Official 2008 National High School Mock Trial Championship

April 25, 2008, 3:15 p.m. (DST)

The designated period for questions has ended. All timely submitted questions have been answered.

NOTE: The case updates or clarifications are to be considered as a part of the official case packet, if applicable. All teams are responsible for the content found here.

It is suggested that the case materials be reprinted in their entirety so that all updates are captured.

2008 Case Questions & Answers

Question No. 2008-49:

1. Does a DVD exsist of past National competition rounds?

2. Do the students refer to the judges as a jury and do they need to go through the jury form like they would in a real jury trial?

Answer No. 2008-49:

A. Teams are encouraged to contact previous hosts to inquire about obtaining DVD's of past national high school mock trial championships.

B. The scoring judges in the jury box may be referred to as jurors. The presiding judge should be addressed in the same manner as a lawyer would/should address a judge in court.

Question No. 2008-48:

1. I assume that prior questions which have gotten a response of 'pending' will be answered in the 4/25/08 posting. If not, what are we to do to resolve those issues?

2. When will you be posting the practice room assignments? This information will be very helpful to those of use trying to schedule scrimmages.

Answer No. 2008-48:

A. All timely submitted questions have been answered.

B. Practice room assignments will be posted on 4/28.

Question No. 2008-47:

Will the defense have rebuttal in the closing phase of the trial?

Answer No. 2008-47:

No.

Question No. 2008-46:

Is it the common practice in Delaware to have the corporate representatives of the parties (in this case Terry and Kent) seated at counsel's table, or should they sit with the other witnesses?

Answer No. 2008-46:

The corporate representatives are clients and may sit
at counsel table. Teams may also choose to have the corporate
representatives sit with the other witnesses.

Question No. 2008-45:

In reference to answer 38...does this mean that the two additional stocks are bought for the price of ONE (prevailing market price) or that EACH additional stock costs the prevailing market price?

Answer No. 2008-45:

Paragraph 8 of the complaint accurately describes the "flip-in" feature of DAM's poison pill: if the pill is triggered, each stockholder of DAM other than MESS has the right to acquire (at the prevailing market price) two shares of stock for each share held. So, for example, if the market price of the shares is $10 per share, a stockholder who owns one share could buy two additional shares for $10.

Question No. 2008-44:

On page 8 of the Statement of Facts, is the statement that 'the board of directors of DAM refused to talk or meet with the President of Aladin' meant to read 'the board of directors of DAM refused to talk or meet with the President of MESS'?

Answer No. 2008-44:

No.

Question No. 2008-43:

Paragragh No. 2 of the Complaint refers to MESS as 'a corporation organized under the laws of Aladin'. This is inconsistent with line 2 of Devereux Terry's Statement which refers to MESS as 'a Delaware corporation'. Which is correct?

Answer No. 2008-43:

Both statements are true.

Question No. 2008-42:

Under Delaware corporate law, does an affiliation exist or is one deemed 'affiliated' by virtue of stock ownership?

Answer No. 2008-42:

The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-41:

Devereux Terry and Chris Read went to high school together so they are approximately the same age, right? (It's confusing because their background information makes Chris Read seem 8 - 10 years older than Devereux Terry.)

Answer No. 2008-41:

The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-40:

1. Mock Trial Rule 4.11 provides, 'No illustrative aids of any kind may be used, unless provided in the case packet. No enlargements of the case materials will be permitted. Absolutely no props or costumes are permitted unless authorized specifically in the case materials...' Are the teams permitted to mark on exhibits during their direct and/or cross examinations, or will that be a violation of Rule 4.11?

2. Are teams permitted to tender experts? One of the stipulated facts in the Statement of the Case provides that 'there is no requirement in Delaware that an expert be formally tendered to the Court,' but it does not provide that teams cannot tender experts. We realize that Mock Trial Rule 2.5 does not permit voir dire examinations of experts. So, can a team qualify an expert (pursuant to Rule 702) and then tender the expert to the Court, realizing that the opposing counsel would not object to the tender, or is the competition designed to completely eliminate the tendering of experts?

3. Many of the issues in the case coincide with current policital, social and economical issues and events. Would it be an unfair extrapolation under Mock Trial Rule 2.3 to include in witness testimony current political, social or economic events that may not be directly stated in the witness statements but that are related to and expand upon the events provided in the witness statements?

Answer No. 2008-40:

a. marking of exhibits by witnesses during trial does not Violate Rule 4.11.

b. A team is free to tender a witness as an expert if they see fit but this is not necessary. The foundation for the expert still must be laid. The stipulation is simply to advise that in Delaware (as opposed to some other states) a formal tender is not required. Scoring judges will be told that either approach is permissible.

c. Rulings on unfair extrapolation objections are left to the discretion of the presiding judge. Teams should read Mock Trial Rule 2.3 carefully before attempting to inject facts into the case that are not in the case materials.

Question No. 2008-39:

How many outstanding shares of DAM are there?

Answer No. 2008-39:

The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-38:

In the Primer on Delaware Corporate Law and in the Statement of Case, the poison pill is described in such a way that shareholders who are entitled to purchase additional stock can do so for 'nominal cost.' In the Complaint (para. 8), the allegation, which DAM admits in the answer, is that stockholders have the right to acquire the additional stock 'at the prevailing market price.' Which is it?

Answer No. 2008-38:

Some poison pills allow for redemption of shares at "nominal cost," others, like the one at issue in this case, allow for redemption at "the prevailing market price."

Question No. 2008-37:

The complaint alleges (para. 2) that 'MESS is a corporation organized under the laws of Aladin.' In line 2 of his statement, Dev Terry says 'MESS is a Delaware corporation.' Is this an intentional error?

Answer No. 2008-37:

Both statements are true.

Question No. 2008-36:

The answer to question 2008-2 is causing us to have more issues about the stock ownership of DAM. As we understand the premise of the Statement of the Case, the following statements are true:

Pat Kent owns 40% of DAM's shares. (p-6)
Other shareholders own the remaining 60%. (p-6)
After MESS made its $20 offer, 51% (a majority) of the shares of DAM were tendered. (p-8)

Is this accurate?

Answer No. 2008-36:

Yes.

Question No. 2008-35:

On page 55, Newcastle makes a reference to Exhibit 5, Seaford Security Consultants Evaluation and Recommendations for Delaware Auto & Marine Corporation. Are we to assume that the writing of all or part of this report was the regular practice of the SSC, and it was kept in the course of the SSC's regularly conducted business activity?

Answer No. 2008-35:

The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-34:

Does Exhibit 7 have to be printed in color?

Answer No. 2008-34:

No.

Question No. 2008-33:

I have a follow-up question to Case Update No. 2008-26.

The answer that, yes, the statement of the case is undisputed and all witnesses are bound by it, opens up some thorny issues which I believe require clarification.

Can the statement of the case be used to impeach a witness? E.g. 'The announcement was quickly derided by Kent'.

If so, will evaluators be informed of this as it differs from usual trial procedure? It would be unfair for a kid to be penalized because he or she is taking advantage of 'mock trial' rules and the evaluator doesn't like it.

Is the statement of the case meant to be additional stipulations?

Please clarify.

Answer No. 2008-33:

See Rule 2.2 of the National High School Mock Trial Championship Rules of the Competition.

Question No. 2008-32:

1. Exhibit 2 (Valuation Analysis, Sale of Companies in Comparable Lines of Business gives the years of sale of California Port, Inc., and Florida Port, Inc., as 2004 and 2005, respectively. In her/his witness statement (page 32: lines 27-28), CPA Sammy Rodney states California Port, Inc., sold three years ago for $14 per share, and Florida Port, Inc., sold two years ago for $12 per share. However, the witness statement is dated May 8, 2008,dating the California Port sale closer to, if not at or slightly more than, four years ago; and, similarly, the sale of Florida Port is closer to, at, or in excess of three years ago. Please dont respond with the too-easy (t)he problem stands as is; it would be incredible and unrealistic for a CPA employee of the The Big One to make a mistake like this, and theres plenty of more substantive material with which to challenge Rodneys credibility. Instead, how about changing the witness statement to read: California Port, Inc., sold for $14 per share in 2004, and Florida Port, Inc., sold for $12 per share in 2005.

2. Is Chris Read retained (i.e., paid) by D.A.M. and its co-defendant directors for her/his work and testimony in this case? It would be quite a stretch for her/him to claim that s/he has not been retained, and is not being paidand is instead appearing solely out of the goodness of her/his heart and lifelong commitment to battle terrorism on every front.

3. In her/his witness statement, Jamie Newcastle claims [52:2-4] s/he was promoted to Head of Security for D.A.M. in 2004, having previously been employed there as, among other things, a fork-lift operator. Later in Newcastles statement [54:49-51], s/he states: A couple of years ago, when I was still a fork-lift operator, I accidentally dropped a pallet of VCRs and Sony TVs. Given that the statement is dated May 8, 2008, this mishap would have occurred in 2006, fully two years after Newcastles claimed promotion to Head of Security. Is this an intended inconsistency (if so, its rather lame), or should a couple of years ago be changed to several years ago?

Answer No. 2008-32:

a. The problem stands as is.

b. The problem stands as is.

c. The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-31:

On page 8, paragraph 2, it states that 'stockholders holding more than 51% of the stock of DAM have tendered their shares.'

It also states this on pages 10, 13, 17, and 18.

Pages 17 and 18 are part of the Defendants' answer, and they 'admit that stockholders holding more than 51% of the stock of the company have tendered their shares.'

Yet on page 42, lines 58 and 59 of Pat Kent's Declaration, he/she states that 'I know that Erin Sussex and some other stockholders (those who own just over one-half of the stock that I don't own)'

In Mock Trial Case Question 2008-2, you have already agreed that Pat is referring to 'just over 30% of DAM's stockholders.'

Is this apparent contradiction of 'more than 51%' versus 'just over 30%' an oversight, or was it intentional?

Answer No. 2008-31:

To clarify, it should be understood that Erin Sussex, in combination with the other stockholders who own just over 30% of the stock of DAM, comprise the stockholders who have tendered more than 51% of the stock of DAM.

Question No. 2008-30:

Question #1: In Exhibit 2 (page 57) the per share prices of various sold corporations are listed. Are we to assume that all of the listed corporations are the same size, i.e. they have the same number of total issued shares of stock?

Question #2: In Exhibit 2 (page 57) the per share prices of various sold corporations are listed. Are we also to assume that all of the listed corporations are comparable in all other aspects as well?

Answer No. 2008-30:

The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-29:

In his/her witness statement, Chris Read states, 'Once I retired from the EDA, I formed CH Enterprises, Inc.' (page 44 line 13). It is unclear from the rest of the statement when he retired. Upon what date did Chris Read retire from the EDA and start Ch Enterprises?

Answer No. 2008-29:

The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-28:

I notice that the case updates sometimes alter the case materials. However, the case materials do not indicate when alterations, deletions, or additions are made. Is it possible to use the common legal technique of striking through deletions and underlining additions. My concern is that without those markings it becomes tedious to always have to cross check case updates with the actual case materials.

Answer No. 2008-28:

A revised set of case materials will be posted after the time for submitting questions closes.

Question No. 2008-27:

page 63

Section 3, number 1. Should that be Hong Kong (instead of Honk Kong)

Answer No. 2008-27:

Yes. A corrected page was posted on 4/10/08.

Question No. 2008-26:

Is the 'statement of the case' considered undisputed facts that all witnesses are bound by?

Answer No. 2008-26:

Yes.

Question No. 2008-25:

Is the reference to the 'President' rather than prime minister of Aladin (pg. 8, Statement of Facts) a typo?

Answer No. 2008-25:

No.

Question No. 2008-24:

The last page, the timekeeping sheet, is not numbered and it was before. Is this the right form? Previously it was p. 114. Is it supposed to be numbered?

Answer No. 2008-24:

Yes. A corrected timekeeper's form was posted on 4/10/08.

Question No. 2008-23:

What are the restrictions (if any) on reproduced exhibits? May enlarged visuals be used and if so, what are the size guidelines? I apologize if this is in the published rules, but we could not find it.

Answer No. 2008-23:

See Rule 4.11 of the National High School Mock Trial
Championship Rules of the Competition (Pp. 84-85 of the materials).

Question No. 2008-22:

... believe they found a typo on page 9, last section that states:

'In addition to the stipulated facts in the Court's order of September 27, 2007 both sides stipulate to the following facts: ...

Is the correct date September 21, 2007 ?

Answer No. 2008-22:

Yes. The correct date of the Court's order is September 21,
2007. A corrected timekeeper's form was posted on 4/9/08.

Question No. 2008-21:

1. On page 52, lines 6-16, Newcastle describes the features and capacities of 'my Port.' Is the facility that he describes the DAM facility or is he describing the Port of Wilmington generally?

2. What is the correct pronunciation of 'Aladin'?

Answer No. 2008-21:

Newcastle is describing the Port of Wilmington generally.

The pronunciation is the same as if spelled "Aladdin," as in the character in the tale of medieval Arabian origin.

Question No. 2008-20:

Sammy Rodney's witness statement (pg. 33, lines 60-61):

'Contrary to the testimony of Chris Read....'

If Sammy Rodney knew what Chris Read said in his/her witness statement, were all of the witnesses present during each other's testimony on May 8, 2008?

Answer No. 2008-20:

No. And it is not reasonable to infer that Rodney was present
for Read's statement. At best, it can be inferred that Rodney heard
about Read's statement from a third party.

Question No. 2008-19:

Statement of the Case, pg. 7:

'...each stockholder other than the acquiring person or entity is entitled to purchase (at nominal cost) two shares of stock for each share of stock currently held.'

Does this mean that a shareholder can purchase 2 ADDITIONAL stocks, making a total of 3?

(The example on pg. 4 under 'flip-in' indicates the purchase of 'another' share, doubling rather than tripling the total number of stocks.

Answer No. 2008-19:

Yes. That is what the rights plan adopted by the Board provides. The example in the Primer refers to another variation of a rights plan.

Question No. 2008-18:

pg. 9 states, near the bottom:

'In addition to the stipulated facts in the court order of September 27, 2007....'

Is this a reference to the Court of Chancery opinion, which was submitted on September 17, 2007 and decided on September 21, 2007? (In other words, is 'September 27' a typo?)

Answer No. 2008-18:

Yes. The correct date of the Court's order is September 21, 2007. A corrected p. 9 was posted on 4/9/08.

Question No. 2008-17:

Is Exhibit 1 meant to have the statement 'Defense Witness Statement of Jamie Newcastle' at the top of the page?

Answer No. 2008-17:

No. A corrected Exhibit 1 page was posted on 4/7/08.

Question No. 2008-16:

Under 'Jury Instructions,' it says 'These are not to be read in open court by the presiding judge.' Can attorneys still refer to the jury instructions during trial (i.e., closing)?

Answer No. 2008-16:

Yes.

Question No. 2008-15:

page 59 - should the first line above Exhibit 1 be removed?

Answer No. 2008-15:

Yes. A corrected Exhibit 1 page was posted on 4/7/08.

Question No. 2008-14:

page 114
After opening statements, should there be a section for the direct/redirect examination of three plaintiff witnesses?

Answer No. 2008-14:

Yes. A corrected timekeeper's form was posted on 4/10/08.

Question No. 2008-13:

page 114
After opening statements, should there be a section for the direct/redirect examination of three plaintiff witnesses?

Answer No. 2008-13:

Yes. A corrected timekeeper's form was posted on 4/10/08.

Question No. 2008-12:

How old is Devereux Terry?

Answer No. 2008-12:

The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-11:

Jamie Newcatle's witness statement, pg. 55, lines 75-76:
'...Mess has made a point of saying that it intends to have federally-trained security workers at DAM...'

Does 'federally-trained' refer to America's or Aladin's federal government?

Answer No. 2008-11:

"federally trained" refers to the United States of America's
federal government.

Question No. 2008-10:

What is the legal definition for 'material ties' (to international terrorism), as found in Question #2?

Answer No. 2008-10:

The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-9:

Concerning the four elements of violation of fiduciary duty, as found on Page 72 of the Case Materials, is the Plaintiff's burden proof of ALL four of those elements, or simply AT LEAST ONE of the four? (Failing to act on an informed basis, failing to act in good faith, etc.)

Answer No. 2008-9:

At least one of the four elements must be proven.

Question No. 2008-8:

What is the legal definition for the term 'threat to national security' as in Question #3?

Answer No. 2008-8:

The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-7:

In regard to p. 101 & 102 of case materials - Roster sheet.
Shouldn't the second half of the sheet read 'Name of Student Witnesses' instead of repeating 'Name of Student Attorneys' (which has already been used at the top)?

Answer No. 2008-7:

Yes. Corrected roster forms were posted on 4/3/08.

Question No. 2008-6:

In regard to p. 114 of the case materials - Shouldn't the Timekeeper's record have a place to put the time for the Direct/Redirect of Three Plaintiff Witnesses?

Answer No. 2008-6:

Yes. A corrected timekeeper's form was posted on 4/10/08.

Question No. 2008-5:

p. 114 - Shouldn't the Timekeeper's record does have a place to put the time for the Direct/Redirect of Three Plaintiff Witnesses?

Answer No. 2008-5:

Yes. A corrected timekeeper's form was posted on 4/10/08.

Question No. 2008-4:

page 106.
Will the scoring judges be abiding by this criteria? Twelve years ago, I posed the same question. For example, if an attorney uses notes, according to the criteria, that attorney could not score higher than a 6 becuase an excellent performance states that the attorney does not read from notes. If the criteria was intended to be for informational purposes, why do we need to bring it to the competition as stated on the top of the page?

Answer No. 2008-4:

The criteria given to the scoring judges contained on pages 104
through 106 are the standards we would like the scoring judges to
follow. The material is to be read as a whole; the judges will be told not to single-out any particular criterion when judging.

The reference at the top of page 104 and 106 about needing to print and bring this particular material to the competition is meant for the judges only. The teams are not required to bring these particular materials to the competition.

Question No. 2008-3:

In Exhibit 3, 'Stock Price History,' the 2003, 2005, and 2006 stock prices were not 'Slighter, slower rise[s],' yet they are indicated as such. Why is this?

Answer No. 2008-3:

The problem stands as is.

Question No. 2008-2:

In Pat Kent's Witness Statement, on page 42, lines 58-59, he/she says the following:

I know that Erin Sussex and some other stockholders (those who own just over one-half of the stock THAT I DON'T OWN).....

Pat Kent 'DOES NOT OWN' 60% of the stock, so does this mean that Pat is referring to just over 30% of DAM's stockholders?

Answer No. 2008-2:

Yes.

Question No. 2008-1:

Is it a reasonable inference for a witness that has personal knowledge to compare the runway length of the airport in Aladin to the length of a well-known international airport's runway length?

Answer No. 2008-1:

No.