Episode 74: Civil Case Chairs Elise Wilson & Sam Jahangir

Episode 74 October 07, 2022 01:09:14
Episode 74: Civil Case Chairs Elise Wilson & Sam Jahangir
The Mock Review with Ben and Drew
Episode 74: Civil Case Chairs Elise Wilson & Sam Jahangir

Oct 07 2022 | 01:09:14

/

Show Notes

Drew and Ben are joined by Civil Case Committee Co-Chairs Elise Wilson and Sam Jahangir to discuss the 2022-23 AMTA case, Felder v. Koller Campbell Air. Elise and Sam talk about the inspiration for this year's case, how they worked together as co-chairs, how they decided on certain issues like expert witnesses and affirmative defenses, and how they each approach the challenge of writing a balanced case.

View Full Transcript

Episode Transcript

00:00.24 bengarmoe hello and welcome to the mock review with Ben and Drew I'm Ben Garmo 00:08.67 Drew And I'm Drew Evans 00:12.10 bengarmoe Well Drew we have an episode today that we always really look forward to. We've been fortunate for 4 years in a row now to get an opportunity to talk to the case committee chair for 2 episodes. Of course that's been Neil Shewit for 2 episodes that's been Mike Gelfand and for the fifth year in a row. We're getting an opportunity to chat with the case committee chairs. There's 2 of them this year and that would be Sam and elise we're going to kick to their interview in just a couple of minutes here but before we do that drew we just kind of wanted to hop on the mics and chat for a minute because I know you've actually got something really exciting in the hopper that that you wanted to share with the community. So. So what's going on with with you and mock trial. That's coming up soon. So. 00:52.11 Drew All right? Well I know that in recent years most of the mock trial announcements that I have are typically having to do with either the high school world or most recently in the law school world. But I'm excited to give an announcement that actually applies to the amta community. Um. Basically the tulane undergraduate as well as the law school are going to be combining to host a invitational this january um myself a kid named Jacob and a girl named Calen um, the 3 of us are going to be kind of co. Ah, running it helping out with it all 3 of us have run undergraduate tournaments before so we're really excited to get to be involved in it again. Um, probably I don't I think we're just far enough removed that we've forgotten how painful and awful it is but you know we're doing it again. Um, but basically the tournament is going to be on January fourteenth and fifteenth it's going to be $200 registration fees and I'm announcing it here because we really do want to have a for the most part first come first served type of approach with it. So if you're listening to this if you're looking for a tournament in the. Like early January time. Go ahead and send us an email you can email Jacob his email is J Smith 7 at twolane.edu. So that's jsmith one one 5 at twolaneedu. 02:18.47 Drew Um, shoot him an email say that your team is interested. We're happy to extend invites while we have room and we're really really excited about it. We're planning on using the twolane law. Ah trial rooms. We have some really nice spaces. We're going to have some great judges. It's going to be well run. We're hoping to have. Ah, nice reception for everyone just because we're being sponsored by the law school and we have law school money to do that. So nice things to come but really really excited about it. Excited to be getting back involved in the running of invitationals and if you're looking for a January invite. We hope that you guys will join us. 02:38.68 bengarmoe A. 02:52.30 bengarmoe Yeah, well something tells me that you're not going to struggle too hard to get some teams willing to come to New Orleans in January if we didn't already have it? Yeah no and I think that's a good thought if we didn't already have an invite committed I would I would already be looking at hotels and. 02:58.14 Drew Yeah, that was kind of a thought. 03:08.25 bengarmoe Trying to find out if the dollar taco Dollar Margarito place that I went to as a two l is still there. Um, who knows but no, that's super exciting and especially january you know Amto could really use more January tournaments I think that there's a fair amount but probably not quite enough and everybody's always looking to to compete. Um. 1 sort of thought question that I have for you before we move to our conversation with Sam And Elise you know I'm recruiting judges for charm city I talked to other people who are recruiting judges and I know and I had this experience talking to Justin Materisi in empire as well. Um Inperson judge recruitment right now is kind of tough I've heard some. 03:43.56 Drew Um, yeah. 03:43.64 bengarmoe Different types of speculation for why that is my personal perspective as I think everybody got used to online mock trial and half of the judges or 2 wo-thirds of the judges could keep their camera off and now it's like wait I have to drive I have to park I have to go do this thing I have to put on pants like you know all these things and judges kind of got used to the online mock trial world. But. 03:56.77 Drew She. 04:03.40 bengarmoe Ah, what do you thinking in terms of judge recruitment and and using the local community to to staff judges at a tournament like that. So. 04:10.30 Drew So let me start by saying screw you for reigning on my parade I've been really excited about this and I don't want to think about judge recruitment right now like oh my God What? the the worst part of running an invitational um ah God Very true. Well I will I will admit. Um. 04:15.39 bengarmoe Yeah, raining on your parade welcome to my students world. 04:25.72 Drew You know we have given it some thought actually and I think that you're totally right? Ben I think that's the big barriers that people have gotten used to online and also just it's always kind of a lot to ask of people I think that our hope is that we have a lot of good contacts. Um, you know the law school mock trial team itself. Knows tons of different attorneys in the area we have tons of alumni in the area that are lawyers. So we're really hoping to tap that a lot and um I think the nice thing about it being hosted at tulane law is that it is right in the middle of the city. So. That is going to be really nice for judges in terms of their ability to get to campus. It's not like they're driving out in the middle of nowhere. Um for most of them. It's probably a very short drive or they can take the streetcar which is a thing in New Orleans um or many of the other ways to get to campus pretty easily. So. I'm optimistic. But I'm you know checkpacking with me in in December and I'll probably be feeling a little different. 05:23.70 bengarmoe Yeah, and and I'll just say to be clear as as we as we sort of wrap this thought up like it's not that nobody's interested in judging mock trial right now I think we're just kind of retraining people. You know people got used to virtual and we kind of got to recultivate that community of people who like to come out. 05:32.98 Drew Um, yeah, agreed. 05:40.81 bengarmoe And and judge mock trial rounds and stuff like that. But we're getting there I'm sure that in a year or two. We'll be back to you know some semblance of what we were used to so that's super exciting Drew keep us posted obviously on how it's going um any other thoughts or anything before we move to our conversation with Sam and aise. 05:56.66 Drew Nope just excited to get chattting about this case so looking forward to seeing Bolton getting to speak with both Sam and elise for sure. Definitely had a lot of questions and I'm excited to get him answered. 06:02.70 bengarmoe Yeah, yeah, now I totally agree. We've been looking forward to this episode for just a little while really since the case came out. We're super grateful to both of them for taking time. So thanks everyone for listening. We're going to take a quick break. We will be right back. For our conversation with civil case committee chairs sam and Elise. 00:02.34 bengarmoe Hold on sorry welcome back to the mock review. We are thrilled to have 2 fantastic guests on the show today. Our guests on the mock review are Sam Jahan Gear and Elise Wilson They are the civil case committee co-chairs they are responsible for the committee that produced this year's amta case we are thrilled to have both of them both of them on the show and so I want to introduce each 1 to all of you I'll start with Sam if you're interested in hearing more about sam's background his origin story. You can call. All the way back to episode 34 when Sam joined the podcast back in 2020 to talk about his role with amta and everything that was going on at the time sam coaches at the most recent national runner up that'd be the University Of Chicago he's a member of the amta board of directors. And a great friend of the show. So Sam. Thanks so much for coming back on the mock review to chat with us. Thanks Jeff yeah, and we're happy to have you on and and with Sam we've got Elise Wilson Elise is a candidate member of the amta board of directors elise has done a lot in mock trial over the last several years Elise competed in amta at the university of North Carolina 00:55.38 Sam So happy to be here guys. 01:12.22 bengarmoe She competed in law school at Emory University Emory law school and won the palmetto state classic there as a competitor elise as I mentioned she's a candidate member of the amta board. She's been coaching at georgia tech since 2018 and relevant to today's conversation she's got a lot of experience as a case author. She wrote the 2021 all-star bracket challenge case which is a law school competition and has written cases for North Carolina high school as well as empire mock trial elise. It's really great to have you on. Thanks for making some time to chat with us. Thanks. 01:39.74 Elise H_ Wilson I Thank you for having me I. 01:42.82 bengarmoe So elise before we start talking about the case you know Sam's already gotten the opportunity to ask to answer this question in in his episode several years ago but we always like to start by asking our guests about their origin story about how they got involved in mock trial. So can you go all the way back to the beginning and tell us what. Your mock trial origin story was like. 02:05.32 Elise H_ Wilson Yeah, so I was thinking about this question I was actually bitten by a radioactive gavel and it turned me into a big nerd. Um, no so um, basically I started competing my senior year of high school. My friend Caroline Turvo was putting together a delegation of students to compete at the national judicial competition which is a ymca hosted competition in Chicago. Um, they have a moot court competition there I had done moot court I really wanted to be on the moot court team and when I signed up she was like actually I'm Goingnna put you on mock trial. 02:40.22 bengarmoe And the. 02:41.24 Elise H_ Wilson And I was like okay sure went with it so we go to Chicago and um I am playing the defendant and I am ah opening on the prosecution and my first round I'm an attorney and I just completely bombed the whole thing I was very unprepared. Um, we were a student run high school mock trial team which probably shouldn't be a thing and it was so bad. It was so horrible that um, we actually had this student ah who I was supposed to direct take up my attorney role for the rest of the competition at both. You know the team's unanimous decision and at my behest because I was so scared of ever attorney again after I just completely bombed this first round. So I really liked witnessing thankfully and. With you know these really 2 awesome more prepared attorneys double attorneying now we ended up actually taking third place in the competition and um I ended up deciding that I really liked mock trial. It actually ended up being really ironic because obviously now I am a practicing attorney and the guy who. Took up my attorney role when I couldn't handle it actually ended up being an all-american witness ah many years later um so I went on to you and see ah I auditioned for the mock trial team and obviously gone on and they put me back in an attorney role even though I was incredibly incredibly incredibly nervous about it. 04:11.63 Elise H_ Wilson And you know it took until probably my sophomore year of college before I was even remotely comfortable ah or good at being an attorney. Um, but you know I think it is it is a really good reminder for anybody out there who is a younger mocker and who is struggling that if you put in enough work. And if you memorize all of the rules of evidence verbatim you can end up succeeding a mock trial even if you completely bomb your first round I've been competing and involved in the community ever since. And yeah now I'm here I'm a practicing attorney right now I do aviation premises tracking and first party insurance defense law. And obviously I'm also a candidate on the empty board. 04:57.19 Drew Well at least I think that that is about as thorough as you can get when it comes to a mock trial background. So. Thank you so much for sharing that. Um I think that obviously why we are so excited to have both of you on is to talk about this year's case and I think that I want to. Want to start with just kind of where even the idea for it came from. Um so can you guys and maybe we just heard from elise so sam I'll go to you first like who was the origin of this idea to have a plane crash to have you know both kind of key witnesses die like what was the motivation behind it. Or where did that idea come from and. 05:34.27 Sam I sure I'm happy to take first crack. So I mean to take a step back from the question. It's always good to go through how exactly the committee works when it comes to picking a case topic. So when Elise and I took over the ship that is the civil case committee we kept the same process that. Um, had always been in place. We solicited for potential case. Proposals um, many of which of course come from those who are on the committee but we also get ideas from those in the community other board members or folks who just reach out and text or send an email or stop you in a hall with an idea for a case, they've got. Um, we gathered all of those ideas and we spoke of course as a committee to see where folks' interests were and what they were leaning towards and I'll say with regards to the committee that we had this year there was a lot of support for a more expert heavy a more technical side case. So those were definitely the proposals we were looking at um, as for how we zeroed in on a plane crash case I mean part of it was there was a lot of support from the committee on such an idea but I definitely have to turn it to a lease because as she said in her bio. She's an aviation lawyer. So. You can imagine. She had a little bit of a say in terms of ideas on that front. 06:56.18 Elise H_ Wilson Yeah, so I was really excited to write a plane crash case when Jonathan initially asked me if I would co-chair the committee I was like I want to write a plane crash case. Um this proposal that I came up with came from. Ah so as you might learn in this interview I'm a really weird person. 07:12.30 bengarmoe And. 07:13.76 Elise H_ Wilson And I went down a Youtube rabbit hole one night of listening to Mayday calls from like planes that either crashed or had emergencies or anything like that and I listened to this one Mayday call from somebody who you know was a vfr pilot in ifr conditions and. It was the most harrowing thing I've ever heard absolutely terrified me to my core and this pilot ended up being okay like he landed the plane successfully he went out and got his Ifr certification later. It was fine. Um, but listening to the panning and his voice just really made an impression on me and I'm like I want to write a mock trial case about that. Um, and so I proposed it to the committee and you know we went through a lot of refining to try and get the topic into something that would be interesting and fun. Even if you don't always want to call an expert. Um, though it ended up being a pretty expert heavy case. But yeah, it just came from me being weird and. Going down Youtube rabbit holes. 08:12.26 Drew Hey, we have all been there for sure. Um, so something I kind of wanted to like quickly follow up with you guys on is the the expert heavy nature of this case. Both of you kind of alluded to it and I'll say that as someone that um, like when I first read it. Really I noticed that and it's not even just that they are expert heavyavy but it's that a lot of them are really pretty technical um in talking about you know how engines work and and like all these kind of very nuanced things that are. At least to me pretty different than a lot of the other cases and you both said that um or Sam I know you mentioned that there was a push for a more expert heavy style. Why do you think that is or what do you think are kind of the advantages and disadvantages of having it be so technical. Um, to the point that my guess is that a lot of people are doing a little bit of background research trying to understand a little more about planes and how they work and and all of this stuff. 09:13.10 Sam And well Drew I think some of the pros are exactly in your answer right? like I think when you get a more technical focus case it prompts students to learn about something you might not otherwise right like my senior year case was Neptune and I learned more about scuba div in that year and I probably ever would if I had it had to try the neptune case. Um in regards to like our push in terms of ideas of why we wanted to do something expert heavy I think it's because when you look at a technically minded case a case that has a lot of technical parts moving pieces. It really tests. Different aspects of advocacy right? I mean when we write a civil case. We think of obviously what's the case before but we also think about the civil case that came before and for us that would be the patrlllo case and the patrlllo case ah was definitely a very narrative focus case right? A lot of emotions but a lot of fun. But it's a lot about storytelling sure if folks wanted to go negligence per se they could go a little bit more technical into pesticides but majority teams weren't and even if you want that route. You could definitely narrative it here. It really tests your skills to be able to take something that folks could spend a lifetime learning. And trying to distill it into something that a jury in this case, it's going to be of course the the mot trial judges to understand. So I think a lot of the push and a lot of the interest in writing something expert heavy really came from wanting to have students do something a little different. Um. 10:44.64 Sam Though I admit like obviously something technically heavy expert Heavy um does have some thoughts that you want to make sure and for me anyone who knew me as a competitor I was the character witness and anyone who knows me as a coach or has seen the teams I Coach. Um, we like a little bit of color and we like to have a little bit of fun. So Obviously um, a big thing that I was personally keeping an eye on was trying to make sure that teams that enjoy having color for character witnesses or folks who love to tell compelling stories still have those angles and if you look at the case. There's ways to tell this case without really delving into the technical aspects without having to call an expert. Um Sure it's probably an easier life if you do but for teams that want that option. It was important for us to give teams that opportunity. 11:38.40 bengarmoe Well Sam I I can definitely say not to not to pull a deep cut here but I can definitely say that anyone who says that Chicago is a program with character is not a lying liar who lies so I I can definitely confirm that. Ah, but elise I actually wanted to follow up on something that you mentioned. Ah, so you talked about sort of this inspiration for this case and like the the Youtube rabbit hole and everything like that and I really relate to that you know I write the high school cases for Maryland and the last two years they've been based on my favorite podcast of all time and the blair witch project and it's just like you kind of never know where these ideas come from. 12:05.00 Elise H_ Wilson So. 12:15.37 bengarmoe But I was just kind of curious from your perspective. Okay, so you hear that you know that Mayday call and you're like I want to write a mock trial case about it. But obviously there's a lot of steps between that thought and actually writing a mock trial case about it. So how do you translate an idea like that from. This is something that I discovered on a late night you know I should be sleeping Youtube rabbit hole and turn it into an idea that can actually like generate a case. 12:42.14 Elise H_ Wilson That's a great question. Um I think first of all, you know I am lucky enough at least with this case to have a little bit of a background in aviation law. It's one of the areas of practice I have at my firm and so the idea of. Writing a case about a plane crash is something where on the one hand it's a huge undertaking and on the other hand I feel like I had a decent sense of how big of an undertaking it was going to be um so I think from having the idea and having this idea of okay, it's going to be a vfr and ifr conditionses. Um, the first step is to just kind of start coming up with what are the most important exhibits and what are the most important witnesses and then the next step of course is to immediately reach out to Sam because he's an amazing case author and anytime I ever would have ah a proposal idea. He's a person I would want to. Ah, run it by because I think you know while ultimately we ended up scrapping the case two years ago his case proposal is one of the best case proposals I've ever seen. Um I think he just has an incredible incredible eye for like coming up with how should the witness. Game work like how should the metagame of this case work and so workshopping this case proposal with him was honestly one of the most helpful things. 14:00.73 bengarmoe Um, well that perfectly sets me up for my next question. So let's move to that next question. Obviously you know we've kind of discussed the initial genesis of this case and and how the initial idea came to be but you all. Our civil committee civil committee case chairs together for the first time and of course you've worked together before but you're you're in charge right? You're you're you're stepping up for for Mike Gelfand who led the committee for the last couple of cycles. So can you take us through. Kind of the working relationship when you have co-chairs. Obviously you have the whole committee and we'll kind of get into that. But how did you approach the process of working together as co-chairs to lead this group in generating this case. 14:44.94 bengarmoe And I didn't point to anyone to go first. Do either of you want to go first. 14:54.74 bengarmoe Okay, go ahead. Okay. 14:54.77 Sam I ah I can go. Um I mean I think the big thing is obviously we were we were taking the ship over from Mike Gelfand who um is the guy who taught me how to write cases so it was not going to be an easy feat. But. It was infinitely easier having a least by my side to help out with all these things and I think in terms of how we figured out a working relationship I think it definitely helped that the 2 of us had worked together on a case committee before um and I think the big thing was mostly particularly with this given case I think our strengths. Help to play a certain role into it. Um, as at least has said she knows things about aviation law. She's under sellingate um her knowledge of this topic especially before we got started on this um was immense versus me I could tell you planes go in the sky and they come down eventually. Um, I've bound on a plane. Um that was probably my experience when it came to aviation law. So I mean ah Elise was immensely involved when it came to a lot of like the groundwork in terms of figuring out how the law would work in this situation in terms of the technical aspects And yeah I mean my specialty I think was more so like crafting meta crafting like case theories making sure witnesses like cross points. So I think when it came to splitting it up. Um, a lot of it came from Elise and I definitely having dozens upon dozens upon dozens of like. 16:25.83 Sam Ah, text threats at random hours in the day just trying to figure out exactly how to make the case work if issues came up just to chat I think I remember she and I literally just hopping on a call while I was like cooking dinner just so we could chat about exactly what. Was going on with the case if what we wanted to change about it. Um, so a lot of it was that naturally just came that she had a lot of the technical knowledge and I was bringing a lot of my like quote unquote fun aspects of like craziness and crazy ideas anything that feels like we were pushing realism definitely came from me. Anything that feels realistic was definitely ah Elise pulling it off um in regards to working with the committee I think it kind of naturally strengthed into that um a leas was huge when it came to getting things started um, setting up like timelines and getting things sorted and then. I did a lot more of the backend thing. So as folks just like every year different members of the committee are assigned different parts so that everyone has something they can point to um I did a lot of the backend work to make sure that all the pieces fit together highlighted inconsistencies and like. You know if there were inconsistencies that were intentional. We kept them if they weren't intentional. We fixed them and I think that's kind of how we really made it work. We made sure that we kept in contact with each other elise helped to set up a lot of the things that proved successful and then I just kind of did a lot of the back in wrap up work. 17:57.72 Sam Um, playing to our strengths and making sure together we could pull this off and ultimately it was great because for anyone who has chaired a case committee they will undoubtedly tell you it is a crazy amount of work. Um, even with a crow chair. It is a crazy amount of work but it it is significantly more manageable. 18:08.61 bengarmoe So. 18:11.31 Elise H_ Wilson Is. 18:17.80 Sam When you know there's someone else who's got your back on that front. 18:18.83 bengarmoe So at least from from your perspective. You know how do you react to to Sam's description and and how did you see things in terms of y'all working together and working with the committee from from your side of things. 18:31.80 Elise H_ Wilson Yeah I actually think he nailed it. Um I think like a lot of where I was able to really guide this committee had to do with the subject matter. Um I think you know what of the things that Sam and I frequently like disagree on a little bit is. I like really dark cases that are very realistic and technical um whereas Sam likes really fun cases and so I think having both of us together. Ah means that we ended up with a final product that is very much. It's technical. It. 18:47.36 bengarmoe And. 19:05.99 Elise H_ Wilson Is a really difficult fact pattern but it is also something where I think people will be able to have a lot of fun with it and I think that's awesome. So. 19:15.48 Drew Well I think that this kind of alludes to a you know point about the balance of a case and you just sort sort of talk about the balance between it being fun and serious. But there's also the natural balance of it being you know p and d and making sure that there's an even balance there. Um, I'm kind of curious as like a approaching starting the case what the best way to do it is you know? Obviously we've got the affirmative defenses in there. But what was the approach to making sure this case was balanced. And let's give the caveat to this if we know there have been lots of conversations in all the various forums about how it's so sided and it's impossible for defense and somehow defense always ends up doing fine. So we know it'll it'll be fine in the long run. But I'm curious as to what you guys thought of that and we've had sam go first a few times so Elise. Going to hop back to you? How did you approach balance. 20:12.65 Elise H_ Wilson Oh I was actually going to say Sam should go first on this one definitely because a thing about Sam is that he absolutely hates the defenses. Um and he should have to justify himself. 20:13.47 Drew Oh well, then fair. 20:21.15 bengarmoe You? Well I. 20:22.93 Drew Ah, okay, well in that case Sam you got to go now. 20:27.98 Sam All right I mean first I need to address these allegations. Um with regards to the allegation that I hate the defense that is true I Believe there is written communication within the committee in which I wrote I hate the defense so that is there. Um I see oh I do. 20:34.12 bengarmoe Yeah, yeah. 20:43.26 bengarmoe You're aware this is being recorded right. 20:45.93 Sam Ah, but it is all ingest. It's mostly in the sense that I think it's exactly as you say Drew and this is the point that I make when we discuss in committee and why I always joke that you need to really keep an eye towards weakening the defenses because the defense has nothing to prove at the end of the day. Be it a civil case. Be it. A criminal case. There is nothing for defense to prove a defense is enough to just poke holes in a plaintiff case and I mean as we've all discussed already. This is a technical case right? part of the plaintiff's burdenur isn't just to prove negligence. Ah, part of the Plaintiff's burden in this case that is not written is to explain how planes work in those 3 witnesses in their 25 minutes direct they also to the extent that they rely on the technical aspects. It is on the plaintiff to make things make sense if a team. 21:42.98 Sam Do around and at the end of the trial. The judges are confused as to what happened I mean in a normal case that means the defense is in a good position in addition to that as chair of the analysis committee we've we've seen the data year in and year out defenses get stronger. 21:50.38 Drew Right. 22:01.78 Sam As the year goes on even within a round judges score higher as a trial goes on um and since defense has most of their points at the end of a trial defense if both teams are held equal. The defense has a bias just by the way Judges score around. They're more conservative at the beginning. Because they don't know whether they should give high scores and by the time they give the high scores well defense is going to get most of them. Um, so like there's a lot of things that are in favor of the defense. Um, so as a result when you're writing a case packet the case packet as a whole. 22:24.81 bengarmoe Yes. 22:37.74 Sam Similar to I think this is Justin Bernstein's philosophy that I've carried over when you read a entire case packet. It should read like the p be it plaintiff for prosecution wins. Um, because if the whole case packet doesn't read that way. You're probably going to have a defense bias because. When folks look at a case they're looking at all the witnesses all the exhibits all the stipulations. But what the judges see are three witnesses in 25 minutes with whatever exhibits you get and whatever arguments you make and that is a huge but balance for the defense. So. Writing a case with a p bias helps the p make decisions and then the defense as time will go on will find ways to poke holes. Um, that all being said ah to defense somewhat with this case. It's not like we left the defense without anything we actually gave the defense quite a few options because I think elise and I while we disagree on some things with regards to cases. We both really like giving students options and in this case, the defense has several options. You can run a normal defense. 23:41.40 Elise H_ Wilson Absolutely. 23:49.35 Sam Um, that the plaintiff didn't meet their burn. You can run um, an assumption of risk defense. You can run 3 separate intervening and superseding causation defenses. Um, that is 5 defenses right? there and like that is just overarching right? if you wanted to break that down into finer details. There's probably alternative ways to prove each of those defenses. Um, so we decided to definitely give defense plenty of options. Um head to head. Do. We give the defenses some weaknesses that they have to work around absolutely but it's currently September thirtieth as we're recording this. Regionals ain't till February so teams are going to have five months to figure out every single defense hole that our committee didn't figure out and so we have to build into that. 24:39.88 Drew Yeah I mean I think that all makes a lot of sense. But elise I will I'll kind of toss it back to you? Um, obviously you've written many other cases. Do you feel like this approach that Sam is talking about is a similar one to what you've normally experienced and and what was your take on it. Do you feel like. Um, that's the right way to balance a case. Do you feel like um this is the way you you wanted it. 25:02.81 Elise H_ Wilson Yeah, definitely I mean I for me the best way to try and balance a case is to have a whole lot of facts on both sides but more on the plaintiff or prosecution side. Um. I too will reference Justin Bernstein when I was working with him on the all-star bracket challenge case I had written a police officer who had some like pretty glaring deficiencies in their investigation who you know I wanted that to be a crossplate for and Justin called me because i. He was the person I was working for and he was like Elise. You know you can't write a cop like this if you are going to have a police officer. You need to try to make them as bulletproof as possible because no matter how good of a job. You do the defense is going to find stuff that he did not do. They are going to cross him on so you don't even need to think about giving them anything and I think that you know since that conversation that's absolutely shaped the way that I think about writing cases and the way I think about writing kind of any experts um or investigative witnesses on the plaintiff or prosecution side. Um. And I think you know just my thoughts on case balance as a whole honestly. 26:18.56 Drew Well I think that the the approach that both of you take to it I think is one that we've heard as a similar trend with so many of other case writers and it makes a lot of sense and I think um sam to go back to what you said I do think that there are defense biases just within um. The way that mock trial is done and the timing of it all that are are pretty unavoidable. So a lot of this makes a lot of sense to me to kind of change gears a little bit to talk more specifically about this case and away from the writing process I want to talk about a decision that you guys have made that at least in recent memory. Is a pretty new one and that is to have 2 affidavitless witnesses that are not constrained by an affidavit. You've got ah a deposed witness on both sides and kind of and this is actually something that I will as a you know, kind of shout out. There's something we discussed a lot. Um, during our conversation. Um our our Zoom conversation with some of our patreons and there were a lot of ah of voices that were intrigued by it and I think it's something that a lot of people are wondering about. But why have 2 um, unconstrained witnesses in this case and I guess um Elise. I know you just spoke but I'm going to come back to you on this one. 27:32.27 Elise H_ Wilson Okay, ah yeah so I think first of all, this has been done before it was in winter versus tbd both riley winter and Soer Shaw were um, deposition witnesses who weren't bound by the fact I mentioned bolt and that was my senior year case and I thought that. 27:41.18 Drew Um. 27:50.35 Elise H_ Wilson Case was really fun I thought that you know obviously people have different feelings about whether age discrimination is as fun as you know something where somebody died or whatever but it ultimately I thought was a really interesting challenge to figure out how on the plaintiff when you get to prepare everything your way. Anyway. Um, how can you kind of use the lack of constraint in the deposition to support your case and then obviously then you get to defense and it's a question of how can you now with a unconstrained defendant. So your shah. Come up with ways to rebut whatever they just made up on their case in Chief Um I Thought that that was ah, a really really interesting challenge it forced teams on the defense to adapt a lot. Um, and so I think it makes the case more fun and and more Interesting. Um. Plus you know when I was ah when I was a student I did most of my attorneying on the plaintiff and so ah, it's always nice to give a little bit to the plaintiffs Attorneys of the fun of Invention. So. 28:57.48 bengarmoe Drew I know he said I was going next I wasn't sure if you wanted to since you asked that question if you wanted to follow up with Sam on that topic and then I'll jump in. 29:04.35 Drew Sorry yeah, ah I will I will say that all right Sam Same to you? What do you think? what was the ah the reasoning for you and I will I will also add that I did love the the winterverse tbd case. So it's a great shout out at least. 29:20.63 Sam Yeah, no I mean exactly as a least said winter vtvd did it? Um, but so did ah mts versus Danny Kosak ah Alex Grace on the plaintiff was a deposition witness and of course. Everyone's favorite animal trainer Danny Koak was a dep witness for the defense. Um, actually with the exception of Patrillo last year the last of the 4 cases 3 of them have done ah plaintiff and defendant depths. Um I think in terms of why is exactly as elise said I think it's It's an interesting play for the plaintiff looping it to our discussion for case balance right? We write a lot more facts for plaintiff than defense to balance it out. Um, so when you've got a lot of facts already in your favor. There is an interesting calculus about inventing additional facts. I think there's also an interesting balance when it comes to inventing on plaintiff versus inventing on defense when you think about who has the burden of proof on certain things and I think those are a lot of interesting ways to play with the case and keep it fresh for students to enjoy plus. Um, when it comes to places where we give student freedom to invent. Um, personally I'm just intrigued to find out what students can come up with that elise myself and the rest of the committee never imagined in 1000000 years 30:44.42 bengarmoe You know Sam it something you just said there I want to just sort of ask you a follow up question on that before we talk about something else. It struck me it reminded me of something that Neil Schett said the last time that we had him on I forget if it was Drew or I but 1 of us basically asked him like hey when you're writing. A witness who's not constrained by an affidavit like is that scary is it scary to think that you might write this thing and then someone's just going to come up with the craziest thing imaginable and just go so far down a rabbit hole that you never could have imagined so how do you approach writing whether it's a you know, a. Plaintiff or a defendant but but a deposition witness who's not affidavit constrained in terms of how tightly you bind that witness. How thoroughly you try to encompass that information and where you try to leave those gaps so that the witness has space to invent but maybe like like. Can't invent space aliens or something that would just like totally break the case. 31:42.48 Sam So um, at least my take and um I'd be interested to even hear what a least thinks in terms of this one the way I look at it when it comes to writing or like finalizing a death witness is. 31:46.44 bengarmoe So yeah. 31:56.66 Sam The first thing you want to know is what you want the witness to be beholden to so obviously that's going to be the answers to the questions that they give right like these are the facts. We think the witness needs to be held to um in through stipulations or through some of the questions. We also then try to keep out some of the problematic case theories that. We're optimistic the vast majority of the students that compete will not do to make sure that we avoid those we add some guardrails for certain topics and certain triggers. Um, after that I think at least for me I like to leave a broad range of wiggle room. For folks to invent in prior cases if we wanted to give them limited room in certain aspects. We might again further curtail. But for the large part the fun of a deposition is for folks to invent. Um in regards to your space invaders ah theory ben I mean tech. Assuming there is nothing that we have written that prevents it I think what we think would prevent students from trying to run it is hey if you convince a panel of judges that the space invaders theory is the better theory in the courtroom and you win the ballot on that. What are we to say about that I have ah. I have previously judged rounds where teams have run some of the most bizarre crazy theories I never in 1000000 years thought I would see um in the years of deposition witnesses and they still won my ballot just because everything else they did was um, scored higher than the other team. 33:34.37 Sam Even if I for the points deducted for their crazy theory. They still won my ballot. So for me I'm like it's more power to you if you win with the crazy theory but you're going to have to convince the judges of that first. 33:43.65 bengarmoe Yeah, no, that makes a lot of sense. This was kind of a follow up. But but elise I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. What what do you think in terms of approaching how to balance the invention constraints of a deposition witness. 33:58.20 Elise H_ Wilson Yeah, so you use the word scared and you know the the only thing I'm ever scared of when I released a case is that people won't like it. Um, as long as people are enjoying it and having fun then the case has been a success obviously. Have lots of other things that we want to succeed on like not having a ridiculous imbalance on one side or the other. But ultimately this is an educational activity and you know I want everybody to have fun. Ah, if your team is running a space Alien Theory please call me I would like to watch I would love to judge that round that would make me happy. 34:31.89 bengarmoe The. 34:33.21 Elise H_ Wilson Um, sounds crazy but you know, um I think that's part of it is I want people to be able to come up with really really wacky zany theories that are based. On you know, maybe just a couple of lines in 1 affidavit and you need to give it some corroboration or something. Um I think one of the most powerful things you can do with an inventing witnesses is just corroborating the other witnesses trying to tell a more cohesive story. Um, and especially from that perspective I want to give people a lot of freedom. Um I think obviously I I agree with sam on you need to have a few core facts and a few core things that are clearly in there clearly impeachable clearly obviously uncontradictable that you know. Even a really inexperienced plaintiff's attorney or defense attorney can cross on. But ultimately I see invention witnesses as a challenge for attorneys to show up and cross them on their direct and cross them. On what they've said on the stand and why that's ridiculous given the rest of the facts in the case especially because you know they're going to be in the courtroom. They're going to hear everybody else. Um, and so you know it's it's not something I worry about too much and the other thing is with the exception of pre-orc's case changes. 35:54.93 Elise H_ Wilson There's always more case changes if something gets really out of hand. We can always fix it later and. 35:58.98 bengarmoe So yeah, no that and that last point is a really really fair. 1 like we have this system of case changes in place you know for that exact reason. So let me ask about another aspect of this case that I think has has generated some conversation and has been really interesting and that's. Affirmative defenses. You guys have mentioned that already. But I want to get a little bit more specific. So I sort of have a 2 part question related to affirmative defenses and and Sam I'll go to you first on this one. So ah I think there's like a lot of interesting considerations with affirmative defenses but affirmative defenses in a civil case I think presents. An interesting dichotomy when you're putting together a case and some of the balance considerations. So how did you all decide. Okay, we want to have affirmative defenses in this case to begin with because you don't always see that in amta cases and then specifically how did you balance. The the knowledge that okay, if the defense is doing an affirmative defense. They have to prove something How did you balance that with the knowledge that the defense by its nature needs to have a little bit less to work with for the balance considerations that you guys were talking about earlier. Ah so how did you sort of think about all right we have affirmative defenses here. But also we need to make sure that the case is is p and d balanced from a competitive standpoint and how you manage to look at both of those things together. So. 37:20.69 Sam And sure absolutely so I mean first in terms of the fact that we had affirmative defenses that was definitely a discussion that elise and I had together and also was a discussion that we had as a committee as a whole so together we discussed it. Was mostly is in terms of as elise said she likes realistic and factual cases. So obviously if affirmative defenses are things that happen in actual aviation cases. We wanted to have some semblance of that in this case, um as a committee as a whole. We also discussed what ideas. Um, that we wanted to do what potential case theories defense we wanted to have as an option including affirmative defenses and in fact, it was through the committee as a whole discussion that we came up with the fireworks affirmative defense that was a creation of a bunch of minds in a room spitballing potential ideas. So. Part of it came from wanting to mimic reality and part of it was hey we're doing the fourth of July case fireworks makes sense. Um, so there was a lot of organic development in terms of them being there in terms of balance I mean um, like I said I give. Defense a tough break a lot but the thing is we want to give defense options right? like it's sure you could theoretically write a very balanced case in which all defense is doing is putting out plaintiff fires plaintiff proves x defense shows. It's not x, etc, etc. But we wanted to make sure that defense similar to plaintiff had a lot of options. A lot of. 38:50.35 Sam Play the case comes out right? August fifteenth and then this is the case folks are going to be playing with till March we want to give defenses ample things to play around with the other thing that it helps is if you give defense options that also means that the plaintiff has more to deal with if plaintiff only has to deal with one defense theory. Then even plaintiff crosses over time is going to get stale like it's going to be the same cross trial after trial every weekend you compete, you're going to see the same exact cross 4 rounds in a row by giving defenses options. It means not only defense gets to spice it up but plaintiff also has to stay on their toes in terms of balance. Frankly, we treated it not too dissimilar from normal sure they have something to prove so as a result you do want to build things into the case for defense to point into and that's why they've got witnesses who have facts whichever affirmative defense. The defense decides. Ah, we as a committee have given them something they can point to um, there is no defense here that would have completely been thrown out on a summary judgment motion. For example, um, with regards to making sure that we don't overpower the defense. Um I think it's part of it is yes if you compare head to head the defense probably has a little less. Plaintiff overall but we find from experience that's ok, um, if I reflect back to the mts versus Kozak case for those of your viewers who aren't aware that was a cross claims case. Um the plaintiff sued the defense for negligence. 40:26.17 Sam The defense also suited the plaintiff for negligence and had to prove negligence meaning the defense had the exact same burden as the plaintiff and we gave the defense less significantly less than the plaintiff to prove their case but then by the time works came around defense was winning significantly more. Balance and I think the kosak case was a goods was a a good learning experience to show that even if you give the defense a burden and even if you force the defense to pursue that Burden judges naturally are still going to give the leg to the defense because I think we naturally. See the defenses of the party without anything to prove. So Yes I think defenses will need to prove things. But I Also think even if they prove it less than the plaintiff the way mock trial shakes out in practice still enough for the defense to make its day. 41:21.70 bengarmoe Ah, that's really interesting. Um, elise you know, ah Sam sort of alluded to the work that you all did together and with the committee on developing the affirmative defenses and how you put those together so from your perspective. How did that come together and and what's your philosophy on balancing affirmative defenses. With making sure that the actual competitive case balance stays intact. 41:42.56 Elise H_ Wilson I think 1 important thing to remember when we're talking about like a true affirmative defense is that when a defense runs an affirmative defense. They no longer have to necessarily dispute the elements of. The toward or claim that the plaintiff is bringing so if you are running a defense of assumption of risk you no longer really have to dispute negligence the same way because what you're saying is he assumed the risk of my negligence. So whatever they're saying doesn't matter. Um, and so from that. Perspective I think affirmative defenses can be a little bit self-balancing. Um, just because you know you don't have to worry about what they're saying as much and you have the opportunity to really make the trial your own circus your own show of what you really want to talk about. Um, and I think you know when you look at the various different teams that are really really, really successful. A lot of times that is how really successful defenses are run. Um I think as far as everything coming together. I agree with Sam We all were either in a room or on a Zoom call altogether and just brainstormed a whole bunch of stuff I will disagree with Sam from the perspective of basically as soon as we decided this is going to be fourth of July Sam was like we should have a fireworks defense and he lobbied for that until he made it happen. 43:06.26 Sam And others supported by decision. Others supported me and. 43:07.71 Elise H_ Wilson Ah, but other than that I think everything he said was accurate. That's absolutely true, but that was definitely a ah a a stamp Ja hon gear ah thing that he personally like that's his baby I feel like it's the fireworks defense. 43:11.53 bengarmoe Um. 43:26.97 bengarmoe Right? And ah, any defense that we like was one of the 2 or 2 of you any we don't we'll just say di Alito came up with that one and it'll be fine. Um, okay so Elise I want to stick with you because I've been excited to ask you this question since you talked about the origin of the case and that is I wanted. 43:38.87 Elise H_ Wilson And oh gosh got it. 43:44.59 bengarmoe Yeah I want to talk about that audio exhibit. So um, I'm curious. You know, sort of how you all decided to have an audio exhibit and and how you feel like the exhibit came out in terms and terms of comparison to to the idea that generated the case and of course with that I'm sure that you all scoured the earth for voice actors and just tried to find. The the greatest voice actors that you could imagine so how did you settle upon ah the 2 stupendous actors that you that you ultimately went with. 44:11.19 Elise H_ Wilson Yeah, well so initially I was just like I want this to be a case teaser I hadn't even thought about whether or not it should be an exhibit obviously we decided to include it because I think there are things in that exhibit that are relevant. That are important to the case and things that you know the pilots saying that are ambiguous and interesting to discuss as we are trying to figure out what happened and what brought this plane down. Ah from the voice actors perspective. Um, we knew. Wanted to have Jonathan help out. Um I know Jonathan has I think done some aviation work at least that's what he's told me I know he was really excited about the plane crash idea and he was like I don't want to be the pilot though I want to do the air traffic control and he was able to you know he knew that it needed to be. Ah. Mike Tango as opposed to Mt like he was absolutely ready to go with the aviation lingo. Um, we asked Brandon to do it because we were brainstorming like who would be a fun amta person who would also do a good job and we had a lot of ideas you know everybody in am just super dramatic. Obviously. Um, but especially having it being the outgoing president and the incoming president was just too good of an opportunity to pass up and I think they both did a really good job with it. So. 45:29.33 bengarmoe Yeah, no I totally agree like my my joke earlier was not meant to imply that they didn't I think it's a really cool exhibit. Um, when we had Jonathan On he talked about being a bit of a commercial aviation nerd and I think that side ah came through loud and clear. Um, but let me just ask this as as one follow up so I'm just curious. Um I guess elise I'll ask you this and or maybe Sam has the answer but at the time that we heard this audio exhibit back in I guess it would have been in April for the national championship were you all still unsure whether or not it was. Going in the case or had you known did you know at that point that it was definitely going to be in the final product. 46:08.51 Elise H_ Wilson I didn't know if it was going in the case at that point I I assumed we would have some sort of a transcript I didn't know if it would be a cockpit voice Recorder Transcript or just the made it call transcript um, or if we would be including the actual audio. Um, but I knew that. Some version of that would likely end up in the case but not necessarily that specific exhibit. So. 46:34.50 bengarmoe Drew I'm I'm yay I'm I'm done with my questions if you want to jump in with the next topic go for it. Okay. 46:34.20 Drew So you want me to go from there. Okay I know if you wanted to follow. You could no perfect all right? Well staying on the general idea of the exhibits we have I wanted to ask about a few others and in particular I want to start with some of the potentially physical exhibits. So both. exhibit 14 and exhibit 8 that's the pill bottle and the pilot license. Um, the option is given if if teams want to basically make it into a physical exhibit and I was really excited to see that this was included in the case because you know as someone that only competed in in-person competitions I was usually. Large aspect of it I remember the extension cordon Dylan Hendrix that we've talked about a lot. Um the brick that was added to that case and the briefcases in Bancroft like there are there have just been so many iconic physical pieces of evidence. Um through the years and I loved seeing that come back and it's obviously been something. I think a lot of people feel like was kind of missing when we did virtual mock trial. So I'm I'm curious to you guys? Um, and Sam I'll go to you first. What was the motivation by um, wanting to include physical exhibits again and then ah what what made you decide on those 2 in particular. 47:48.42 Sam So credit regret its due. This is Mike Dipalito is probably the reason why teams can be enjoying so many physical exhibits. Um Mike was the one who pitched the prescription label. And when Mike pitched the prescription label he included a pitch of hey this might be a fun exhibit that we could make physical and um, he did the legwork. He's the one who came up with the parameters made designed it and figured it out so that we could have a version that teams could use and so when we created the proof reader copy of this case. So though. Taking a step back a little inside baseball. Um, we take a lot of the preliminary pieces. We put it into a proof reader copy and we send it to all the proof readers. Um the list of which is in the case and all the folks who are instrumental in making sure they catch things or give us suggestions. We didn't think of. Um, they saw when the proof readers received it a couple of them noted the prescription label and their feedback was hey you've got a prescription label. Why not turn some of the other exhibits into physical exhibits and 1 specifically subjects to the pilot's license. They were like that's a great idea. So um. I think it was one of those is that someone pitched a physical exhibit and it prompted others to say what else could we turn into something physical for students to use and that developed into all of the physical exhibits. We had we turned what made sense to be physical physical as for what it makes sense for students to have I think it's. 49:15.21 Sam The benefit is exactly as you said Drew right? We're knocking on what as I say it aiming for a season of in-person mock trial. Um, we're gonna be back in person and there's definitely a very different feel about that. But 1 of the lost feelings from virtual is like actually physically handling exhibits and holding them and I think. 49:29.30 Drew Right. 49:33.51 Sam We wanted to have that aspect in this case and like we definitely brainstorm and thought was there anything else that made sense to add. But ultimately I think we settled on these pieces of exhibits that teams could then use but we also included for teams that didn't want to. Versions that would make sense to just hold up as paper. But I think it was mostly that it's that it really started as an idea that ah di Alito proposed and that it kind of expanded into the version we see now and couldn't be happier because I think it's going to be fun for students to play around with those physical exhibits. Come try. 50:10.75 Drew Well elise I will I will share with you if you have anything to add. But if if not don't I can ask something else. Perfect. Okay, well then Elise I will ask you about some other exhibits and I want to talk about some of the photos. 50:18.21 Elise H_ Wilson Now I think Sam covered it. 50:28.90 Drew You guys have in the case. Um I think it's mostly exhibits five and six if I'm not mistaken that are kind of the photos of the plane crash um of the the broken lights. Um, what was like how did you guys go about finding those um you know. My assumption is that like this lot of Google searches but like finding ones that fit the tone right that you wanted to use ones that aren't going to be maybe too graphic um to the point of being distracting but what was the motivation behind choosing those photos in particular. 51:01.80 Elise H_ Wilson Yeah, so first of all I want to shout out Brian Olson because he was an absolute hero in finding us photos the backstory on some of the photos is that we went through I think 3 or 4 different. Iterations of which plain photos we were going to use. Um, you can find anything on the internet but it is sometimes difficult to find things that are free to use under whatever license they're listed under on the internet. Ah, and so you know. 51:28.38 Drew And. 51:36.69 Elise H_ Wilson Especially when you have specific qualities that a plane needs to have so I think we had a set of photos initially but it ended up being a like a twin engine plane as opposed to a single engine plane and it was easy enough to tell that despite the extensive damage to the plane that we didn't want to use those. And we got a second set of photos. There was a license problem. You know it's always something and um I think ultimately the best thing that you can do in that situation is have a really good team and have a bunch of people who are dedicated to finding something that is both legal to use and not going to get you sued. And accurate to what you want the case to be and so I want to shout out. Ah Brian for that. So. 52:19.70 Drew That makes a lot of sense as someone that hasn't had to go through that process I can't really but I'm sure Ben you probably can. Um, so. 52:25.62 bengarmoe Yeah, it's I'll just add this really quick I I know that struggle last year I wrote a case and I had some photos in mind and I was like I'm sure I'll be able to find photos like this I did not end up finding the photos that I needed and I had to rewrite the case at the eleventh hour to like fit the. 52:37.57 Drew Hey. 52:44.26 bengarmoe Decent photos that I could find so I know that struggle. 52:47.22 Elise H_ Wilson It's very difficult. One time I had to find dental records you've seen that case. Yep. 52:51.29 bengarmoe Ah, yeah I I know exactly yup I coached that case I know exactly what you're talking about. 52:55.50 Drew Yeah. 52:55.85 Sam Yeah, no I mean even for this one I think the one fun thing for this case was as Lee said we had to go through a lot of iterations and props to Brian for finding us the ones we were able to use. But 1 thing that helped us is I think. We did a preliminary search for what types of photos we could find because I mean before we looked one of the first things we did was look for potential photos because before that like we weren't sure if the plane was going to crash into a mountain into just a forest underwater. But when we looked at pictures we saw most of them were like foresty mountier areas. So we're like well it makes sense to write in that general vicinity and then it's exactly as elise put it is that then it was finding the exact right set of photos that fit particularly regarding any of the facts that we want students to argue. You don't want photos that go ° from that. 53:50.22 Drew Well I think that that all makes a lot of sense and I mean I think that the photos you guys have chosen look pretty good. They look realistic and like they fit a lot of what we have described in the case so makes a lot of sense. Um, one last thing I I want to address though is. The the call order specifically like I think that it's part of the whole meta gaming. Ah that Sam you kind of alluded to um of just like how is this case going to run. How are we going to control things. How do we want to give a lot of options as you both have talked about a lot. Um, and so the call order is that. The p side plaintiff gets the first call and then there are 2 calls from the defense then Pdp and I think for the most part the last 3 are going to be the side constrained ones I could be wrong, but that's my guess. Um, but for the most part plaintiff gets the first choice then defense gets 2 least in my experience I feel like oftentimes it either goes back and forth back and forth and you kind of give defense. Um, the second call and only get 1 in this case, you guys have given them 2 in a row. Um, so I'm kind of curious like what was the motivation behind doing it that way and giving defense that to in a row and then I think. Most people can probably guess but go ahead and just explain like why give p the very first choice too and um sam why don't we go to you first. 55:08.20 Sam I sure and it probably makes sense for me to go for it because I was the one who pushed for this particular call order when we were discussing and the rest of the committee was on board. It's starting with p first and then I'll go for the 2 d so what? if guards should p first I think that's just kind of. Standard tradition when it comes to cases such as these when they're swing witnesses usually giving p the first option gives plaintiff generally a guaranteed swing witness. So when you're thinking of things like case balance and case preparation. What we generally find is that. Most teams in general try to tend to if possible prepare as few witnesses as possible I think that makes obvious sense to anyone who has competed or coach less work is better than more work. Um, but I think we've definitely seen particularly when it comes to plaintiff and prosecution the teams that have besides that have a burden. They more so than defense even tend to try for guaranteed calls so giving key the first option I think gives plaintiffs a chance to consider the swing witnesses incorporate the swing witnesses and frankly, we're more realistically going to see swing witnesses. Used by plaintiff if it's the first option versus if not, um, as for the defense um the defense getting the second bite makes sense right? Plaintiff got first defense gets second um, the big decision was who gets the third bite and we decided defense again and I think the big push there. 56:41.96 Sam Is honestly, it was to give the defense flexibility and options right? Um, there are 3 defense constrained witnesses meaning you're free to call the 3 defense constrained witnesses and have a guaranteed call but we acknowledge it's a deposition witness and 2 experts most teams or. Some teams will not be interested in wanting to call two experts. Um I also said I wanted a case where you could try it without experts so I wanted the defense to also have the option to call no experts. But how do you make sure that they have the option to call no experts well with three swing witnesses. If you give them the second and third bite you can call the deposition witness and 2 of the swings. Ah meaning you never have to call the expert if you don't want to or conversely if you want to call the expert in 2 swings you can so we ultimately saddled on those first three picks so that plaintiff. Has their option like normal but mostly importantly, it's actually I've joked enough on being anti defense. This was bigly this was largely for the defense was so that the defense would be able to have options on who to call if you want to stick with your side constrain witnesses. You're absolutely free to. But for teams that want to prep those swing witnesses. We want to give them ample opportunity to call them and call multiple of them if they so does that. 58:05.79 Drew Well elise I'll I'll throw it to you. What was your take on the the call order and were you convinced by Sam. 58:12.69 Elise H_ Wilson Yeah, definitely I mean I think when you have only 3 side constrained witnesses on the defense and 2 of them are experts and they're not necessarily experts that cleanly support the same case theory. You definitely want to give the defense a little bit more. Ah, flexibility when it comes to the call order. Um I think here as Sam said basically what this means is if the defense preps just four witnesses they should be able to get 2 swings. They should be able to get 1 swing. And 2 side constrained witnesses. Um, and obviously they can just prep 3 witnesses if if they want to do as as little work as possible and and call to experts. But I think here you know it's it's really a balance between not necessarily wanting to do the Bankroft Covington thing of having the defense prep a mountain of content that won't necessarily be used while also wanting to reward teams who are willing to do a little bit of extra work. So. 59:22.41 bengarmoe Yeah I think both of your approaches to this make a lot of sense I remember when I started reading the case and looked at the call order I was like oh okay, like that fits really well I think if defense had the first call and was able to lock in a swing it. It would feel kind of strange. Ah so I like it I think you know. You you as a defense you really only have to prep 1 extra witness and that's really doable. So I think that makes a ton of sense. So I'm going to ask 1 last question to each of you here to wrap us up. This has been such a fascinating conversation I feel like I've learned a lot. Just about case writing and and how this process works from both of you. So obviously now your case has been released out into the world by the time this episode is out and and about a week from when we're recording it. We'll be just up against the first set of Invitationals. So elite I'll go to you first and then Sam I'll ask you this as sort of our last question. What are you excited to see play out with this case, you guys obviously spent months and months and months with the whole committee and your proofreaders crafting this case and putting all these ideas and efforts into this case. So what are you looking for and paying attention to in terms of wow I'm really excited to see how teams. Use that piece of evidence or or what characters they run with that witness. Ah, you know what are you looking forward to seeing as your case goes out into the world and the whole community starts to use it in trial. 01:00:45.85 Elise H_ Wilson Oh my gosh. That's a really good question. Um I mean here's that it first of all, anytime you've written a case and you see it run even if people do horribly with it. It is so fun and exciting and rewarding I can't help but give higher scores on a case I wrote. 01:00:46.12 bengarmoe A. 01:00:56.79 bengarmoe Yeah, yeah. 01:01:01.71 Elise H_ Wilson Because I'm just so happy to be there and if you watching people run my case I think you know I did a lot of the work kind of conceptualizing the really technical plaintiff theories and so I think I am the most excited to see people work With. Um, those theories I wrote savcheno and I'm I'm really really excited to see that witness called um and I'm also excited to see what people invent like what we haven't thought of that students are going to do because inevitably that's going to happen. And that is honestly always one of the most impressive things to me is is when a student or a group of students come up with something that I haven't thought of that totally Works. So. 01:01:50.35 bengarmoe Well Sam I will I will kick it to you to kind of wrap up our conversation same question that I asked Elise what are you excited to see as this case goes out into the world. So. 01:02:02.45 Sam Yeah I mean like least generally it's gonna be extremely fun to just see what crazy and creative ideas the community's going to come up with with the case. Um I think as we're writing it. We're all brainstorming and contemplating potential. Ways this case can swerve left or swerve right up or down. But I've my adage when it comes to case writing is um, the 7 or of us in a room are always going to be outthought by the community as a whole so that's the general fun if I had to pick like something a little bit more narrow. Feel like I'm having a small character arc on this interview is that I'd say it's honestly is's going to be the defenses of I am intrigued to see which of the defenses teams are going to be gravitating towards I'm going to be interested in seeing how they play out. Those defenses in terms of witnesses I had a large hand in writing the defense deposition for this case. So I have a little bit of love there and um, I'm going to be fun to just see which one folks pick which when they gravitate towards. They go for a single one a combo of um, um, there's no limitations so they could do anything they so desire on that front. Um, in terms of witness portrayals I will admit I have a very soft spot for Shannon Shaheep I helped write that one. It was inspired by friends and families. So I am going to love to see. 01:03:28.96 Sam That witness in an am to style universe. Um, because I part of me is interested to see how crazy it goes because part of me realizes that reality will probably be even be more absurd than whatever we see in a mock trial round. 01:03:43.23 bengarmoe Yeah I think you have definitely left lots of room for I'll say growth with that character I think that's the the best term that I can use well Sam Elise this has been such an interesting conversation just a fascinating opportunity to look behind the scenes about how this case was created. So. Thank you obviously for coming on the show. But thank you to both of you for dedicating the amount of time and attention that you do to create a case that I think has been pretty universally praised since it came out and I think is going to be really really great. So Elise Sam thank you so much for taking time to come on the show. 01:04:19.34 Elise H_ Wilson Thank you for having us. 01:04:22.30 Sam Um, oh it's happy to be here. 01:04:23.46 bengarmoe Yeah, it was really great to have both of you on the show. Ah to everyone else. We really appreciate you listening. We hope that this was an interesting conversation for you. We'll be back in your feeds very soon. But until then this has been the mock review with Ben and drew.

Other Episodes

Episode 10

December 06, 2018 01:07:15
Episode Cover

Episode 10: Regional Tournament Assignments (with Adam Detsky)

On the latest episode, Ben and Drew are joined by AMTA Team and Feeder Subcommittee Chair Adam Detsky. Adam breaks down the 2018 Regional...

Listen

Episode 70

August 15, 2022 00:42:28
Episode Cover

Episode 70: Rookie Rumble

Ben and Drew discuss their experiences coaching at Rookie Rumble, the 2022 summer tournament hosted by AMTA and open to rising sophomores and juniors....

Listen

Episode 55

August 10, 2021 00:59:39
Episode Cover

Episode 55: 2021 Board Meeting Rundown

Ben was present in Denver for the 2021 AMTA Board of Directors meeting, and in this episode Ben and Drew break down what happened...

Listen