DEFENSE

A case law is the law as established by the outcome of former cases.

Student B knew the school resource officer at his high school. The officer stopped by his house
in order to ask him to come down to the station for a youth diversion program due to the
students recent arrest for possession of a knife at school. The officer emphasized that the
student did not need to come, but it would be helpful. Once there, the student was taken into an
interrogation room and was informed of his Miranda rights. He was then asked questions about
two murders that occurred two months prior. Student B appeared shocked by the turn of events
and at first seemed very confused and incoherent. Yet Student B did not ask for a lawyer and
waived his right to remain silent, though he did say on multiple occasions that he wanted to go
home.
Student B was previously a cadet with the police department and received some police training,
though he did not receive any training regarding Miranda warnings. Student B also had previous
mental health problems, including severe depression and time in a mental hospital, and was of
course also a minor. After about four hours of intensive and non-stop questioning by a detective
in the department and an FBI agent, the student confessed to the murders and said hed wanted
to kill somebody since he was 10. Based heavily on the statements Student B made while in
custody that first day, he was convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
Sixth Amendment cases
Miranda v Arizona

Cases
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/09/in-murder-trial-mental-illness-again-raises-toughquestions-about-defendant-who.html
The officer used his closeness with the student to trick him into coming down to the station

Mentally ill individuals are more vulnerable to police interrogations

-DEPRESSION IS AN EXCUSE IF THEY WENT TO A MENTAL HOSPITAL TO GET TREATED
-Depression is classified as a mental illness
https://www.aclu.org/end-juvenile-life-without-parole
Minors cannot be subjected to life in prison without parole according to a supreme court ruling in
2012

Eighth Amendment

Hill v Snyder

The case the Court ruled upon involved a 13 year-old boy whom the police suspected of involvement with
two burglaries. A police officer went to his school, removed him from class and placed him in a conference
room with the door closed and two school administrators present.
The officer did not give the boy a Miranda warning or inform him that he could leave the room at any time
prior to beginning the questioning. After the boy admitted to participation in the burglaries, however, the
officer told the boy that he could refuse to answer questions and leave whenever he wanted. The boy
stayed and provided further detail about the crimes.
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/juvenile-justice/police-questioning-ofminors.html#sthash.ibjx8iLy.dpuf

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/16/police-violated-ahmed-mohamed-s-civil-rights-bykeeping-away-his-parents.html
A freshman in High School. (14 yrs)
Was accused of carrying a bomb but in actuality, it was only a clock.
Was questioned at the school, but was then taken in handcuffs to a juvenile detention center
where he was fingerprinted and interrogated without his parents present, according to police and
Mohamed.
While the police were questioning him, Ahmed Mohamed requested to speak to his parents but
was denied.
He saw his parents AFTER the police interrogated him.
If a child seeks to have a short conference with his parents, [the police] cannot deny them that.
He has a right to talk to them. Kids dont lose their rights because theyre kids or because they
live in Texas.
According to his attorney, he wasnt read his Miranda Rights.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-11121 (J.D.B v North Carolina)
J.D.B was a 13 year old special education student in 2005 when the police showed up at his
school to question him about a string of neighborhood burglaries.
The police had learned that the boy was in possession of a digital camera that had been reported
stolen.The boy was escorted to a school conference room, where he was interrogated in the
presence of school officials.
His parents were not contracted, and he was not given any warnings about his Miranda Rights
J.D.B. confessed to the crimes, but later sought to have his confession suppressed on the basis
that he was never read his Miranda rights.
He argued that because he was effectively in police custody when he incriminated himself, he
was entitled to Miranda protections.

(CASEY)-Defendant's statement to the media

-Opening argument from prosecution
(ALLY)-Opening argument from defense
-First rebuttal from prosecution
(ASHLEY)-First rebuttal from defense
-Second rebuttal from prosecution (if enough group members)

(MARRIZA)-Second rebuttal from defense (if enough group members)

-Closing argument from prosecution
(CARISSA)-Closing argument from defense
-All team members should utilize your case law research by citing at least one relevant case
and demonstrating how that case supports your perspective (four team members would mean at
least four cases total for the team)
-All team members should include persuasive logic as to why the defendant's rights were or
were not violated, especially relying on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
-If you're in the opening argument, you introduce your team's viewpoint
-If you're in the closing argument, you try to draw together all the arguments
-If you're in a rebuttal, try to effectively address the arguments the other side has been making
Tips
1. Use Your Honor when addressing the judge.
2. If youre doing a rebuttal, have more than one case to use, depending on what the other side
says.
3. Try to anticipate what the other side will say. Do their research so that you can be ready for
it.
4. Time your argument. Do not go over two minutes per person.
5. More recent decisions are better to cite than older ones. Keep in mind especially that some
new court decisions might overturn earlier ones.
6. Refer to cases by the first name in the X v. Y description. (In the Miranda decision, we saw
that)
Defense
As the defense, your job is to prove that the original trial was flawed in its outcome and that
there should be a mistrial. Find and use case law that undermines the earlier efforts of law
enforcement and/or the prosecution.
Defendant
In a normal appeals court, the defendant would have a very small role, as his/her attorneys cite
case law before the judges in order to win the appeal. The resulting back and forth is generally
above what a non-lawyer is capable of doing, and so the defendant does not participate.
However, the impact of any appellate decision is first felt on the defendant, of course, and so
they are an important element of any case. Frequently, major appeals draw a great deal of
media scrutiny, and the press will seek answers from the defense. Sometimes statements are
made to the media by the attorneys for the defense, and other times the defendant
himself/herself may make a statement. This statement is how we will begin our mock trial.

The defendant must make a 1-2 minute statement explaining why they believe this is an
important case for the court to interpret correctly. In their statement, the defendant should
answer some or all of the following questions:
What amendment does this decision primarily concern?
Whats at stake in this decision?
Why is it important that we interpret the Bill of Rights correctly?
The defendant should be prepared for one or two follow-up questions from the media. The
defendant should not simply retell the events of the case.