik’s
6 mailbox on that day, though I have in the past, a couple of
7 times a week.
8 The next day, I put a flier up at the town hardware store
9 that I was selling a bunch of gardening tools. I needed
10 money to pay for the funeral expenses. Someone took my
11 flier and showed up a few days later with cash for the
12 tools. I sold my humane animal trap, [my snake tongs,]
13 hunting knife, and a few other spades and rakes and
14 things. I sold it all too cheap, but anything helps right now
15 to offset my debts. I had a photo of the trap that I
16 provided to Deputy Garrett when I was first questioned. I
17 had nothing to hide by providing it.
18 Again, I did not like Erik. That is not a secret. But I did
19 not kill Erik.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

1 Defense Witness 𑁒 Francis Yazzie (Neighbor)
2 My name is Francis Yazzie. I live at 401 Raptor Road,
3 about a half mile or so down the road from Jamie Cobey
4 and Erik Smith. I owned the Blue Agave restaurant, which
5 celebrated my culture and cuisine. I was forced to close it
6 because of the pandemic. These days I make a living
7 selling my desert-landscape watercolor paintings and
8 handmade jewelry and belt buckles. I do not make as
9 much as I did with the restaurant, but I’m an artist at
10 heart and I enjoy the work tremendously. I work from
11 early morning until about 4:00 PM each day.
12 I have been good friends with Jamie since Jamie moved in
13 about 10 years ago. Jamie and I started to hang out in the
14 early evening during the pandemic, after I was done
15 painting and jewelry making for the day. Often, after
16 Jamie’s mom had been cared for, Jamie would come over
17 around 4:00 PM for a cup of tea made from herbs from my
18 garden. Jamie started to help me in my cactus and
19 succulent garden for free, teaching me about all the
20 characteristics of cacti and succulents, how to take care of
21 the plants and how to build a drought-tolerant landscape.
22 Jamie was always a very patient teacher. Jamie and I
23 talked about maybe going into business together once the
24 pandemic ended.
25 On two occasions, I was at Jamie’s home when the
26 electricity was shut off. I asked if Jamie had paid the bills,
27 and Jamie informed me that Erik would shut the power off
28 to get Jamie to move. I told Jamie that was unfair and
29 probably illegal harassment. Jamie said Jamie was
30 handling it.
31 Erik was not well liked by many in town. He often sold
32 marijuana illegally, even to minors, and he was not kind. I
33 talked to Erik a few times and explained how Jamie’s
34 situation was tough with a sick mom. I asked Erik to stop
35 turning Jamie’s electricity off and demanding rent, as it
36 was probably not even legal during the pandemic eviction
37 moratorium. Erik would always refuse and said he wanted
38 his property back so he could start a big cannabis grow-
39 operation. I advised Jamie to hang tight and maybe once
40 Jamie found a new job, Jamie could afford to rent
41 somewhere else. However, Erik continued to shut off
42 electricity and make Jamie miserable. I offered for Jamie’s
43 mom to stay with me until Jamie figured things out, but
44 Jamie said they would be fine. Jamie was a loving
45 caregiver devoted to Jamie’s mom, so they wanted to be
46 close.
1 From what Jamie told me, Jamie spent most of each day
2 caring for Jamie’s mom. Jamie would garden early in the
3 morning, care for Jamie’s mom throughout the day, and
4 maybe do a little more gardening in the afternoon. Again,
5 Jamie sometimes would come over in the late afternoon to
6 hang out and wind down. I appreciated the company.
7 Last week, on the day of the funeral, Jamie came by
8 around 4:00 PM and seemed in an agitated state. I
9 understood why because of the verbal argument Jamie
10 and Erik had earlier that day. Jamie was very quiet but
11 once in a while would mention how hurt Jamie felt, and
12 of course about how much Jamie missed Jamie’s mom.
13 After an hour or so, Jamie seemed pretty calm to me.
14 Jamie even laughed at how absurd the fight from earlier
15 that day seemed. “Erik is just being Erik,” Jamie said.
16 Jamie only stayed for an hour or so before saying Jamie
17 was exhausted and just wanted to unwind in Jamie’s
18 garden. By the time Jamie left, Jamie seemed like Jamie’s
19 usual even-tempered self.
20 I did not see Jamie the following few days. I assumed
21 Jamie was just dealing with the loss of Jamie’s mother.
22 Jamie is such a kind, creative, and gentle person, I was
23 surprised to learn that the police charged Jamie with
24 Erik’s death. I can’t imagine that Jamie is capable of
25 killing anyone. Erik was such a jerk; I would not be
26 surprised to learn that someone else Erik angered in town
27 might have something to do with Erik’s death.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

1 Defense Witness 𑁒 Dr. Tyler Clay (Herpetologist)
2 My name is Tyler Clay, and I am the director of the
3 Southland Zoological Museum in California. I earned a
4 Bachelor of Science degree in biology at Central State
5 University in California in 2000, and I later earned my
6 master’s degree and Ph.D. at University of Central
7 California in biology with a specialization in herpetology,
8 or the study of snakes. I recently authored my first book,
9 “The Snake Whisperer: Life Among the Snakes.” I have
10 worked as a resident naturalist at a couple of different
11 national parks before taking my current position. Being
12 from the desert myself, I have a lot of experience with
13 snakes and have even had a few snake bites. That might
14 explain my current career.
15 I have examined the medical examiner’s report about the
16 death of Erik Smith and was able to examine the Mojave
17 rattlesnake specimen that had bitten Erik Smith. I have
18 reached the following conclusions.
19 From my research, I can say that it is extremely unlikely
20 for a person to be killed by a rattlesnake bite. The Mojave
21 rattlesnake, as we have in this case, is easily the most
22 venomous rattlesnake in North America. But even the
23 Mojave rattlesnake’s bite rarely kills a human being.
24 Antivenom is widely available, and when administered
25 promptly it saves lives. The danger of Mojave snake bites,
26 though, is the fact that serious symptoms do not manifest
27 sometimes until hours after the bite. Victims can be lulled
28 into thinking the bite was not that bad, when in reality,
29 they need the antivenom immediately.
30 The Mojave’s venom contains neurotoxins, which are
31 poisons that attack nerve tissue. After a few hours, the
32 victim may experience a host of terrible symptoms, like
33 difficulty breathing, loss of vision, and muscle spasms.
34 Cardiac arrest can result. In my research, I have seen
35 plenty of cases in which someone waited too long to get
36 help.
37 But not everyone dies from the bite alone. There can be
38 intervening and exacerbating causes of death. For
39 example, moving around after a rattlesnake bite makes the
40 venom course through one’s bloodstream faster, whereas
41 staying still is a way to slow the venom until help arrives.
42 People also waste time trying to find the snake instead of
43 administering first aid or getting emergency assistance. A
44 common mistake, too, is trying to suck the venom out of a
45 wound. That also gives a false sense of security when, in

1 actuality, it has done nothing but put the poor person
2 sucking the wound in danger of poisoning.
3 I concur with Dr. Dunn that the wound on Erik’s wrist
4 was a snake bite caused by a Mojave rattlesnake. But the
5 missing rattle is more common than you might think.
6 Snakes shed their skin frequently when they are young,
7 and about twice a year as they get older. When they shed
8 their skin, they scrape their bodies against rocks in the
9 desert to pull the old skin off. While scraping against
10 rocks, they can inadvertently pull their rattles off when
11 the rattles get stuck on a sharp rock or wedged between
12 two rocks. Rattles are made of keratin, just like your
13 fingernails. Although rattles look sturdy, they are actually
14 very fragile. The missing rattle here is entirely consistent
15 with a natural occurrence common to all species of
16 rattlesnakes. It is also entirely possible that the snake lost
17 its rattle while squeezing into the mailbox slot. [The
18 picture of the tongs in Erik’s backyard was taken from a
19 distance and of poor quality. I cannot identify the small
20 object located near the tongs — it could be any number of
21 things. I guess it’s possible it can be a snake rattle but it
22 could also be a piece of wood. I can’t tell for sure.]
23 Although the snake bit Erik, and there was no immediate
24 medical attention, it is more likely that Erik’s death was
25 due to his pre-existing kidney disease and congestive heart
26 failure. The snake’s neurotoxins attack the nervous and
27 respiratory system, which causes less oxygen to be
28 transmitted to the organs. I also saw in the report Erik’s
29 acute tubular necrosis, which is seen in medical patients
30 with long-term kidney failure. These findings are
31 indicative of an underlying and untreated kidney
32 condition, which I have seen before in at least a couple of
33 reports of deaths after rattlesnake bites.
34 Mojave rattlesnakes are most active in California between
35 April and October. These snakes are not known to be
36 overly aggressive and are usually only aggressive if
37 disturbed. All rattlesnakes should be handled with great
38 care. I am very familiar with humane animal traps and
39 own several myself. Though people with basic knowledge
40 of snakes might handle non-venomous snakes with or
41 without gloves when moving snakes out of such a trap,
42 they also know that tongs and bite-resistant gloves are the
43 only way to ensure safety when handling a rattler in those
44 circumstances. Dumping a rattler into an open mailbox
45 door, even with gloves as Dr. Dunn has suggested, would
46 be an extremely risky action for someone holding the trap.
47 While it is possible to transport venomous snakes in a
1 variety of ways with different types of containers, I
2 recommend using snake tongs, long bite-resistant gloves,
3 and snake carriers like a humane animal trap to avoid
4 injury.
5 I know the snake that bit the victim was found in a
6 mailbox. It is not unusual for snakes to hide out in dark
7 places during the day to get out of the sun and wait until
8 later to hunt for prey, like small rodents and lizards.
9 Snakes are masterful at finding and squeezing into hiding
10 places. Some places where snakes have been found
11 include BBQ appliances, stacked wood piles, under
12 outdoor patio furniture, rock piles, garages, and under car
13 hoods. I have seen a couple of cases before in which a
14 snake has crawled into someone’s mailbox and attacked
15 someone opening the mailbox, and in those cases, the
16 victims tried to grab the snakes. It is likely here that Erik
17 either tried to grab the snake or his mail, and either way it
18 would be entirely in the snake’s nature to bite defensively.
19 Most people living in the area — including myself —
20 make sure to be very careful when opening any closed
21 space like a mailbox.
22 I viewed the picture of the mailbox where Russell saw the
23 victim get bitten. Given the size of the mailbox, Deputy
24 Garrett’s description and the snake’s dimensions, the
25 snake could climb into the mailbox through the front
26 mailbox door, if it were open, or even squeeze into the
27 slot on top of the mailbox.
28 It is extremely unlikely that the Mojave rattler’s venom
29 would have killed Erik if he had gotten medical treatment
30 for the snake bite. Death from Mojave rattlesnake bites are
31 very rare, especially in desert communities, because bite
32 victims generally seek out an antivenom as soon as
33 possible.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

1 Defense Witness 𑁒 Dani Emling (Neighbor/Tenant)
2 My name is Dani Emling, and I am the neighbor of Jamie
3 and Erik. I live in a one-bedroom house across the road
4 from them on Raptor Road. Erik is my landlord, too. I run
5 a convenience store in town which, thankfully, has stayed
6 in business throughout the pandemic. I spend most of my
7 days there. Before the pandemic, I hired Jamie once to
8 make my garden drought-tolerant with cacti and
9 succulents. It’s beautiful! Jamie used a variety of cacti and
10 succulents. Each spring, some of the cacti bloom with
11 multiple vibrant colorful flowers. Jamie is a gifted
12 xeriscape artist and should probably do that for a living.
13 I do not like to speak ill of the dead, but Erik was a
14 terrible person. He was usually rude and offered critical
15 opinions that you never asked for. Some people are just
16 like that, I guess. We have had arguments in the past,
17 almost always about rent and the fact that Erik took
18 forever to do simple repairs and maintenance on my
19 house. If I was a day late, which was rare, Erik would
20 shut off my utilities. But the rent was cheap and living in
21 the desert is my idea of heaven. It is beautiful and quiet
22 out here. We did not fight too often, but I witnessed
23 arguments between Erik and Jamie as well as Erik’s other
24 tenants who did not live on Raptor Road but who came by
25 once in a while. All of us tenants put our checks in Erik’s
26 mailbox, and Jamie’s mailbox is almost right next to it.
27 Erik and Jamie lived close together, and I witnessed many
28 fights between Jamie and Erik. I have seen a sheriff out
29 here many times. Sometimes, I would hear music blaring
30 out of Erik’s house as I drove off to work. It was really,
31 really loud. It does not surprise me that Jamie would call
32 the sheriff about that. That was how Jamie chose to deal
33 with Erik most of the time, by calling the sheriff, or
34 coming to vent to me. Jamie could be angry, but every
35 time I saw Jamie mad after one of Erik’s shenanigans,
36 Jamie always cooled off. Many times, I saw Jamie
37 apologize to Erik, including the time I saw Jamie leave
38 some animal waste on Erik’s front porch.
39 Jamie once in a while would complain to me that Erik
40 shut off electricity. I said I knew the feeling, but that Erik
41 would turn it on again. Erik was just having a power trip,
42 showing us that he was in control. It may sound crazy,
43 but it was worth it to live in such a beautiful place.
44 One day, when I went to drop off my rent in Erik’s
45 mailbox, I saw Erik walk outside to the space between

1 their properties to speak to Jamie. I heard hushed
2 speaking between them. Erik was angry to be there and
3 threatened that if Jamie did not drop whatever it was,
4 they were talking about, Erik said he “would make the
5 situation worse.” They had multiple arguments like this
6 throughout the past few weeks.
7 I was at Jamie’s mom’s funeral. There was an argument
8 there between Jamie and Erik. I couldn’t believe that Erik
9 showed up, since Erik killed Jamie’s mother; Erik was
10 such a despicable person, with little redeeming value. I
11 did not hear most of it, but I did hear Jamie yelling that
12 Erik had not been invited and should leave. It was yet
13 another fight between the two. Immediately following the
14 funeral, I left to visit my family in a neighboring county
15 for a few weeks. While I was gone, I received a call from
16 Deputy Garrett telling me that Erik was dead from a
17 rattlesnake bite. I told the deputy what I knew about
18 Jamie’s and Erik’s relationship. The deputy asked about
19 my fingerprints on the mailbox, and I explained that I
20 dropped off my rent check into the slot on Erik’s mailbox
21 before I left town. I do not recall touching the mailbox.
22 I was shocked to learn that Erik died. I had nothing to do
23 with Erik’s death. When I returned on June 5, I could not
24 believe it when I heard from a couple of customers in my
25 store that Jamie was arrested for Erik’s murder. Clearly it
26 was an accident. In the desert, everyone knows
27 rattlesnakes crawl into small spaces. Erik should have
28 been more careful, and certainly should have gotten
29 medical treatment. Erik’s death was so avoidable. Jamie is
30 a great person. I do not believe Jamie had anything to do
31 with Erik’s death. Jamie is an animal lover. Jamie will not
32 even hurt mosquitos or other pests. Jamie especially loves
33 snakes and has a tremendous respect for them. Jamie
34 would never use a creature to hurt anyone.
35
36
37
38
39

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

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

1
1 Exhibit C
2
3
Aerial Map of the Crime Scene
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Constitutional Rights Foundation

12
13
14
15
54
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
People v. Cobey
24
25
1 Exhibit D
2 The Mojave Desert Snake That Bit Smith
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

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

1 FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF A TRIAL
2 The Elements of a Criminal Offense
3 The penal (or criminal) code generally defines two aspects
4 of every crime: the physical aspect and the mental aspect.
5 Most crimes specify some physical act, such as firing a
6 gun in a crowded room, and a guilty, or culpable, mental
7 state. The intent to commit a crime and a reckless
8 disregard for the consequences of one’s actions are
9 examples of a culpable mental state. Bad thoughts alone,
10 though, are not enough. A crime requires the union of
11 thought and action.
12 The Concept of Reasonable Doubt
13 Despite its use in every criminal trial, the term
14 “reasonable doubt” is hard to define. The concept of
15 reasonable doubt lies somewhere between probability of
16 guilt and a lingering possible doubt of guilt. A defendant
17 may be found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” even
18 though a possible doubt remains in the mind of the judge
19 or juror. Conversely, triers of fact might return a verdict of
20 not guilty while still believing that the defendant probably
21 committed the crime. Reasonable doubt exists unless the
22 triers of fact can say that they have a firm conviction of
23 the truth of the charge.
24 Jurors must often reach verdicts despite contradictory
25 evidence. Two witnesses might give different accounts of
26 the same event. Sometimes a single witness will give a
27 different account of the same event at different times.
28 Such inconsistencies often result from human fallibility
29 rather than intentional lying. The trier of fact (in the Mock
30 Trial competition, the judge) must apply his or her own
31 best judgment when evaluating inconsistent testimony.
32 A guilty verdict may be based upon circumstantial
33 (indirect) evidence. However, if there are two reasonable
34 interpretations of a piece of circumstantial evidence, one
35 pointing toward guilt of the defendant and another
36 pointing toward innocence of the defendant, the trier of
37 fact is required to accept the interpretation that points
38 toward the defendant’s innocence. On the other hand, if a
39 piece of circumstantial evidence is subject to two
40 interpretations, one reasonable and one unreasonable, the
41 trier of fact must accept the reasonable interpretation,
42 even if it points toward the defendant’s guilt. It is up to
43 the trier of fact to decide whether an interpretation is
44 reasonable or unreasonable.
45 Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you
46 firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt.

1 TEAM ROLE DESCRIPTIONS
2 Attorneys
3 The pretrial-motion attorney presents the oral argument
4 for (or against) the motion brought by the defense. You
5 will present your position, answer questions by the judge,
6 and try to refute the opposing attorney’s arguments in
7 your rebuttal.
8 Trial attorneys control the presentation of evidence at
9 trial and argue the merits of their side of the case. They do
10 not themselves supply information about the alleged
11 criminal activity. Instead, they introduce evidence and
12 question witnesses to bring out the full story.
13 The prosecutor presents the case for the state against the
14 defendant(s). By questioning witnesses, you will try to
15 convince the judge or jury (juries are not used at state
16 finals) that the defendant(s) is guilty beyond a reasonable
17 doubt. You will want to suggest a motive for the crime
18 and try to refute any defense alibis.
19 The defense attorney presents the case for the
20 defendant(s). You will offer your own witnesses to present
21 your client’s version of the facts. You may undermine the
22 prosecution’s case by showing that the prosecution’s
23 witnesses are not dependable or that their testimony
24 makes no sense or is seriously inconsistent.
25 Trial attorneys will:
26 ● Conduct direct examination.
27 ● Conduct cross-examination
28 ● Conduct redirect examination, if necessary. Make
29 appropriate objections: Only the direct and cross-
30 examination attorneys for a particular witness may
31 make objections during that testimony.
32 ● Conduct the necessary research and be prepared to act
33 as a substitute for any other attorneys.
34 ● Make opening statements and closing arguments.
35 Each student attorney should take an active role in some

36 part of the trial.
37 Witnesses
38 You will supply the facts of the case. As a witness, the
39 official source of your testimony, or record, is composed
40 of your witness statement, and any portion of the fact
41 situation, stipulations, and exhibits, of which you would
42 reasonably have knowledge. The fact situation is a set of
1 indisputable facts that witnesses and attorneys may
2 refer to and draw reasonable inferences from. The
3 witness statements contained in the packet should be
4 viewed as signed statements made to the police by the
5 witnesses.
6 You may testify to facts stated in or reasonably inferred
7 from your record. If an attorney asks you a question, and
8 there is no answer to it in your official testimony, you can
9 choose how to answer it. You can either reply, “I don’t
10 know” or “I can’t remember,” or you can infer an answer
11 from the facts you do officially know. Inferences are only
12 allowed if they are reasonable. Your inference cannot
13 contradict your official testimony, or else you can be
14 impeached using the procedures outlined in this packet.
15 Practicing your testimony with your attorney coach and
16 your team will help you to fill in any gaps in the official
17 materials (see Unfair Extrapolation on p. 70).
18 It is the responsibility of the attorneys to make the
19 appropriate objections when witnesses are asked to
20 testify about something that is not generally known or
21 that cannot be reasonably inferred from the Fact
22 Situation or a Witness Statement.
23 Court Clerk, Court Bailiff, Unofficial

24 Timer
25 We recommend that you provide two separate people for
26 the roles of clerk and bailiff, but if you assign only one, then
27 that person must be prepared to perform as clerk or bailiff
28 in any given trial.
29 The unofficial timer may be any member of the team
30 presenting the defense. However, it is advised that the
31 unofficial timer not have a substantial role, if any, during
32 the trial so they may concentrate on timing. The ideal
33 unofficial timer would be the defense team’s clerk.
34 The clerk and bailiff have individual scores to reflect their
35 contributions to the trial proceedings. This does NOT
36 mean that clerks and bailiffs should try to attract
37 attention to themselves; rather, scoring will be based
38 on how professionally and responsibly they perform
39 their respective duties as officers of the court.
40 In a real trial, the court clerk and the bailiff aid the judge
41 in conducting the trial. The court clerk calls the court to
42 order and swears in the witnesses to tell the truth. The
43 bailiff watches over the defendant to protect the security
44 of the courtroom.
1 In the Mock Trial, the clerk and bailiff have different
2 duties. For the purpose of the competition, the duties
3 described below are assigned to the roles of clerk and
4 bailiff. (Prosecution teams will be expected to provide
5 the clerk for the trial; defense teams are to provide the
6 bailiff.)
7 Duties of the Court Clerk

8 When the judge and scoring attorneys arrive in the
9 courtroom, introduce yourself, explain that you will assist
10 as the court clerk and distribute team roster forms to the
11 opposing team, each scoring attorney, and the judge.
12 In the Mock Trial competition, the court clerk’s major
13 duty is to time the trial. You are responsible for bringing a
14 stopwatch to the trial. Please be sure to practice with it
15 and know how to use it when you come to the trials.
16 An experienced timer (clerk) is critical to the success of
17 a trial.
18 Interruptions in the presentations do not count as time.
19 For direct, cross, and redirect examination, record only
20 time spent by attorneys asking questions and witnesses
21 answering them.
22 Do not include time when:
23 ● Witnesses are called to the stand.
24 ● Attorneys are making objections.
25 ● Judges are questioning attorneys or witnesses or
26 offering their observations.
27 When a team has two minutes remaining in a category,
28 hold up the two- minute sign; when one minute remains,
29 hold up the one-minute sign; when 30 seconds remain,
30 hold up the 30-second sign; when time for a category has
31 run out, hold up the stop sign and announce, “Stop!” The
32 only verbal warning during the trial should be “Stop!”
33 Remember to speak loud enough for everyone to hear
34 you.
35 Time allocations: Two Minutes, One Minute, 30 Seconds,
36 Stop
37 There is to be no allowance for overtime under any
38 circumstance. This will be the procedure adhered to at the
39 state finals. After each witness has completed his or her
40 testimony, mark down the exact time on the time sheet.
41 Do not round off the time.
1 Duties of the Bailiff
2 When the judge arrives in the courtroom, introduce
3 yourself, explain that you will assist as the court bailiff
4 and distribute team roster forms to the opposing team,
5 each scoring attorney, and the judge.
6 In the Mock Trial competition, the bailiff’s major duties
7 are to call the court to order and to swear in witnesses.
8 Please use the language below. When the judge has
9 announced that the trial is beginning, say:
10 “All rise, Superior Court of the State of California, County
11 of ______ Department______, is now in session. Judge
12 presiding, please be seated and come to order. Please turn
13 off all cell phones and refrain from talking.”
14 When a witness is called to testify, you must swear in the
15 witness as follows:
16 “Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you are about
17 to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and
18 rules of the Mock Trial competition?”
19 In addition, the bailiff is responsible for bringing to
20 trial a copy of the “Rules of Competition.” In the event
21 that a question arises and the judge needs further
22 clarification, the bailiff is to provide this copy to the
23 judge.
24 Duties of the Unofficial Timer

25 Any official member of the team presenting defense may
26 serve as an official timer. This unofficial timer must be
27 identified before the trial begins and sit next to the official
28 timer (clerk).
29 If timing variations of 15 seconds or more occur at the
30 completion of any task during the trial, the timers will
31 notify the judge immediately that a time discrepancy has
32 occurred. Any time discrepancies less than 15 seconds are
33 not considered a violation. NO time discrepancies will be
34 entertained after the trial concludes.
35 Any objections to the clerk’s official time must be made
36 by this unofficial timer during the trial, before the verdict
37 is rendered. The judge shall determine whether to accept
38 the clerk’s time or make a time adjustment.
39 If the times differ significantly, notify the judge and ask
40 for a ruling as to the time remaining. You may use the
41 following sample questions and statements:

1 “Your honor, before bringing the next witness, may I
2 bring to the court’s attention that there is a time
3 discrepancy.”
4 “Your honor, there is a discrepancy between my records
5 and those of the official timekeeper.”
6 Be prepared to show your records and defend your
7 requests.
8 Team Manager
9 Your team may also select a member to serve as team
10 manager. Any team member, regardless of his or her
11 official Mock Trial role, may serve as team manager. The
12 manager is responsible for keeping a list of phone
13 numbers of all team members and ensuring that everyone
14 is informed of the schedule of meetings. In case of illness
15 or absence, the manager should also keep a record of all
16 witness testimony and a copy of all attorney notes so that
17 another team member may fill in if necessary.

1 PROCEDURES FOR PRESENTING A
2 MOCK TRIAL CASE
3 Introduction of Physical Evidence
4 Attorneys may introduce physical exhibits, if any are
5 listed under the heading “Evidence,” provided that the
6 objects correspond to the description given in the case
7 materials. Below are the steps to follow when introducing
8 physical evidence (maps, diagrams, etc.) All items are
9 presented prior to trial.
10 1. Present the item to an attorney for the opposing team
11 prior to trial. If that attorney objects to the use of the item,
12 the judge will rule whether the evidence is appropriate or
13 not.
14 2. Before beginning the trial, mark all exhibits for
15 identification. Address the judge as follows: “Your honor,
16 I ask that this item be marked for identification as Exhibit
17 # .”
18 3. When a witness is on the stand testifying about the
19 exhibit, show the item to the witness and ask the witness
20 if he/she recognizes the item. If the witness does, ask him
21 or her to explain it or answer questions about it. This
22 shows how the exhibit is relevant to the trial.
23 Moving the Item into Evidence

24 Exhibits must be introduced into evidence if attorneys
25 wish the court to consider the items themselves as
26 evidence, not just the testimony about the exhibits.
27 Attorneys must ask to move the item into evidence during
28 the witness examination or before they finish presenting
29 their case.
30 1. “Your honor, I ask that this item (describe) be moved
31 into evidence as People’s (or Defendant’s) Exhibit #
32 and request that the court so admit it.”
33 2. At this point, opposing counsel may make any proper
34 objections.
35 3. The judge will then rule on whether the item may be
36 admitted into evidence.
37 The Opening Statement

38 The opening statement outline the case as you intend to
39 present it. The prosecution delivers the first opening

1 statement. A defense attorney may follow immediately or
2 delay the opening statement until the prosecution has
3 finished presenting its witnesses. A good opening statement
4 should:
5  Explain what you plan to prove and how you will
6 prove it.
7  Present the events of the case in an orderly sequence
8 that is easy to understand.
9  Suggest a motive or emphasize a lack of motive for the
10 crime.
11 Begin your statement with a formal address to the judge:
12  “Your honor, my name is (full name), the prosecutor
13 representing the people of the state of California in this
14 action,” or
15  “Your honor, my name is (full name), counsel for
16 Reagan Croddy, the defendant in this action.”
17 Proper phrasing includes:
18  “The evidence will indicate that…”
19  “The facts will show that…”
20 • “Witness (full name) will be called to tell…”
21 • “The defendant will testify that…”
22 Direct Examination
23 Attorneys conduct direct examination of their own
24 witnesses to bring out the facts of the case. Direct
25 examination should:
26  Call for answers based on information provided in the
27 case materials.
28  Reveal all of the facts favorable to your position.
29  Ask the witnesses to tell the story rather than using
30 leading questions, which call for “yes” or “no” answers.
31 (An opposing attorney may object to the se of leading
32 questions on direct examination.)
33  Make the witnesses seem believable.
34  Keep the witness from rambling about unimportant
35 issues.
36  Call for the witness with a formal request:
37  “Your honor, I would like to call (name of witness) to
38 the stand.”
39  The witness will then be sworn in before testifying
40
1 After the witness swears to tell the truth, you may wish to
2 ask some introductory questions to make the witness feel
3 more comfortable. Appropriate inquiries include:
4  The witness’s name.
5  Length of residence or present employment, if this
6 information helps to establish the witness’s credibility.
7  Further questions about professional qualifications, if
8 you wish to qualify the witness as an expert. Examples
9 of proper questions on direct examination:
10  “Could you please tell the court what occurred on
11 (date)?”
12  “What happened after the defendant slapped you?”
13  “How long did you see…?”
14  “Did anyone do anything while you waited?”
15  “How long did you remain in that spot?” Conclude
16 your direct examination with:
17  “Thank you, Mr./Ms. (name). That will be all,
18 your honor.” (The witness remains on the stand
19 for cross-examination.)
20 Cross-Examination
21 Cross-examination follows the opposing attorney’s direct
22 examination of the witness. Attorneys conduct cross-
23 examination to explore weaknesses in the opponent’s
24 case, test the witness’s credibility, and establish some of
25 the facts of the cross-examiner’s case whenever possible.
26 Cross- examination should:
27 • Call for answers based on information given in Witness
28 Statements or the Fact Situation.
29 • Use leading questions, which are designed to get “yes”
30 and “no” answers.
31 • Never give the witness a chance to unpleasantly
32 surprise the attorney.
33 In an actual trial, cross-examination is restricted to the
34 scope of issues raised on direct examination. Because
35 Mock Trial attorneys are not permitted to call opposing
36 witnesses as their own, the scope of cross- examination in
37 a Mock Trial is not limited in this way.
38 Examples of proper questions on cross-examinations:
39 • “Isn’t it a fact that…?”
40 • “Wouldn’t you agree that…?”

1 • “Don’t you think that…?”
2 • “When you spoke with your neighbor on the night of
3 the murder, weren’t you wearing a red shirt?”
4 Cross examination should conclude with:
5 “Thank you, Mr./Ms. (name of witness). That will be all,
6 your honor.”
7 Impeachment During Cross-Examination

8 During cross-examination, the attorney may want to show
9 the court that the witness on the stand should not be
10 believed. This is called impeaching the witness. It may be
11 done by asking questions about prior conduct that makes
12 the witness’s credibility (believability) doubtful. Other
13 times, it may be done by asking about evidence of
14 criminal convictions.
15 A witness also may be impeached by introducing the
16 witness’s statement and asking the witness whether he or
17 she has contradicted something in the statement (i.e.,
18 identifying the specific contradiction between the
19 witness’s statement and oral testimony).
20 The attorney does not need to tell the court that he or she
21 is impeaching the witness, unless in response to an
22 objection from the opposing side. The attorney needs only to
23 point out during closing argument that the witness was
24 impeached, and therefore should not be believed.
25 Example: (Using signed witness statement to impeach) In
26 the witness statement, Mr. Jones stated that the suspect
27 was wearing a pink shirt. In answering a question on
28 direct examination, however, Mr. Jones stated that the
29 suspect wore a red shirt.
30 On cross-examination, ask, “Mr. Jones, you testified that
31 the suspect was wearing a red shirt, correct?”
32 Mr. Jones responds, “Yes.”
33 Show Mr. Jones the case packet opened up to Mr. Jones’
34 statement. Ask Mr. Jones, “Is this your witness statement,
35 Mr. Jones?” (Mr. Jones has no choice but to answer,
36 “Yes.”)
37 Then ask Mr. Jones, “Do you recognize the statement on
38 page __________, line _____________of the case packet?
39 Read the statement aloud to the court and ask the witness:
40 “Does this not directly contradict what you said on direct
41 examination?”
1 After you receive your answer (no matter what that
2 answer is) move on with the remainder of your argument
3 and remember to bring up the inconsistency in closing
4 arguments.
5 Redirect Examination
6 Following cross-examination, the counsel who called the
7 witness may conduct redirect examination. Attorneys conduct
8 redirect examination to clarify new (unexpected) issues or
9 facts brought out in the immediately preceding cross-
10 examination only. They may not bring up any issue brought
11 out during direct examination. Attorneys may or may not
12 want to conduct redirect examination. If an attorney asks
13 questions beyond the scope of issues raised on cross, they
14 may be objected to as “outside the scope of cross-
15 examination.” It is sometimes more beneficial not to conduct
16 re-direct for a particular witness. To properly decide whether
17 it is necessary to conduct redirect examination, the attorneys
18 must pay close attention to what is said during the cross-
19 examination of their witnesses.
20 If the credibility or reputation for truthfulness of a witness
21 has been attacked on cross-examination, the attorney
22 whose witness has been damaged may wish to ‘save” the
23 witness through re-direct. These questions should be
24 limited to the damage the attorney thinks has been done
25 and enhance the witness’s truth-telling image in the eyes
26 of the court. Work closely with your attorney coach on
27 redirect strategies.
28 Closing Arguments
29 A good closing argument summarizes the case in the light
30 most favorable to your position. The prosecution delivers
31 the first closing argument. The closing argument of the
32 defense attorney concludes the presentations. A good
33 closing argument should:
34 ● Be spontaneous, synthesizing what actually happened
35 in court rather than being “prepackaged.” NOTE:
36 Points will be deducted from the closing argument
37 score if concluding remarks do not actually reflect
38 statements and evidence presented during the trial.
39 ● Be emotionally charged and strongly appealing (unlike
40 the calm opening statement).
41 ● Emphasize the facts that support the claims of your
42 side, but not raise any new facts.
43 ● Summarize the favorable testimony.
44 ● Attempt to reconcile inconsistencies that might hurt
45 your side.
1 ● Be well-organized. (Starting and ending with your
2 strongest point helps to structure the presentation and
3 gives you a good introduction and conclusion.)
4 ● The prosecution should emphasize that the state has
5 proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
6 ● The defense should raise questions that suggest the
7 continued existence of a reasonable doubt.
8 ● Proper phrasing includes:
9 ● “The evidence has clearly shown that…”
10 ● “Based on this testimony, there can be no doubt
11 that…”
12 ● “The prosecution has failed to prove that…”
13 ● “The defense would have you believe that…”
14 ● Conclude the closing argument with an appeal to
15 convict or acquit the defendant.
16 An attorney has one minute for rebuttal. Only issues
17 that were addressed in an opponent’s closing argument
18 may be raised during rebuttal.
19
20 DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL
21 COURTROOM
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
1 MOCK TRIAL SIMPLIFIED
2 RULES OF EVIDENCE
3 Criminal trials are conducted using strict rules of evidence
4 to promote fairness. To participate in a Mock Trial, you
5 need to know its rules of evidence. The California Mock
6 Trial program bases its Mock Trial Simplified Rules of
7 Evidence on the California Evidence Code.
8 Studying the rules will prepare you to make timely
9 objections, avoid pitfalls in your own presentations, and
10 understand some of the difficulties that arise in actual
11 court trials. The purpose of using rules of evidence in the
12 competition is to structure the presentation of testimony to
13 resemble a real trial.
14 Almost every fact stated in the materials will be
15 admissible under the rules of evidence. All evidence will
16 be admitted unless an attorney objects. To promote the
17 educational objectives of this program, students are
18 restricted to the use of a select number of evidentiary rules
19 in conducting the trial.
20 Objections
21 It is the responsibility of the party opposing the evidence
22 to prevent its admission by a timely and specific objection.
23 Objections not raised in a timely manner are waiver or
24 given up. An effective objection is designed to keep
25 inadmissible testimony, or testimony harmful to your
26 case, from being admitted. A single objection may be
27 more effective than several objections. Attorneys can, and
28 should, pay attention to objections that need to be made
29 to questions and those that need to be made to answers.
30 Remember, the quality of an attorney’s objections is
31 always more important than the quantity of the
32 objections.
33 For the purposes of this competition, teams will be
34 permitted to use only certain types of objections. The
35 allowable objections are found in the case packet. Other
36 objections may not be raised at trial. As with all
37 objections, the judge will decide whether to allow the
38 testimony, strike it, or simply not the objection for later
39 consideration.
40 The rulings of the trial judge are final. You must continue
41 the presentation even if you disagree. A proper objection
42 includes the following elements. The attorney:

1  Addresses the judge,
2  Indicates that he or she is raising an objection,
3  Specifies what he or she is objecting to, i.e., the
4 particular word, phrase, or question, and
5  Specifies the legal grounds for the objection.
6 Example: “(1) Your honor, (2) I object (3) to that
7 question (4) because it is a compound question.”
8 Throughout this packet, you will find sections titled “Usage
9 comments.” These comments further explain the rule and
10 often provide examples of how to use the rule at trial.
11 ALLOWABLE EVIDENTIARY
12 OBJECTIONS
13 1. Unfair Extrapolation (UE)
14 This objection is specific to California Mock Trial and is
15 not an ordinary rule of evidence.
16 Each witness is bound by the facts contained in his or her
17 own official record, which, unless otherwise noted,
18 includes his or her own witness statement, the Fact
19 Situation (those facts of which the witness would
20 reasonably have knowledge), and/or any exhibit relevant
21 to his or her testimony. The unfair extrapolation (UE)
22 objection applies if a witness creates a material fact not
23 included in his or her official record. A material fact is
24 one that would likely impact the outcome of the case.
25 Witnesses may, however, make fair extrapolations from
26 the materials. A fair extrapolation is one in which a
27 witness makes a reasonable inference based on his or her
28 official record. A fair extrapolation does not alter the
29 material facts of the case.
30 If a witness is asked information not contained in the
31 witness’s statement, the answer must be consistent with
32 the statement and may not materially affect the witness’s
33 testimony or any substantive issue of the case.
34 Unfair extrapolations are best attacked through
35 impeachment and closing argument. They should be dealt
36 with by attorneys during the course of the trial. (See page
37 58 on how to impeach a witness)
38 When making a UE objection, students should be able to
39 explain to the court what facts are being unfairly
1 extrapolated and why the extrapolation is material to the
2 case. Possible rulings by a presiding judge include:
3 1. No extrapolation has occurred;
4 2. An unfair extrapolation has occurred;
5 3. The extrapolation was fair.
6 The decision of the presiding judge regarding
7 extrapolations or evidentiary matters is final.
8 Usage comments — The most common example of an
9 unfair extrapolation would be if an expert witness or
10 police officer is questioned about research and
11 procedures that require them to have specialized
12 knowledge outside what is contained in their official
13 records. This type of unfair extrapolation is illustrated
14 in Example #1 below.
15 Example #2 provides a set of facts and an example of
16 fair and unfair extrapolation based on a sample fact
17 scenario.
18 Example #1:
19 A defense expert witness testifies about using
20 fluorescent light when collecting fingerprints, which is
21 described in her witness statement. On cross-
22 examination, the prosecutor asks, “Did you also use a
23 superglue processing technique to collect fingerprints?”
24 While a superglue processing technique is an actual
25 way to collect fingerprints, the procedure was not
26 mentioned anywhere in the case materials. The defense
27 could object that the question calls for an unfair
28 extrapolation.
29 Example #2: Sample Fact Scenario
30 John Doe, who is being charged with buying stolen
31 goods on a particular night, states the following in his
32 witness statement: “On the night in question, I pulled
33 into the parking lot of the Acme Grocery Store and
34 parked my car. I walked into the store with the other
35 customers, picked up some items, went to the checkout
36 stand, and left the store with my shopping bag.”
37 Fair Extrapolation: At trial, John Doe testifies to the
38 following: “On the night in question, around 9:00p.m.,
39 I went to the Acme Grocery Store, parked my car, went
40 into the store and purchased milk and a box of cereal.
41 The fact that John Doe said he “purchased milk and a
42 box of cereal” is a fair extrapolation. Even though there
1 is no mention of what John purchased in his witness
2 statement, it can be reasonably inferred from the
3 context of his witness statement that he entered the
4 store and purchased groceries. Furthermore, the items
5 he purchased (milk and cereal) do not impact any
6 substantive issue in the case.
7 Unfair Extrapolation: At trial, John Doe testifies to the
8 following: “I pulled into the parking lot of the Acme
9 Grocery Store and parked my car. I walked into the
10 store, purchased some groceries, and withdrew $200
11 from the ATM.” The fact that John Doe withdrew cash
12 is an unfair extrapolation because the fact John
13 withdrew $200 on the night of the crime is material to
14 the charge of buying stolen goods because it impacts
15 the substantive issues of his motive and means to later
16 buy stolen goods.
17 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. This is an
18 unfair extrapolation,” or, “That question calls for
19 information beyond the scope of Mr. Doe’s witness
20 statement.”
21 NOTE: The Unfair Extrapolation objection replaces the
22 Creation of a Material Fact objection used in previous
23 years in California Mock Trial.
24 2. Relevance
25 Unless prohibited by a pretrial motion ruling or by some
26 other rule of evidence listed in these Simplified Rules of
27 Evidence, all relevant evidence is admissible. Evidence is
28 relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact that is
29 important to the case more or less probable than the fact
30 would be without the evidence. Both direct and
31 circumstantial evidence may be relevant and admissible in
32 court.
33 Example: Eyewitness testimony that the defendant shot
34 the victim is direct evidence of the defendant’s assault.
35 The testimony of a witness establishing that the witness
36 saw the defendant leaving the victim’s apartment with a
37 smoking gun is circumstantial evidence of the
38 defendant’s assault.
39 Usage Comments — When an opposing attorney objects
40 on the ground of relevance, the judge may ask you to
41 explain how the proposed evidence relates to the case.
42 You can then make an “offer of proof” (explain what the
43 witness will testify to and how it is relevant). The judge

1 will then decide whether or not to let you question the
2 witness on the subject.
3 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. This
4 testimony is not relevant,” or, “Objection, your honor.
5 Counsel’s question calls for irrelevant testimony.”
6 3. More Prejudicial than Probative

7 The court in its discretion may exclude relevant evidence if
8 its probative value (its value as proof of some fact) is
9 substantially outweighed by the probability that its
10 admission creates substantial danger of undue prejudice,
11 confuses the issues, wastes time, or misleads the trier of
12 fact (judge).
13 Usage Comments — This objection should be used
14 sparingly in trial. It applies only in rare circumstances.
15 Undue prejudice does not mean “damaging.” Indeed, the
16 best trial evidence is always to some degree damaging to
17 the opposing side’s case. Undue prejudice instead is
18 prejudice that would affect the impartiality of the judge,
19 usually through provoking emotional reactions. To
20 warrant exclusion on that ground, the weighing process
21 requires a finding of clear lopsidedness such that
22 relevance is minimal and prejudice to the opposing side is
23 maximal.
24 Example: A criminal defendant is charged with
25 embezzling money from his employer. At trial, the
26 prosecutor elicits testimony that, several years earlier, the
27 defendant suffered an animal cruelty conviction for
28 harming a family pet.
29 The prosecution could potentially argue that the animal
30 cruelty conviction has some probative value as to
31 defendant’s credibility as a witness. However, the defense
32 would counter that the circumstances of the conviction
33 have very little probative value. By contrast, this fact
34 creates a significant danger of affecting the judge’s
35 impartiality by provoking a strong emotional dislike for
36 the defendant (undue prejudice).
37 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. The
38 probative value of this evidence is substantially
39 outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice (or
40 confusing the issues, or misleading the trier of fact).”
41 4. Laying a Proper Foundation

42 To establish the relevance of direct or circumstantial

1 evidence, you may need to lay a proper foundation.
2 Laying a proper foundation means that before a witness
3 can testify about his or her personal knowledge or opinion
4 of certain facts, it must be shown that the witness was in
5 a position to know those facts in order to have personal
6 knowledge of those facts or to form an admissible opinion.
7 (See “Opinion Testimony” below.)
8 Usage Comments — Example: A prosecution attorney calls
9 a witness to the stand and begins questioning with “Did
10 you see the defendant leave the scene of the crime?” The
11 defense attorney may object based upon a lack of
12 foundation. If the judge sustains the objection, then the
13 prosecution attorney should lay a foundation by first
14 asking the witness if he was in the area at the
15 approximate time the crime occurred. This lays the
16 foundation that the witness was at the scene of the crime
17 at the time that the defendant was allegedly there in order
18 to answer the prosecution attorney’s question.
19 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. There is a
20 lack of foundation.”
21 5. Personal Knowledge/Speculation
22 A witness may not testify about any matter of which the
23 witness has no personal knowledge. Only if the witness
24 has directly observed an event may the witness testify
25 about it. Personal knowledge must be shown before a
26 witness may testify concerning a matter.
27 Usage Comments — Witnesses will sometimes make
28 inferences from what they actually did observe. An attorney
29 may properly object to this type of testimony because the
30 witness has no personal knowledge of the inferred fact.
31 Example: From around a corner, the witness heard a
32 commotion. The witness immediately walked toward the
33 sound of the commotion, found the victim at the foot of the
34 stairs, and saw the defendant at the top of the landing,
35 smirking. The witness then testifies that the defendant
36 pushed the victim down the stairs. Even though this
37 inference may seem obvious to the witness, the witness did
38 not personally observe the defendant push the victim.
39 Therefore, the defense attorney can object based upon the
40 witness’s lack of personal knowledge that the defendant
41 pushed the victim.
42 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. The witness
43 has no personal knowledge to answer that question.”
44 Or, “Objection, your honor, speculation.”
1 6. Opinion Testimony (Testimony from
2 Non-Experts)
3 Opinion testimony includes inferences and other
4 subjective statements of a witness. In general, opinion
5 testimony is inadmissible because the witness is not
6 testifying to facts. Opinion testimony is admissible only
7 when it is (a) rationally based upon the perception of the
8 witness (five senses) and (b) helpful to a clear
9 understanding of his or her testimony. Opinions based on
10 a common experience are admissible. Some examples of
11 admissible witness opinions are speed of a moving object,
12 source of an odor, appearance of a person, state of
13 emotion, or identity of a voice or handwriting.
14 Usage Comments — As long as there is personal
15 knowledge and a proper foundation, a witness could
16 testify, “I saw the defendant, who was crying, looked
17 tired, and smelled of alcohol.” All of this is proper lay
18 witness (non-expert) opinion.
19 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. Improper lay
20 witness opinion.” Or, “Objection, your honor. The
21 question calls for speculation on the part of the
22 witness.”
23 7. Expert Witness
24 A person may be qualified as an expert witness if he or
25 she has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
26 education in a subject sufficiently beyond common
27 experience. An expert witness may give an opinion based
28 on professional experience if the expert’s opinion would
29 assist the trier of fact (judge) in resolving an issue relevant
30 to the case. Experts must be qualified before testifying to a
31 professional opinion.
32 Qualified experts may give an opinion based upon their
33 personal observations as well as facts made known to
34 them at, or before, the trial. The facts need not be
35 admissible evidence if they are the type reasonably relied
36 upon by experts in the field. Experts may give opinions on
37 ultimate issues in controversy at trial. In a criminal case,
38 an expert may not state an opinion as to whether the
39 defendant did or did not have the mental state at issue.
40 Usage Comments — Examples:
41 1. handwriting comparison expert testifies that police
42 investigators presented her with a sample of the
43 defendant’s handwriting and a threatening letter
1 prepared by an anonymous author. She personally
2 conducted an examination of both documents. Based
3 on her training, her professional experience, and her
4 careful examination of the documents, she concluded
5 that, in her opinion, the handwriting in the
6 anonymous letter matches the handwriting in the
7 sample of the defendant’s handwriting. This would be
8 an admissible expert opinion.
9 2. A doctor testifies that she based her opinion upon (1)
10 an examination of the patient and (2) medically
11 relevant statements of the patient’s relatives. Personal
12 examination is admissible because it is relevant and
13 based on personal knowledge. The statements of the
14 relatives are inadmissible hearsay (hearsay is defined in
15 Section 9 below) but are proper basis for opinion
16 testimony because they are reasonably relevant to a
17 doctor’s diagnosis. A judge could, in her discretion,
18 allow the expert witness to describe what the relatives
19 told her and explain how that information supports her
20 opinion. Although those statements would not be
21 admissible to prove the statements are true, they can be
22 used to explain how the statements A support the
23 doctor’s opinion.
24 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. There is a
25 lack of foundation for this opinion testimony,” or,
26 “Objection, your honor. Improper opinion.”
27 8. Character Evidence
28 “Character evidence” is evidence of a person’s personal
29 traits or personality tendencies (e.g. honest, violent,
30 greedy, dependable, etc.). As a general rule, character
31 evidence is inadmissible when offered to prove that a
32 person acted in accordance with his or her character
33 trait(s) on a specific occasion. The Simplified Rules of
34 Evidence recognize three exceptions to this rule:
35 Defendant’s own character
36 The defense may offer evidence of the defendant’s own
37 character (in the form of opinion or evidence of reputation)
38 to prove that the defendant acted in accordance with his or
39 her character on a specific occasion (where the defendant’s
40 character is inconsistent with the acts of which he or she is
41 accused). The prosecution can rebut the evidence (See
42 Usage Comments below).
43

1 1. Victim’s character
2 The defense may offer evidence of the victim’s character
3 (in the form of opinion, evidence of reputation, or specific
4 instances of conduct) to prove the victim acted in
5 accordance with his or her own character on a specific
6 occasion (where the victim’s character would tend to
7 prove the innocence of the defendant). The prosecution
8 can rebut the evidence (See Usage Comments below).
9 2. Witness’s character
10 Evidence of a witness’s character for dishonesty (in the
11 form of opinion, evidence of reputation, or specific
12 instances of conduct) is admissible to attack the witness’s
13 credibility. If a witness’s character for honesty has been
14 attacked by the admission of bad character evidence, then
15 the opposing party may rebut by presenting good
16 character evidence (in the form of opinion, evidence of
17 reputation, or specific instances of conduct) of the
18 witness’s truthfulness.
19 Admission of Prior Acts for Limited Non-Character
20 Evidence Purposes
21 Habit or Custom to Prove Specific Behavior
22 Evidence of the habit or routine practice of a person or an
23 organization is admissible to prove conduct on a specific
24 occasion in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
25 Habit or custom evidence is not character evidence.
26 Prior Act to Prove Motive, Intent, Knowledge, Identity,
27 or Absence of Mistake
28 Nothing in this section prohibits the admission of evidence
29 that the defendant committed a crime, civil wrong, or
30 other act when relevant to prove some fact (such as
31 motive, intent, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake
32 or accident) other than his or her disposition to commit
33 such an act.
34 Usage Comments — If any prosecution witness testifies to
35 the defendant or victim’s character, the defense may object.
36 But the prosecution may then request to make an offer of
37 proof, or an explanation to the judge, that the prosecution
38 (a) anticipates the defense will introduce evidence of
39 defendant’s or victim’s character, and (b) Mock Trial rules
40 do not allow for rebuttal witnesses or recalling witnesses. If
41 the judge allows, the prosecution may present evidence in
42 the form of opinion, evidence of reputation, or specific
43 instances of conduct to rebut the defense’s anticipated use
1 of character evidence. If this evidence does not come in
2 during the defense, the defense attorney can move to strike
3 the previous character evidence.
4 Examples:
5 Admissible character evidence
6 The defendant is charged with embezzlement (a theft
7 offense). The defendant’s pastor testifies that the
8 defendant attends church every week and has a reputation
9 in the community as an honest and trustworthy person.
10 This would be admissible character evidence.
11 Inadmissible character evidence
12 The defendant is charged with assault. The prosecutor
13 calls the owner of the defendant’s apartment to testify in
14 the prosecution’s case-in-chief. She testifies that the
15 defendant often paid his rent late and was very unreliable.
16 This would likely not be admissible character evidence for
17 two reasons:
18 (1) This character evidence violates the general
19 rule that character evidence is inadmissible (and it does
20 not qualify under one of the three recognized exceptions
21 above), and (2) the character train of “reliability” is not
22 relevant to an assault charge (by contrast, propensity for
23 violence or non-violence would be relevant character traits
24 in an assault case).
25 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. Inadmissible
26 character evidence,” or, “Objection, your honor. The
27 question calls for inadmissible character evidence.”
28 9. Hearsay
29 Hearsay evidence is evidence of a statement that was
30 made other than by a witness while testifying at trial and
31 that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. (This
32 means the person who is testifying to another person’s
33 statement is offering the statement to prove it is true.)
34 Hearsay is considered untrustworthy because the
35 declarant (aka the speaker) of the out-of-court statement
36 did not make the statement under oath and is not present
37 in court to be cross-examined. Because these statements
38 are unreliable, they ordinarily are not admissible.
39 Usage Comments — Testimony not offered to prove the
40 truth of the matter stated is, by definition, not hearsay.
41 For example, testimony to show that a statement was said
42 and heard, or to show that a declarant could speak a

1 certain language, or to show the subsequent actions of a
2 listener, is admissible.
3 Examples:
4 1. Joe is being tried for murdering Henry. The witness
5 testifies, “Ellen told me that Joe killed Henry.” If
6 offered to prove that Joe killed Henry, this statement is
7 hearsay and would likely not be admitted over an
8 objection.
9 2. A witness testifies, “I went looking for Eric because
10 Sally told me that Eric did not come home last night.”
11 Sally’s comment is an out-of-court statement.
12 However, the statement could be admissible if it is not
13 offered for the truth of its contents (that Eric did not
14 come home), but instead is offered to show why the
15 witness went looking for Eric.
16 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. Counsel’s
17 question calls for hearsay.” Or, “Objection, your
18 honor. This testimony is hearsay. I move that it be
19 stricken from the record.”
20 Hearsay Exceptions
21 Out of practical necessity, the law recognizes certain types
22 of hearsay that may be admissible. Exceptions have been
23 allowed for out-of-court statements made under
24 circumstances that promote greater reliability, provided
25 that a proper foundation has been laid for the statements.
26 The Simplified Rules of Evidence recognize only the
27 following exceptions to the hearsay rule:
28 a. Declaration against interest: a statement which,
29 when made, was contrary to the declarant’s own
30 economic interest, or subjected the declarant to the
31 risk of civil or criminal liability, or created a risk of
32 making the declarant an object of hatred, ridicule, or
33 social disgrace in the community. A reasonable person
34 in the declarant’s position would not have made the
35 statement unless the person believed it to be true.
36 b. Excited Utterance: a statement that describes or
37 explains an event perceived by the declarant, made
38 during or shortly after a startling event, while the
39 declarant is still under the stress of excitement caused
40 by the event.
41 c. State of mind: a statement that shows the declarant’s
42 then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical
43 condition (including a statement of intent, plan, motive,
44 mental state, pain, or bodily health).

1 d. Records made in the regular course of business
2 (including medical records): writings made as a
3 record of an act or event by a business or governmental
4 agency (Mock Trial does not require the custodian of
5 the records to testify). To qualify as a business record,
6 the following conditions must be established:
7 1. The writing was made in the regular course of
8 business;
9 2. The writing was made at or near the time of the
10 act or event; and
11 3. The sources of information and method of
12 preparation are trustworthy.
13 e. Official records by public employees: writing made
14 by a public employee as a record of an act or event.
15 The writing must be made within the scope of duty of
16 a public employee.
17 f. Prior inconsistent statement: a prior statement made
18 by the witness that is inconsistent with the witness’s
19 trial testimony.
20 g. Prior consistent statement: a prior statement made by
21 a witness that is consistent with the witness’s trial
22 testimony. Evidence of a prior consistent statement
23 can only be offered after evidence of a prior
24 inconsistent statement has been admitted for the
25 purpose of attacking the witness’s credibility. To be
26 admissible, the consistent statement must have been
27 made before the alleged inconsistent statement.
28 h. Statements for the purpose of medical diagnosis or
29 treatment: statements made for purposes of medical
30 diagnosis or treatment, describing medical history,
31 past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations.
32 i. Reputation of a person’s character in the
33 community: evidence of a person’s general reputation
34 with reference to his or her character or a trait of his
35 or her character at a relevant time in the community in
36 which the person then resided or in a group with
37 which the person habitually associated.
38 j. Dying Declaration: a statement made by a dying
39 person about the cause and circumstances of his or
40 her death, if the statement was made on that person’s
41 personal knowledge and under a sense of immediately
42 impending death.
43 k. Co-Conspirator’s statements: statements made by the
44 declarant while participating in a conspiracy to
45 commit a crime or civil wrong. To be admissible, the
46 following must be established:
1 ● The statement was made in furtherance of the
2 objective of that conspiracy;
3 ● The statement was made prior to or during the time
4 that the declarant was participating in that
5 conspiracy; and
6 ● The evidence is offered either after admission of
7 evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the facts
8 specified in (1) or (2) or, in the court’s discretion as
9 to the order of proof, subject to the admission of
10 this evidence.
11 l. Adoptive admission: a statement offered against a party,
12 that the party, with knowledge of the content of that
13 statement, has by words or other conduct adopted as true.
14 m. Admission by a party opponent: any statement by a
15 party in an action when it is offered against that party
16 by an opposing party. The statement does not have to
17 be against the declarant’s interest at the time the
18 statement was made.
19 Objections for inappropriately phrased

20 questions
21 10. Leading Questions
22 Attorneys may not ask witnesses leading questions during
23 direct examination or re-direct examination. A leading
24 question is one that suggests the answer desired. Leading
25 questions are permitted on cross- examination.
26 Usage Comments — Example: during direct examination,
27 the prosecutor asks the witness, “During the conversation
28 on March 8, didn’t the defendant make a threatening
29 gesture?” Counsel could rephrase the question, “What, if
30 anything, did the defendant do during your conversation
31 on March 8?”
32 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. Counsel is
33 leading the witness.”
34 11. Compound Question

35 A compound question joins two alternatives with “and” or
36 “or,” preventing the interrogation of a witness from being
37 as rapid, distinct, or effective for finding the truth as is
38 reasonably possible.
39 Example: “Did you determine the point of impact form
40 conversations with witnesses and from physical remarks,
41 such as debris in the road?” If an objection to the
42 compound question is sustained, the attorney may state
1 “Your honor, I will rephrase the question,” and then break
2 down the question into two separate questions:
3 Q1: “Did you determine the point of impact from
4 conversations with witnesses?”
5 Q2: “Did you also determine the point of impact from
6 physical marks in the road?”
7 Remember that there may be another way to make your
8 point.
9 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor, on the
10 ground that this is a compound question.”
11 12. Narrative
12 A narrative question is too general and calls for the
13 witness in essence to “tell a story” or give a broad and
14 unspecific response. The objection is based on the belief
15 that the question seriously inhibits the successful
16 operation of a trial and the ultimate search for the truth.
17 Usage Comments — Example: The attorney asks A, “Please
18 describe all the conversations you had with X before X
19 started the job.” This question calls for the witness to give
20 a long narrative answer. It is, therefore, objectionable.
21 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. Counsel’s
22 question calls for a narrative.” Or, “Objection, your
23 honor. The witness is providing a narrative answer.”
24 13. Argumentative Question
25 An argumentative question challenges the witness about
26 an inference from the facts in the case. The cross-
27 examiner may not harass a witness, become accusatory
28 toward a witness, unnecessarily interrupt the witness’s
29 answer, or make unnecessary comments on the witness’s
30 responses. These behaviors are also known as “badgering
31 the witness.” (If a witness is non-responsive to a question,
32 see the non-responsive objection, #16 below).
33 Usage Comments — Example: Questions such as “How
34 can you expect the judge to believe that?” are
35 argumentative and objectionable. The attorney may argue
36 the inferences during summation or closing argument, but
37 the attorney must ordinarily restrict his or her questions to
38 those calculated to elicit relevant facts.
40 being argumentative.” Or, “Objection, your honor.
41 Counsel is badgering the witness.”
1 14. Asked and Answered
2 Witnesses should not be asked a question that has
3 previously been asked and answered. This can seriously
4 inhibit the effectiveness of a trial.
5 Usage Comments — Examples: On direct examination, the
6 prosecution attorney asks, “Did the defendant stop at the
7 stop sign?” Witness answers, “No, he did not.” Then,
8 because it is a helpful fact, the direct examining attorney
9 asks again, “So the defendant didn’t stop at the stop
10 sign?” Defense counsel could object on asked-and-
11 answered grounds.
12 On cross-examination, the defense attorney asks, “Didn’t
13 you tell a police officer after the accident that you weren’t
14 sure whether X failed to stop for the stop sign?” Witness
15 answers, “I don’t remember.” Defense attorney then asks,
16 “Do you deny telling the officer that?” If the prosecution
17 attorney makes an asked-and-answered objection, it
18 should be overruled. Why? In this example, defense
19 counsel rephrased the question based upon the witness’s
20 answer.
21 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. This
22 question has been asked and answered.”
23 15. Vague and Ambiguous Questions

24 Questions should be clear, understandable, and concise as
25 possible. The objection is based on the notion that
26 witnesses cannot answer questions properly if they do not
27 understand the questions.
28 Usage Comments — Example: “Does it happen at once?”
29 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. This question
30 is vague and ambiguous as to .”
31 16. Non-responsive Witness

32 A witness has a responsibility to answer the attorney’s
33 questions. Sometimes a witness’s reply is vague or the
34 witness purposely does not answer the attorney’s
35 question. Counsel may object to the witness’s non-
36 responsive answer.
37 Usage Comments — Example: The attorney asks, “Did
38 you see the defendant’s car in the driveway last night?”
39 The witness answers, “Well, when I got home from work I
40 hurried inside to make dinner. Then I decided to watch
41 TV, and then I went to bed.” This answer is non-

1 responsive, as the question is specifically asking if the
2 witness saw the defendant’s car on the night in question.
3 Form of Objection: “Objection, your honor. The witness
4 is being non- responsive.”
5 17. Outside the Scope of Cross-

6 Examination
7 Redirect examination is limited to issues raised by the
8 opposing attorney on cross-examination. If an attorney
9 asks questions beyond the issues raised on cross-
10 examination, opposing counsel may object to them.
12 asking the witness about matters beyond the scope of
13 cross-examination.”

SUMMARY OF ALLOWABLE
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS FOR THE
CALIFORNIA MOCK TRIAL
1. Unfair Extrapolation: “Objection, your honor. This question is
an unfair extrapolation,” or, “That information calls for
information beyond the scope of the statement of facts.”
2. Relevance: “Objection, your honor. This testimony is not

relevant,” or, “Objection, your honor. Counsel’s question calls
for irrelevant testimony.”
3. More Prejudicial than Probative: “Objection, your honor.
The probative value of this evidence is substantially
outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice (or confusing
the issues, or misleading the trier of fact).”
4. Foundation: “Objection, your honor. There is a lack of
foundation.”
5. Personal Knowledge/Speculation: “Objection, your honor.
The witness has no personal knowledge to answer that
question.” Or, “Objection, your honor, speculation.”
6. Opinion Testimony (Testimony from Non-Experts):
“Objection, your honor. Improper lay witness opinion.” Or,
“Objection, your honor. The question calls for speculation on
the part of the witness.”
7. Expert Opinion: “Objection, your honor. There is a lack of
foundation for this opinion testimony,” or, “Objection, your
honor. Improper opinion.”
8. Character Evidence: “Objection, your honor. Inadmissible
character evidence,” or, “Objection, your honor. The question
calls for inadmissible character evidence.”
9. Hearsay: “Objection, your honor. Counsel’s question calls for
hearsay.” Or, “Objection, your honor. This testimony is
hearsay. I move that it be stricken from the record.”
10. Leading Question: “Objection, your honor. Counsel is leading
the witness.”
11. Compound Question: “Objection, your honor, on the ground
that this is a compound question.”
12. Narrative: “Objection, your honor. Counsel’s question calls
for a narrative.” Or, “Objection, your honor. The witness is
providing a narrative answer.”
13. Argumentative Question: “Objection, your honor. Counsel is
being argumentative.” Or, “Objection, your honor. Counsel is
badgering the witness.”
14. Asked and Answered: “Objection, your honor. This question
has been asked and answered.”
15. Vague and Ambiguous: “Objection, your honor. This
question is vague and ambiguous as to .”
16. Non-Responsive: “Objection, your honor. The witness is
being non-responsive.”
17. Outside the Scope of Cross-Examination: “Objection, your
honor. Counsel is asking the witness about matters beyondthe
scope of cross-examination.

NOTES

NOTES

NOTES

NOTES

NOTES

NOTES

NOTES

NOTES

The American Board of Trial Lawyers (ABOTA) provides its
members with a Code of Professionalism. Consider this code as you
participate in Mock Trial.
Excerpt from the American Board of Trial Advocates Code of

Professionalism
 Always remember that the practice of law is first and foremost a
profession.
 Encourage respect for the law and the courts.
 Always remember that my word is my bond and honor my
responsibilities to serve as an officer of the court and protector of
individual rights.
 Be respectful in my conduct towards my adversaries.
 Honor the spirit and intent, as well as the requirements of
applicable rules or codes of professional conduct, and should
encourage others to do so.
For more about ABOTA, visit: www.abota.org

2021–2022 California Mock Trial Competition
Participating Counties
Alameda Marin Sacramento Shasta
Butte Mariposa San Bernardino Solano
Contra Costa Mendocino San Diego Sonoma
El Dorado Merced San Francisco Stanislaus
Fresno Mono San Joaquin Tulare
Imperial Monterey San Luis Obispo Tuolumne
Kern Napa San Mateo Ventura
Lake Orange Santa Barbara Yolo
Los Angeles Placer Santa Clara
Madera Riverside Santa Cruz
601 South Kingsley Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90005
213.487.5590
crf@crf-usa.org / www.crf-usa.org
facebook.com/ConstitutionalRightsFoundation
Instagram.com/crfusa
twitter.com/crfusa

People V Cobey 2021 22 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Cobey 2021 22 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v.

Murder and Manslaughter

OFFICIAL MATERIALS FOR

Constitutional Rights Foundation 1 People v. Cobey

Special Thanks to:

CRF Staff and Board Contributors:

Cover Drawing: Grace Kim, 2021 California Mock Trial Courtroom

Constitutional Rights Foundation 2 People v. Cobey

The 2021-2022 California Mock case is dedicated to the Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 3 People v. Cobey

Program Objectives ..........................................................5

Code of Ethical Conduct ...................................................6

Introduction to 2021–2022 Mock Trial Competition...........7

California Mock Trial Fact Situation ..................................8

Sources for the Trial ........................................................13

Statement of Charges .....................................................13

Physical Evidence ...........................................................13

Legal Authorities .............................................................15

Pretrial Motion .................................................................20

Prosecution Witnesses Statements ................................29

Defense Witnesses Statements ......................................40

Forms and Substance of a Trial ......................................57

Team Role Descriptions ..................................................58

Procedures for Presenting a Mock Trial Case ................63

Diagram of a Typical Courtroom .....................................68

Mock Trial Simplified Rules of Evidence .........................69

Allowable Evidentiary Objections ....................................70

Summary of Allowable Evidentiary Objections................85

Constitutional Rights Foundation 4 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 5 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 6 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 7 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 8 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 10 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 12 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 14 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 15 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 19 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 20 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 21 People v. Cobey

24 SOURCES FOR PRETRIAL HEARING

Constitutional Rights Foundation 22 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 23 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 24 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 26 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 27 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 28 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 29 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 30 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 31 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 32 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 33 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 35 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 36 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 37 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 39 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 41 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 44 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 46 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 47 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 49 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 50 People v. Cobey

Constitutional Rights Foundation 51 People v. Cobey