 First of all, I'd like to say thank you and welcome to Community TV. I'm Lou Tuosto with Let's Talk, and this evening we have a really exciting evening because we've got young people, young people that are doing mock trials, and mock trials in Santa Cruz County have been around for several years. We have high school competitors, and what they're doing is they're bringing case information like a legal beagle would do, and they're arguing these cases. Now the argument of these cases is quite exciting because there is a verdict, and somebody wins and somebody loses, but more importantly the skills that our young people are creating and doing all this kind of neat thing, which is creating, I think, a future for themselves to learn these skills more than anything, not necessarily be attorneys, they're doing. Well tonight is the finals. Tonight we have a couple very good guests with this that are going to talk about mock trials, and we have the honorable Paul Maragonda, and I'd say thank you so much for being here this evening. My pleasure, Lou. The high school mock trial competition is a competition that's held throughout the state of California in different counties, and at Santa Cruz County it's been going on for more than 15 years, and it involves most of our high schools, and the high school students throughout the state are given the same problem. It is a fact situation, and it's a difficult fact situation. It's not something that is easy. Let's talk about that for a second, because I know that some of the basic kinds of things when you go out and you do one of these things, you know, they're pretty straightforward. This isn't. This is some complex issues, so the kids have to have their thinking caps on. It's doing something that probably they've never done in their lifetime, because on the spot they're actually thinking on how to think, you know, better right on the spot given the information, and it's information, but they're just not regurgitating a bunch of stuff. They're doing real stuff. They're being creative. They're having to think on their feet. They're given a fact pattern. They're given certain case, case law to work with, but they have to really know how to think quickly, think on their feet, consider a situation. The judges, the opposing attorneys, people are going to throw curveballs at them, and they have to be prepared to address that. And asking a 16, 17-year-old kid to be able to do that is really, really takes a lot of mental discipline, takes a lot of hard, hard work, and throughout the years that I've been doing, I've worked as a scoring attorney. I've served as a mentor attorney. I've served as a presiding judge. I'm consistently impressed every year at the skill level, the hard work, the ability of these kids to think on their feet, and to be able to really, really do a stellar job. I'm always impressed every time how prepared the kids are. Many times they're putting on a presentation better than I've seen in court, or better than I've watched attorneys put on the court. It's that kind of polish, and this is not something that is telling them, oh, hey, I'm going to be a lawyer later in life. Whatever they end up doing, this experience, this practical knowledge that they receive in dealing with tricky situations, analyzing things on the fly, really thinking things through, serves them in whatever they choose to do. What would you say in terms of prep time, Desmeral Gondo, that the kids put in for getting ready for a trial, and how many hours of, I guess, studying the cases and getting all the things ready that need to be done so that they do the right job, they do a good job, and of course they go on to the state finals, they go on to nationals, but are kids locally, do they start six months in advance, three months in advance? They'll start in September, they'll start in October, they put in hundreds of hours. I kind of liken this to these kids do. Hundreds? Hundreds of hours. I liken this to the students that are doing this. This is their winter sport. Some kids may be doing soccer, some may be doing basketball, volleyball. These kids are doing mock trial. Tremendous. I understand too that many of our finest institutions, universities look at mock trials on transcripts, and they see that the kids have put those hours in, and certainly these days with the competition that it is, a 4.5 is not good enough anymore. You've got to do this kind of stuff. You have to have the 4.5, you have to come from a great school, a great area. We've got some wonderful schools in Santa Cruz County, but tell us a little bit about that and how it, I guess, augments what they are as students when they're going to college and when they're applying, when they've done mock trials. It's a leadership quality, it's initiative, it's something that the university admissions counselors look at. It shows that you're willing to step into something that requires a lot of work. It shows that you're willing to step into something that requires leadership. I know that I've been to Scotts Valley High School a number of kids that I've worked with or have watched, and I know some of whom are here tonight, they have gotten into good schools and they've done it all because they've been portrayed as leaders. This is not something that's viewed as an easy, easy process. It takes hundreds and hundreds of hours. I mean, literally, they spend hundreds of hours, nights, weekends preparing for this because there are so many nuances, so many little details that happen and so many things can change in the course of a trial. It depends on perhaps the kind of judge, the judge that you have and the questions that he or she asks. Perhaps one team opposing you takes a different tap. You have to be able to think about that. So when college counselors look at that and they see, hey, how did this person he or she was involved in mock trial, this is something that really gets a lot of positive attention. And especially, as you said, today's very, very competitive. The mock trial provides a very good image. I could see this as something very significant with, again, the kind of skills that young people develop. We all are in some kind of debate, so to speak. We're trying to convince our spouse to buy the green car instead of the yellow car and we're doing all kinds of things like that. And so the skills that are developed here are wonderful. Where do you see our county going? Do we compete pretty competitively on the state level and the national level? Where do we go? And how might we improve those skills? And how might our listening audience, let's say, get involved in some fashion to be able to help the kids improve so that next year, instead of being ranked wherever they were ranked, they get a little bit of a higher ranking. What would you say would be something that it could help with? We are always very, very competitive on the state level and we always manage to do very, very well. But what would be great to see what needs to be encouraged is that every high school, every single high school in Santa Cruz County should be fielding a mock trial team. That should be our goal is to have every single team field. So they're not all involved right now? Not every school in the county is involved in mock trial. And that's what we need to achieve. I think one of the great things would be if we had all of our schools and what we have ten of them in Santa Cruz County. If we had all ten high schools and we have eleven or twelve, if we had every high school the competition would be better. I'm going to turn you over to Bob. Okay, thank you so much. Appreciate it, Judge Mayor Gondo. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Good, thank you. And we have another interview today tonight and we have the district attorney Bob Lee and he is one of the coaches but he also does a bunch of other stuff with young people and thank you for being on the show this evening, Bob. Thank you very much for being here. And we, you probably heard part of the interview with Judge Mayor Gondo and it is his courtroom so he's kind of the most normal person to do a bulk of that certainly you're a big part of our legal community, a huge part of our legal community and a little bit about your background, you are a local high school graduate, of course high school graduate but law graduate as well but from Soquel High School and so you are as local as local can be. Well I was born here and I went to Soquel High and now 30 years later so I'm now a coach for Soquel High's mock trial team. Very good. It's almost like the full circle is happening with me because when I went to Soquel High I was on the speech and debate team and now 30 years later helping kids learn how to become better speakers. How does speech and debate kinds of things like Lincoln Douglas and those kinds of things that you probably engaged in when you were in high school, how do they differ from the mock trials that we're doing here and I will ask this too because I love the speech and debate teams that they have over the hill. I've got some exposure to that. Actually my son was there for four years in high school. How do they differ and do you see that possibly coming back to our community? Well I always hope that different programs come back. I think a speech and debate program would be wonderful in our community but mock court has a lot of similarities. It's really kind of replaced it in a more modern version. It's about critical thinking. It's about standing your feet and be able to persuade somebody that your reasoning in your thought process is correct and it's about overcoming those typical things that we see with many speakers, mostly adults, being able to speak logically, coherently and without nervous. Wonderful. Wonderful. Do you see that we've got an exceptional team this year that might go the distance or above average or of course you're one of the coaches and you kind of lean towards that? I'm completely biased towards my team. No I think all the teams are wonderful actually. Let me give you an example. I'll just use somebody from our team. We have a freshman girl doing one of the hardest things about mock court which is the pre-trial motion and she's a freshman. Tell us what now that's a legalese term. What is a pre-trial motion? What's that mean? What are they doing in the mock trial? In mock trial there's a fact situation where somebody does some acts and he's being accused of committing a crime. You have a prosecution team and you have a defense team. And the pre-trial motion is a motion that we've already seen in court where either the defense or the prosecution tries to take a piece of evidence and get it so it's not considered in the trial. So it's basically taken out of the trial. In this case it's a Miranda question whether a person's statement should be used in court or whether it's improper and should be not used in court. Now all the kids that are doing this nationwide are competing have the same kind of stuff that they're doing and so it's the exact same problem. Okay. So they're basically honing in on the skills that they have and they're perfecting those skills by a lot of other kinds of things that they're doing. Probably a lot of prep work. But it's more than just prep work because obviously attorneys just don't memorize things. It's their presentation. It's their, give me that, fill in the blanks. What is it that you like to see in a potential mock trial attorney youngster that you could see as a potential for being an attorney? Well, you want somebody who can look into ideas. Forget about being an attorney. We're teaching these kids life skills. And I tell these kids all the time that I'm not here to teach you how to win mock court. Of course they're competitive and they want to win and it's part of me as a coach that has an ego that wants to win. But there's a much bigger life lesson here and it's basically teaching kids how to take a problem, how to look at that problem, how to be, how to give logical and persuasive reasoning. And so whether it's a mock court issue or whether you're applying for a job years later Or you're trying to convince your wife to get the green card instead of the blue card. You could, it could be anything. And we see that what we're really teaching is leadership skills because when kids can communicate better and they don't feel the nerves and they understand how to take an issue and then develop their reasoning process and be able to persuasively communicate that to people, they get empowered. And we constantly see these mock court kids whether it's River High, Watsonville, Sankers or Soquel become leaders in their own peer group. And that's always important in our community because we have a lot of issues and a lot of problems whether it's a dog park on the beach or a frisbee golf course behind Soquel High School or something more importantly about what to do with plastics in the ocean or guns in our nation. These are future leaders who can actually take those points, rally people around it, be able to communicate those ideas and try to persuade people that their point is the most correct one. Oh, excellent. And there certainly are arguments on both sides. But certainly that's the system, the community that we live in and I think leadership like that is a thing that makes our community great and greater as we develop those skills in our young people. And it really starts with public speaking. The power of public speaking is something that I think is being diminished because of the nature of the Internet. And we are really seeing an emphasis in making sure that these kids can actually use the power of persuasion to be creative to be somebody that people respond to. And that's something that we as coaches really feel creative about. I've had three attorneys from my previous experience among court about 15 years ago. I did it for two years at Soquel High that became attorneys, three kids that became attorneys. Really, it would not surprise me that I have three or four kids that become attorneys out of this group. It's just a wonderful feeling to have. That's awesome. We talked a little bit about this, but do you see the possibility of speech and debate and how might our community members that are watching this show maybe encourage, I don't know, would it be administrators at schools, would it be teachers, would it be parents for that to come back? Because I think that's an important issue as well for sure, you know, with developing those same kinds of skills. Obviously, you know, case in point, you're the perfect example of a huge success story. I mean, you are the DA, you're not an assistant DA, you're in charge of the whole department and you're again a local and you did it in speech and debate. Do you see that coming back? That kind of excites me if that were to come back because I think I've seen it with my son and he was on the debate team and it did some wonderful things for him. And I coached and I got to watch the kids do some real interesting things and flow and tell who won at the end of the debate. And it was a growing process for me and I was blown away that after, I know with my son, he had friends that many of them went to law school and many of them got into business and virtually all of them, I mean a huge amount were super successful. I think it was because of speech and debate, their ability to communicate and so the skills that you're developing, do you see that possibly coming back? Well, it takes an individual to come back and basically start it. And Sokka Heisberg, for example, they had a man named John Wasserberger when I was in high school there. And he ran the speech and debate program. He actually ran it on the Larry Haddis who's one of Sokka Heisberg's core coaches now. Yeah, he was here tonight. He is here tonight. And they built this program into the biggest club at Sokka High School. There were roughly 100 people in the speech and debate. And as a matter of fact, Sokka High teams, there were numerous people. And my brother, they have full right scholarships for speech and debate. Let's say that again. That's kind of a teaser and I love it because all us parents, I've got my three kids and they've all gone through college. But we're all looking for, can you get a scholarship? Can you get a partial scholarship? Where might we save some money if you do something that you need to develop anyways? If you're successful in either speech and debate or let's say mock trials, there's a possibility that that would enhance your chances of getting scholarship money for college. Absolutely. Could you talk about that? Well, it does because there's college speech and debate programs. And even though it's some high schools that don't have the programs, a lot of colleges do. So they're always looking for talented individuals to fill in those gaps. It's just like recruiting for a basketball or football team. They're looking for the talented teams who can look at an issue and be a critical part of that issue and persuade others that their opinion is the appropriate opinion. But more importantly, again, when I said there was 100 people at SoCal High, I mean that as a bustler. Of all the 160 people, if you had any kids or any adults that are watching SoCal High right now that were part of the speech and debate program, they would agree with me. They've told me this numerous times. The speech and debate program at SoCal High School was the best program they had at SoCal High School. And whether you were an engineer or end up being a corporate layer or general contractor, every one of them says, I've used those skills in my life. And that's what high school should do for you and programs should do is be able to take a skill you learned there and use it to your advantage for the rest of your life. And that's what we're trying to do here. And I'm very proud of you part of it. Very good. Thank you. Just one last partying comment again. What can our listening audience do to help the mock trial folks and people that are supporting mock trials in Santa Cruz County? Parents certainly are always involved. They're always running the flag for their kids and doing the rah rah. But can they show up? Can they write their school administrators say let's enhance that? Can they donate? What can they do? What can folks out there, the listening audience that might listen to the show? Well, I'm in law enforcement. So I always tell the community the number one thing you do to help fight crime is get involved with kids. That's the number one thing. Everybody got involved with kids at some level. High school, secondary schools, after schools, preschools, you know, just supporting kids in their endeavors. We'd have a much lower crime rate. And so for public speaking, I think that you ask the superintendent to say that look, we want to put a speech program together. And we'll start with a simple speech contest. And like the Lions call it, they still believe to have their contest. But we need more of that to basically allow kids that don't play necessarily violin or football or whatever to have an avenue where they can basically improve their social skills, their communication skills, and their leadership skills. Excellent, excellent. Well, perfect example of a success story. The district attorney, the district attorney, Bob Lee, thank you so much for being with us this evening. And good luck in the final competition. I think they're giving the awards out right now. Very good. Well, I want to get in there. And we will come back in a few minutes once the finals are happening and done and then we're going to interview the folks that won. Thank you so much. I know the kids will be so happy. They're so happy that you're here. It really eliminates what their whole little hard work for the last three months. It just gives them a chance to show the rest of the community that this is an important event. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, to the parties. You must complete your presentations within the specified time limits. Clerk, as she has noted, will signal you as your time for each section. The presentation begins to run out. When your total time for each section runs out you will be stopped even if you haven't finished. And the attorneys must call four witnesses. This is a bench trial, a court trial. At the end of the trial it will render a verdict of guilty or not guilty in relation to the charge brought. The teams will be rated based on the quality of the performances independent of my verdict. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, no recess will be called. For any reason a recess is necessary. The team members should remain in their appropriate places and should have no contact with spectators. Please remember that the objections are limited to the California Mock Trial Simplified Rules of Evidence located in the case packet. Now, if there are no questions we are going to begin with the pre-trial motions. Pre-trial attorneys, any questions before we begin? No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. All right. Now, both sides are going to have four minutes to present their arguments and the defense will begin. I will interrupt to ask clarifying questions and time spent answering my questions is not going to be included in the four minute time limit. At the conclusion of your arguments, each side will be offered two minutes of rebuttal time. Please remember that the rebuttal time is to be used to counter your opponent's arguments not to raise new issues. Counselor, the defense ready to begin? Yes, Your Honor. Please begin. The defense moves to suppress Adrienne Vega's statement that was made to police while she was in the back of the police car as it was obtained in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights. In the case of Miranda versus Arizona, the court held that the government is required to inform defendants of their Fifth Amendment rights prior to a custodial of interrogation. As found in Thompson versus Keohane, in concluding if an interrogation was custodial two questions must be answered. What were the circumstances of the interrogation and given these circumstances would a reasonable person have felt that she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave? The court will see that because of the totality of circumstances under which Adrienne Vega's questioning took place, Miranda warnings were warranted and their absence made the interrogation unlawful. In the case of people versus her dam, the court held that several factors are significant in determining custody. These factors include the side of the interrogation, the length and form of questioning and whether the investigation focused on one suspect. The interrogation of Adrienne Vega lasted 30 minutes and culminated in a direct accusation of Vega. In addition, it took place in the back of a locked police cruiser by an officer who admitted to focusing on Vega. Your Honor, it's clear from the facts of April 19 and the law established in people versus her dam that Adrienne Vega was in custodial interrogation. Yeah, but in looking at that wasn't there just one officer involved in the interrogation here? Yes, Your Honor, only one officer, officer right questioned. Miss Vega, however, Officer Jackson, who is a very physically threatening figure, was also present at the interrogation. But that officer didn't ask a single question or make any kind of statement to solicit the incriminating statement. You're absolutely correct, Your Honor. Officer Jackson did not speak to Miss Vega at all. In fact, he did not participate in any of the pleasantries that Officer Wright used to calm Miss Vega. You focus a lot on the her dam case, which is a 1974 case. Wouldn't you agree perhaps that at least at the outset, the contact between the officer Wright and the defendant wasn't really coercive at all? Yes, I would agree that the interactions between Officer Wright and Miss Vega were at one point friendly. However, over the course of the evening, this friendlyness disappeared and the interrogation became coercive. How so? Several factors contributed to this coercive environment as a factor, including the factors I previously mentioned. But in addition, being placed in the back of a locked police car is an objective indicia of arrest has also held in the case of her dam. But he wasn't told that the back seat was locked, was he? No, you're absolutely correct, Your Honor. However, it is common knowledge that the back of a cage car is locked and thus a reasonable person would have known that it was locked. Thank you, Your Honor. The case of U.S. vs. Craighead provided court with additional factors which can contribute to a custodial interrogation. In the case of Craighead, the court held that the behavior of police officials can create a police-dominated atmosphere, thus constituting arrest. The factors that led to this atmosphere were the number of police officials on threat they imposed, whether the suspect was isolated and whether the suspect was informed that she was free to leave. At six and a half feet tall, weighing 250 pounds, Officer Jackson acted solely as a physical threat of Adrian Vega's arrest. Jackson refused to engage in any pleasantries with either the defendant or officer right or even contribute to the investigation. Yeah, but this is a little different phrase. I mean, this is not somebody that was kept in a storage room with a bunch of officers. This is out in the open, out in the yard with just one officer. The argument the defense is making is not that the questioning outside of the police car in the open was not custodial. However, inside the back of a locked police car was custodial. Go ahead. The threat of Officer Jackson, Vega was then isolated and placed in the back of a locked police car without her consent. In the subsequent interrogation, Ms. Vega was not once informed that she was free to leave. Your Honor, once again, the environment of Adrian Vega's interrogation would have made any reasonable person feel in custody. The circumstances of Vega's interrogation are not subject to exemptions found in other cases. In the case of Burkimer versus McCarty, the court held that the length of routine police questionings, such as traffic stops, is limited. And thus, the suspect's freedom of action is not significantly restrained. However, Your Honor, this exemption does not apply to this case. As after giving a complete account of the events of April 19th, Ms. Vega was then coerced into a second 30-minute long interrogation inside the police cruiser. After this, fail... You believe that the initial conversation that Ms. Vega had with Officer Wright was an interrogation? Could you specify as to what you mean by the initial conversation? Well, let me first start talking. They're discussing things, Officer Wright and Ms. Vega. Do you believe that that initially is an interrogation? They're talking about swimming and the swim team and all of that. Are you saying that that's a functional equivalent of interrogation? No, Your Honor. I'm not arguing that. And I agree that the initial conversation between Officer Wright and Ms. Vega was a routine police questioning. Much like the questioning of Tony Deluca or any of the other witnesses that evening. However, as found in the case of people versus Aguilera, over time, an environment can become custodial. May I continue? Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. After this, fail to produce the evidence that Officer Wright was attempting to procure, he continued his questioning. At this point, the restrictions on Adrian Vega's freedom had only grown over the course of the evening and no reasonable person would have felt no control of the situation. Your Honor, in determining if an interrogation environment is custodial, the totality of circumstances must be examined. Which case tells us that? The case of Thompson versus Keoham. Adrian Vega's statement was given in a custodial interrogation. An interrogation into which she was coerced and in which she was not aware of her Fifth Amendment rights. In the name of upholding the Constitution and preserving the rights of those it protects, this court cannot admit Adrian Vega's statement as evidence against her. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Just for the prosecution. Yes, Your Honor. And for the convenience of the scoring judges, again, my name is Rachel Zhang, spelled Z-H-A-N-G. Good evening, Your Honor. The defendant, Adrian Vega, made self-incriminating statements on the night of April 19th, 2012. At that time, Officer Kelly Wright was not required to read the defendant, her Miranda rights, which were established in 1966 and the United Supreme Court case of Miranda versus Arizona. Miranda held that before custodial interrogation, people must be informed of their Fifth Amendment rights. Hence, the Miranda rights were created. But Miss Vega was not due these rights. The statements she made to Officer Wright must be admitted into trial today, because one, she was not in custody at the time, and two, she was not subjected to a custodial interrogation. In Thompson versus Keohane, the United States Supreme Court listed essential inquires that determined whether a person is in custody. One of these essential inquiries looks at the totality of circumstances to determine whether a reasonable person would have felt at liberty to terminate the interrogation in leave. The United States Supreme Court cases of Yarbrough versus Alvarado and Oregon versus Mathiason establish free will as a factor must be considered in the totality of circumstances. What about the Aguilera situation where a situation can be all fine, and all of a sudden as it evolves, it becomes custodial. Isn't that kind of what happened here could be argued? Your Honor, that is a factor that should be considered. However it is not what happened in this case. The situation never became coercive in this Vegas case. There were never any physical restraints, there were no handcuffs, there were no threats and no weapons drawn. Isn't though the fact that someone ends up in a police car, in the back of a car, and the car is locked and they can't get out, isn't that putting someone in a situation where for all intents and purposes they wouldn't feel free to leave? No, Your Honor, not necessarily. This situation of the locked car is similar to the situation in Green versus Superior Court. The first situation specifically, Your Honor. In Green versus Superior Court the defendant in that case was questioned by multiple officers in a room that he did not know was locked. Yet the court still held that the evidence did not compel the conclusion that the defendant could not have left whenever he had wanted to. Your Honor, the same reasoning applies to Ms. Vegas case, and shows that she was not in custody at the time. She could have asked to leave, but she didn't. She could have questioned her circumstances but she never did. Is there a requirement that someone has to leave in order to be able to assert that they're not in custody? That is not a requirement, Your Honor, but looking at the totality of the circumstances, that is one of the factors that should be considered. Your Honor, going back to the factor of free will, in the cases of Yarbrough and Mathiason those court's holdings make it clear that Miranda rights were not required when a person goes to the police station voluntarily. Even if there are police pressures. That wasn't the case here. I mean, the person wants to know if there's a patrol car in this front yard it's kind of hard to say I voluntarily went somewhere. Your Honor, a reasonable person, which is a standard that we must look at, would not have felt co-worse to go sit in the patrol car. A reasonable person could have asked to go do something else such as look for keys or try to get into the house, but instead Ms. Vega consented and agreed to sit in the patrol car. And in the Alvarado case that defended 17 years old similar to the situation we have with Ms. Vega here. Yes, Your Honor, but the court in Yarbrough decided that age and prior criminal history are not factors that should be considered when determining custody. In the California case of people versus Herden, the court listed significant factors of the custody test with regards to the totality of circumstances. Now one factor was the site of the questioning, and the second factor was whether or not the questioning focused on the suspect. Officer Wright's questioning did focus on Ms. Vega, but in Beckwith versus the United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled that though the defendant was the focus of the investigation, he was still not subjected to a custodial interrogation. Your Honor, assuming Archie Wendell that the defendant was even in custody, she was still not subjected to a custodial interrogation. And Rhode Island versus Innis, the United States Supreme Court defined interrogation for Miranda purposes as any words or actions are a part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. But don't you think at the point where you ask, gee, I think you're the one that drove the car that struck the bicyclist, that is something that is designed to elicit an incriminating response. Would you agree? Not necessarily, Your Honor. This statement, which was well, we think that it's possible that you drove the car that struck the bicyclist on Skyline and Grand. This statement is not an interrogating statement. It is more investigative. It is more a statement of fact, not meant to elicit an incriminating response. In fact, this situation is like the situation in Bergamer versus McCarty. In that case, we have questioning about whether or not the defendant had been drinking or whether or not the defendant had used any substances. But this isn't a traffic stop like you had in Bergamer. I mean, that was where they drew the distinction Bergamer was that they pulled a person over for a traffic stop, talked to them, found out that he's been drinking, and then that's the hook that they used. This is a little bit different. I think Innis is real clear. Would you agree that, I mean, anything that you do, anything that you say or do that becomes a functional equivalent of interrogation is not permitted. Yes, Your Honor. However, there are two cases that are similar to this situation. And the Bergamer situation is similar in the way that the officer was asking, have you been drinking? Have you been taking any kind of substance? And those would draw perhaps elicit incriminating responses yet it was still not a custodial situation. The other similar situation, Your Honor, is the case of Oregon versus Mathiason where the officers brought Mathiason or Mathiason chose to go there, and then they told Mathiason that they had found his fingerprints, but they falsely told him. And that would normally draw confession, and it did in the case of Oregon versus Mathiason, but it was still not a custodial situation. Your Honor, Miss Vega made a self-incriminating statement about running over and almost killing Cameron Douglas. This crucial piece of evidence must be admitted into evidence in child today. In Bergamer versus McCarty, the United States Supreme Court held to be in custody. A person's freedom must be significantly restrained. But Miss Vega's freedom was not significantly restrained. She was not in custody at the time. She was not subjected to a custodial interrogation. Your Honor, the people respectfully ask that you admit the defendant's statements in trial today. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. All right. Mr. Clark, the bottom from the defendant. Yes, Your Honor. And for the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Tyler Clark. Your Honor, opposing counsel has cited the case of Miranda versus Arizona. However, she failed to mention that in the case of Miranda versus Arizona, the court held that custody can be established by mental stress, just like the mental stress which would have been created by the opposing figure of Officer Jackson. In addition, Your Honor, opposing counsel has mentioned the case of Oregon versus Mathiason. However, in the case of Mathiason, the defendant voluntarily came to the police station in order to be questioned. However, Vega was ambushed at her house by police officers. In addition, Mathiason was not arrested the day of his interrogation despite making a full confession. Vega, however, was arrested after a series of increasingly more restrictive actions by the officers. In addition, Your Honor, opposing counsel has stated that Vega's voluntary entrance to the police car demonstrates that it was not a custodial interrogation. However, Officer Wright closed the door on Vega without any prompting after Vega had already expressed reluctance by leaving her feet outside the car despite the cold. But, you know, he was doing it wasn't he as a convenience and you know, again, were Officer Jackson wasn't inside the car, was he? No, Your Honor, he was not. And although while I agree with you that it was initially a offer of convenience to allow Ms. Vega to sit inside the police car, Ms. Vega had demonstrated that she was perfectly comfortable with sitting on the edge of the police car and until Officer Wright closed the door on her without any prompting whatsoever. May I continue? Yes. Thank you. In addition, opposing counsel has stated the absence of drawn weapons or handcuffs. However, in determining your decision tonight, you must focus on the facts available. And the fact was there were objective indicia of arrest such as the locked back of a police car. In addition, Your Honor, opposing counsel has stated the case of people versus Aguilera. However, the court held that in this case that by the time the response was given, the environment had become coercive. Your Honor, in spite of the prosecution's attempt to argue in favor of admitting Ms. Vega's statement, it is clear from both the facts of the situation and the court's previous rulings that Ms. Vega's statement cannot be used as evidence against her. Thank you. Yes, Your Honor. Your Honor, to determine custody interrogation, we must look at the totality of circumstances. My opposing counsel tries to paint this picture of totality of circumstances using the case of United States v. Krafe. But that case is factually dissimilar from the case at bar today. There were over six armed officials in that case, only two officials with Ms. Vega and only one of whom was actually questioning Ms. Vega. Now, Officer Jackson was not intimidating. A reasonable person would not have felt intimidated by Officer Jackson's presence because he was 15 feet away and was not doing anything to make himself more apparent, more intimidating. He was doing his job as a partner by standing by. As Your Honor pointed out, he did not partake in the questioning. Now, one of the other factors that plays a big role is the blocked car. But this is not a significant restraint because it parallels to the case in Green v. Superior Court. And it does not become a restraint after the door closes. In fact, there is no difference between the situation with the door open and the door closed. Unlike what my opposing counsel argued, Ms. Vega willingly sat down, but was not showing her opposition to the questioning by having her feet outside. But she couldn't leave once the door was closed. She was locked in there and she was completely at the whim of the officer right. Your Honor, while she may not have been able to leave on her own, she still could have asked to leave. A reasonable person in Ms. Vega's circumstance should not have felt so intimidated or so restricted as to the point where they could not even ask to leave, which makes her not in a custodial situation. Your Honor, the entire conversation was an investigative conversation. Pleasantries were exchanged and there were no firearms drawn. There were no physical threats. Officer Jackson was not intimidated. Now, because Ms. Vega was not in custody, because she was not subjected to a custodial interrogation, because her freedom was not significantly restrained, the people respectfully asked that you deny the defense's motion. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Ms. Angel. Counsel have properly stated the standard was the defendant in custody and if so, was there an interrogation here? The second part is easy to answer for the court, because Rhode Island versus Innes is very clear that any words or action that are designed to elicit an incriminating response are interrogation. The statement by officer right to Ms. Vega, we believe that you're the one that was driving a car that caused the accident. That's clearly designed to elicit an incriminating statement that would be found to be interrogation. So the key factor for the court to decide is whether this in fact was a situation in which Adrienne Vega was in custody and as the United States Supreme Court has told us in Thompson versus Keohane, a 1995 case, it is a mixed question of law and fact and so the court has to consider what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and given those circumstances where a reasonable person felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. In this case you have the defendant who was surprised to see that there is an officer there and a police car. There is the presence of officer Jackson, some larger officer, but the court gives that little weight. It doesn't seem to really factor too much in. The court is concerned though about the situation as it evolves and I think people versus Aguilera in the 1996 case is instructive on this because a situation can start out innocuous and become coercive under the circumstances and based on what has been presented in the case law I believe that is the situation that occurred here and I believe that as the discussion went on, as the door was locked, as Ms. Vega was kept in the car, the situation became more coercive. So I think in that scenario with these facts the court would find that the defendant was in custody at the time then that she was functionally interrogated by officer and the court would grant the motion to suppress that statement. So the statements of Ms. Vega are excluded. All right, now we are at the stage where we will proceed to the trial evidence. The parties want to switch seats. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. Ms. Aguilera, thank you so much. In this case the people versus Aguilera and Vega, the people of the state of California have charged the defendant Agri Vega with violation of vehicle consection 20,001 subsection A failure to perform a duty following an accident causing death or injury a felony to that charge the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. Prosecution or defense, is there any physical evidence that you wish to present for inspection or stipulation? Yes, Your Honor. I wish to present this diagram and pre-market for purposes of identification as people exhibit A. Did any objection? No, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. At this point we will go into the opening statements and are the people prepared to present their opening statement to the court? Yes, Your Honor. The course of the opening statement may I walk by the court? Yes. Thank you. And for the convenience of the court my name is Shazel Khan. On April 19th, a car racing through a stop sign slammed into Cameron Douglas and changed his life forever. The driver of the car was required by the California Vehicle Code section 20,001A to stop, check to see if Mr. Douglas were injured, and to provide him with reasonable assistance if he were. The prosecution will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver of this car, Adrian Vega, did none of these things and is guilty of felony hit and run. Cameron Douglas was riding his turquoise bicycle through the intersection of Skyline and Grand, when he was crashed into by a car. Mr. Douglas recognized the car and identified the driver as Adrian Vega. Mr. Douglas was seriously injured in this accident, his right knee was shattered. In the past he has competed in triathlons, however he will no longer be able to do so due to permanent damage to his right knee from this accident. This permanent injury makes this crime a felony. Mr. Douglas will further testify that the driver of the vehicle did not stop or offered any assistance. Tony DeLuca, who lives with the Vega family, will testify that he was in the passenger seat of the car that hit Mr. Douglas. He will testify that Adrian Vega was driving that night and Adrian Vega was driving recklessly. Mr. DeLuca felt a bump large enough to cause him to believe the defendant had hit something but the defendant refused to stop the car. Quinn Liu saw the accident and will testify that Cameron Douglas was hit by the left front bumper of the car. She was able to see the driver. She was wearing a Cardinal and Gold baseball cap and a white t-shirt. She also obtained a partial license plate number SLC8 6. Ms. Liu will testify that after hitting Cameron Douglas the car slowed down then sped away. The driver knew she hit someone. Officer Kelly Wright will testify that she arrived on the scene and interviewed witness Quinn Liu who provided the partial license plate number. Police dispatch determined that the only car with a matching plate number belonged to Oliver Vega the defendant's father. The officers drove to the Vega home and there they found the vehicle with fresh scratches on the left front bumper with turquoise painted them. When the officers spoke to Ms. Vega she was wearing a Cardinal and Gold baseball cap and a white t-shirt. Officer Wright placed Adrian Vega under arrest. Your Honor the evidence will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Adrian Vega hit Cameron Douglas with her car. Adrian Vega knew she hit someone. Adrian Vega did not stop. Adrian Vega did not assist Cameron Douglas. Your Honor the evidence will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Adrian Vega is guilty of felony hit and run. Thank you. The defense wish to present an opening statement at this time. The defense wishes to reserve their opening statement Your Honor. Alright. With that then we'll go into the evidence at this time. Yes. Prosecution call your first witness. Yes Your Honor. Before doing so may I replace the diagram? Yes. Thank you Your Honor. Prosecution calls Officer Kelly Wright. Officer Wright Please follow me. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you are about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition? I do. Please be seated and state your name for the convenience of the scoring attorneys. My name is Christina Cole and I am Officer Kelly Wright. For the convenience of the scoring attorneys my name is Austin Park and this witness's statement can be found on pages 24 through 26. Go ahead. Thank you Your Honor. Good evening officer. Good evening. Please state your work and experience for the court. I've been an officer on the Hidden Valley Police Department for 12 years and I have extensive experience investigating traffic collisions and hit and run accidents. Did you work at crime scene on the night of April 19th? Yes. I was dispatched to a hit and run incident at the corner of Skyline in Grand. Your Honor, may the officer approach the diagram? Yes. Officer, do you recognize exhibit A? Yes. This is a complete and accurate diagram of the crime scene I worked at 10.40pm on April 19th. Please show us on exhibit A what you observed when you first arrived on the scene. When I arrived on scene I observed the victim Cameron Douglas being loaded into an ambulance between the points marked C and Q on the diagram. His broken turquoise bicycle was nearby. Your Honor, may the record reflect that the officer has indicated the position of Cameron Douglas between where C and Q were marked on the diagram? The record will still reflect yes. Thank you Your Honor. Did you speak with the victim? Not immediately as he was receiving medical attention but I spoke to him at the nearest possible time which was the next day. Did you speak with any witnesses at the scene? Yes. I took the statements of both Quinn Liu and Dallas to camp immediately at the scene. And did they provide any useful information to the case? Yes. Quinn Liu was able to provide a partial license plate number and a description of the driver. Did you take any action with this partial license plate number? Yes. I radioed it into dispatch and they informed me that only one car at Hidden Valley matched that partial. Any action Your Honor, can you say? Your Honor, this is not hearsay as it is an official record made by the police department to the officer. May I respond Your Honor? Yes. It's an out of court statement. Your Honor. Thank you Your Honor. Your Honor. Had you finished your answer? No. The only car that matched the license plate number belonged to Alder Vega, Adrian Vega's father. You may be seated. What did you do next, officer? Next, my partner and I were seated to Mr. Vega's household, excuse me, to look for the vehicle. And what did you observe when you first arrived on the seat? We observed a vintage black beeler parked at an angle on the driveway with one tire on the lawn. We checked the license plate number and it matched the partial we had been given. The hood of the car was warm although it was a cold night indicating the car had been driven recently. And finally, there were fresh scratches and turquoise paint on the bumper consisting with the victim's bicycle. Did you search the beeler during your investigation? Yes. Later that night we impounded the car and a search turned up a business card from a ULA scout under the driver's front seat and a cell phone in the center console. What was your next action, officer? Next, I approached the household and knocked on the door. A teenager came around the side of the household and he identified himself as Tony DeLuca. Objection, Your Honor. This is hearsay. Your Honor. This is not going to show the truth of the matter that it actually was Tony DeLuca, but simply the fact that he identified himself as such. That him identifying himself as Tony DeLuca would be offering it for the truth of the matter. Your Honor, may it be heard? Briefly. It is not of any consequence whether the person was actually Tony DeLuca. That will become clear later in the case. But right now all that matters is that the officer thought this person was Tony DeLuca. This is the state of the mind of the officer. The objection is sustained. I don't think that's an appropriate state of mind. Move to strike, Your Honor. Motion to strike is granted. Did you interview this person? Yes. I took an interview from that person excuse me. I took a statement from that person immediately in the scene. What happened next, officer? Next, I observed a teenage female approaching the Vega household. I initiated contact and she identified herself as Adrian Vega. Your Honor, this is also hearsay. Your Honor, this is an admission, falls under the exception, admission against interest by a party opponent. Sustained. Overruled. Overruled. Thank you, Your Honor. Had you finished your answer? Yes. And what was Miss Vega wearing? She was wearing a white t-shirt and a cardinal and gold baseball cap. A perfect match to the suspect description. Can you identify Miss Vega in court today? Yes. She is a young lady sitting at the end of the defense table wearing a black coat and a black dress. Your Honor, may the record reflect that the officer has correctly identified the defendant? The record will reflect that the witness has identified the defendant. Thank you, Your Honor. Did you interview the defendant? Yes. I took her statement immediately. And what action did you take, officer? I arrested Miss Vega for violation of California vehicle code 2001A, felony hit and run. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions at this time. Across the determination? Yes, Your Honor. For the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Logan Thornley. Good evening, officer. Good evening. When did you interview Cameron Douglas? I interviewed him the day after the accident. And this was also the day after you arrested Adrian Vega, correct? Yes. I had already established probable cause for arresting Miss Vega, though. And when you spoke with Miss Vega, she identified Tony as the driver of the car, correct? That was her statement, yes. And Tony identified Adrian as the driver of the car? That was Tony's statement, correct? And you were already suspicious of Miss Vega when she approached the home and when you interviewed her, correct? Yes. And did Miss Vega ever state that she hit a bicyclist? No, she never made that statement. And when you asked Miss Vega to repeat her story, did her story change? No, it did not. And did you receive any information from Aubrey Fox regarding the accident? Yes, I did receive some information from her. Did you act upon this information? No. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions. Can you read or write? Briefly, Your Honor. Officer, how long did your investigation take? It continued for several days after I arrested Miss Vega. Did you consider your investigation complete? Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions. May this witness step down? Yes. Thank you. The prosecution calls Cameron Douglas to stand. Cameron Douglas? Just follow me. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you're about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition? Yes, I do. Please be seated and state your name for the committees of the scoring attorneys. My name is Victor Hildner and I'm Cameron Douglas. My name is Zal Khan and this witness' testimony can be found on pages 30 to 31 of the case booklet. Good evening, Mr. Douglas. Good evening. What do you do for a living? Well, for the past ten years now, I've owned Hidden Valley's only bike shop. Do you yourself ride your bike? Why, yes. Well, I used to. It was my main method of transportation and I also rode frequently as a hobby. Did you bike competitively? Yes. The past I have competed in several triathlons both within the nation and internationally as well. What color is your bicycle, Mr. Douglas? It is circuitless. And what safety equipment do you use when you ride? Every time I ride, I make sure that I'm wearing my helmet and when it's especially dark outside, I always make sure to be wearing reflective clothing and a headlamp so that I'm very visible in the dark. April 19, 2012. That night, I just finished up closing my bike shop and I hopped on my bike and was headed home and halfway through the intersection, I was hit by a vehicle. How clearly do you remember the accident? I remember everything from the night of the accident very clearly. I mean, how could anyone forget a night like that? As I was operating through the intersection of Skyline and Grand, I looked to my right and I saw this car just racing towards me. I was hoping it would stop or slow down or something but it just kept coming towards me and it actually hit me. He said he was flying for my bicycle and just landed me right in the middle of the road. Who were you hurt? I was in a tremendous amount of pain. When I hit the ground, my arms and legs were very scraped up from the asphalt. I remember it specifically a lot of pain in my right knee. When I was brought to the hospital, I was told my right knee had been shattered and in addition I'd also suffered a cracked collarbone and a mild concussion. Mr. Judge and Your Honor, the cracked collarbone and head injury are here today. Your Honor, it is in this witness' testimony that he received a cracked collarbone and a mild concussion. It is reasonable that he would know that he received a cracked collarbone and a mild concussion. Furthermore, the doctor's diagnosis is an example of official records made in the course of business by public employees and therefore it is an exception to the hearsay rule. Your Honor, it is an out-of-court statement and he would have had to have been told these things by a doctor for him to have known that. This is always one of those tricky ones because it is somewhat based on hearsay but the person does figure out one way or another what's bothering him or her. I am going to overrule the objection. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Douglas, did you receive any permanent injury from this accident? Unfortunately, yes I did. The damage done to my knee will prevent me from competing in triathlons ever again in the future. Do I ever have the car that hit you off for any assistance? The car didn't even stop. Right after it hit me, when I was on the ground, I could just see it drive away. Did anyone else offer you any assistance? One person did come to my side briefly and then went off into the distance. A second person came and stayed with me until the ambulance arrived. Mr. Douglas, can you describe the car that hit you? Yes, I recognized it to be a black euler. And were you able to see the driver? I was. I saw Adrian Vega in the driver seat that night. And are you sure that you saw Adrian Vega? I'm pretty sure it was Adrian. I know her just as a member of the community. I know she's on the swim team or something like that. And I also see her driving around in that very vehicle, taking turns recklessly and paying no real attention to pedestrians or cyclists like myself. Tell someone that Adrian Vega was the one driving the car? Well, when I was lying on the ground, I tried to tell whoever was nearby me immediately after I was hit. But I was in far too much pain to articulate clearly. And the soonest I could tell anyone was the next day when Officer Wright came to interview me. Do you see Adrian Vega in the courtroom today? Yes, I do. She's sitting at the far left end of the defense table according to the black coat and the black dress. Your Honor, will the record please reflect that Mr. Douglas has correctly identified the defendant? So fucked. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions at this time. Cross your screen. Yes, Your Honor. And for the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Logan Thornley. Good evening, Mr. Douglas. Good evening. Did you see the driver of the car that hit you? Yes, I did. I saw Adrian Vega as the driver that night. But you're only pretty sure that it was Adrian, correct? Yes, I'm pretty sure it was her driving. But you are 100% sure that it was a black Bueller that struck you? Yes, that is the car that I recognized. Were the headlights on the car working? Yes, they were. And do you have seen, remember anyone coming up to you after the accident? Yes, one person came to my side briefly and as I said, they left and the second person came to stay with me for the duration. But you couldn't remember what these people looked like, correct? No, I cannot. Thank you. And you worked long hours to get the previous mayor re-elected, correct? Yes, I campaigned for the other candidate. Okay, Your Honor. Mr. Douglas's political views are irrelevant to this case. May I respond, Your Honor? Yes. It goes to the potential bias of this witness against Adrian Vega. Any further on that? Submitted, Your Honor. The objection is overruled. Go ahead. And you spent 10 years, that's a third of your life, working towards biker safety, correct? Yes, I'm a huge advocate of biker safety. I just want bikers to be safe when they're on the road. But the new mayor does not share your views on biker safety? No, fortunately she does not. And when this new mayor was elected, you were extremely frustrated? I was frustrated, but mostly disappointed at the lack of biker safety. And would it not hurt the mayor's career if her daughter hit you with a vehicle? I have no idea how her daughter's conviction or lack thereof would affect her political career. Thank you, Your Honor, enough for the questions. Do you recognize her? Yes, Your Honor. Go ahead. Mr. Douglas, would you lie in court because you disagree with Mayor Vega's policies on biker safety? Absolutely not. That's ridiculous. I have no idea why Adrienne Vega's conviction would affect biker safety in Hidden Valley. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions. Thank you. All right, witness may I step down? Thank you, sir. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Douglas. May the prosecution call its next questions? Yes. The prosecution calls Tony DeLuca. Tony DeLuca, please follow me. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you are about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition? Yes, I do. Please be seated and say your name for the convenience of the scoring judges. My name is Riley Devine, and I am Tony DeLuca. And for the convenience of the scoring judges, my name is Keshon Patel, and this witness's statement can be found on pages 27 and 28 of the casebook. Go ahead, Mr. DeLuca. Thank you, Your Honor. Good evening. Good evening. Please state your name and age for the court. My name is Tony DeLuca, and I am 18 years old. And where do you attend school? I'm a foreign exchange student from Italy at Hidden Valley High School. And do you know the defendant, Ms. Vega? Yes, I do. The Vegas is the family where I'm staying with during my time here in the U.S., and I'm also on the Hidden Valley High swim team with Adrienne. Now, I'd like to ask you a few questions about the night of April 19th, 2012. Certainly. There was a swim meet on that night? Yes, there was. It was a very important swim meet. It was the state championship qualifying meet, and there was the University of Los Angeles scouted in attendance, which is my junior school. And how did this meet go for you? Well, I personally didn't do as well as I had hoped, but the team did well, and that's what matters. And Mr. DeLuca, what did you do after the meet was over? After the meet was over, I told Adrienne I had to volunteer at a hospital the next morning, so we went to his car and drove home. And Mr. DeLuca, did you drive the car home? No, I have never driven that car. Adrienne was driving that night. Then could you describe how Adrienne was driving on that night? Yes, she was driving very recklessly, speeding, making a lot of sharp turns, and she was also texting while driving. Did you try to do anything about this? I did. I told her to stop several times, but she wouldn't. And instead, she just kept bragging about her personal performance that night at the swim meet. Abduction, your honor, this is hearsay as to Adrienne bragging about her own personal performance. Your honor, may I be heard? Yes. This is not being used to prove the truth of the matter. It's merely being used to prove that it was said and heard. It is not hearsay because it's not being used to prove the truth of the matter. Then I would adept to relevance. What's the relevance? Your honor, my witness merely is saying what has happened in the car during the time of the accident, just giving some foundation to the incident. Abjection is sustained. I don't think it's relevant. Strike? Yes, your honor. And what happened while you were in the vehicle? Well, I felt a large bump as though we had hit something, and I immediately asked Adrienne what had happened. He immediately said we hadn't hit anything. Abjection, your honor, this is hearsay? Your honor, may I hear it? Yes. This falls under the exception of hearsay for admission against interest by a party opponent. Showing that Ms. Vega was defensive over the fact they had hit something. Submitted, your honor. Objection is overruled. This is an admission under 1228. Thank you, your honor. Would you like me to repeat the question? No, thank you. He immediately said we hadn't hit anything, although I had never asked him if we had hit anything, and he just kept driving home and never pulled over to see what had happened. And what did you do when you arrived home? When I arrived home, I went straight to bed. I was tired and just wanted to be done with that night. And were you ever interviewed by the police that evening? Yes, later that night I spoke to officer Kelly Wright about the evening's events. And Mr. DeLuca, did you drive the vehicle that struck Mr. Douglas on the night of April 19th, 2012? No, I did not. Thank you, your honor. No further questions at this time. Cross-examination? Yes, your honor. And for the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Jessica Granger-Jones. Good evening, Mr. DeLuca. Good evening. You want to make your family proud of you, don't you? Yes, I do. And you moved to the United States so that you could swim in an American university, didn't you? Yes, that's my dream. And your dream school is the University of Los Angeles? Yes, it is. So it's fair to say that you've been working hard all year to get the scout's attention, haven't you? Yes. And while in the United States it is true that you have driven some of your friends' cars, correct? Yes, I have an Italian driver's license, which is recognized as a legitimate license by the state of California. But I don't see how this is relevant as I wasn't driving the car. Objection, your honor? Non-responsive as to the last portion of his answer? Your honor, I believe my witness was simply explaining his answer. The objection is overruled. Thank you, your honor. And you would do anything to reach your goals assuming at the University of Los Angeles, wouldn't you? Yes, but within a competitive and athletic standpoint. However, you still state you would do anything. Yes, but within reason. Thank you, your honor. No further questions. Any re-ranked, Mr. Patel? No, your honor. May this please be excused? Yes. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The prosecution calls Quinn Liu to the stand. Quinn Liu, please follow me. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you're about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition? Yes, I do. Please be seated and state your name for the convenience of the scoring terms. Thank you. My name is Sophie Shen and I'm Quinn Liu, LIU. Before I begin the prosecution request of time check. The prosecution has five minutes and six seconds remaining and the defense has six minutes and 25 seconds remaining. For the convenience of the court, my name is Giselle Kong and this witness's testimony can be found on page 29 of the case packet. Good evening, Ms. Liu. Good evening. How old are you? Do I really have to state my age? Please, ma'am. Well, if you insist. I'm 47 years young. And what do you do for a living? I am a general manager at Global Union Bank and I've been doing this for the past 20 years. Do you know Cameron Douglas? Yes, I know Cameron. He seems like a nice guy. I've talked to him a couple of times. And he writes his background a lot. And I really admire his devotion to the sport. Where do you live, Ms. Liu? I live on the east side of Grand Avenue where intersects with Skyline Drive. Your Honor, may this witness please approach the diagram. Yes. Yes, that's my house. And that's my neighbor's house where I get coffee. It's the intersection of Grand Avenue and Skyline Drive. And is it complete and accurate to the best of your knowledge as of the night of April 19, 2012? Yes. Would you please mark on the diagram with your initials where you were that night? I was right next to the box labeled Q. And I was on my porch smoking a cigarette because my husband doesn't like it when I smoke inside the house. And did you see Cameron Douglas that night, Ms. Liu? Yes, I saw Cameron. And he was riding his bike. And I saw this black car start coming up. And I was thinking, this car's got to stop. It's going to hit Cameron. And I shouted, look out! And he didn't hear me. The car totally creamed him. His body went flying into the air. And he landed on the ground. Were you able to see what part of the car hit Mr. Douglas? Yes, it was. Rejection relevant? Yes. Your Honor, this is relevant to this case. It is part of the case that the car has hit Mr. Douglas with his left front bumper where there were scratches found. For the more this establishes that the witness could clearly see what was going on. Your Honor, may I respond? Yes. It is not in dispute as to which portion of the car hit Cameron Douglas. But rather that Cameron Douglas was hit. The fact that a certain portion of the car hit Cameron Douglas is irrelevant. Rejection is overruled. Yes, we can stand. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Honor. Ms. Liu, would you please mark on the diagram where you saw Mr. Douglas? I saw Cameron going towards the northeast corner of Stila and Great Avenue. And he was a little over halfway before he got hit. Ms. Liu, would you please mark on the diagram with an arrow in the direction of the car that hit Mr. Douglas? I saw the car going north. Your Honor, may this witness please be seated? Yes. Can you describe the car that you saw hit Mr. Douglas? The car was black, and I also did get a partial license plate. I work at a bank, so I really like working with numbers. And right when I saw the license plate, I immediately made out the numbers and got it, which was SLC86. And are you sure the numbers were SLC86? Yes, because after I saw it, I kept repeating it to myself. And then I ran home, wrote it down, and called 911. Were you able to see the driver of the vehicle, Ms. Liu? I was able to see what the driver was wearing. The driver was wearing a cardinal and gold baseball cap, a white t-shirt. And from where I was standing, I could also see the glow of a cell phone screen. So what did you do after you saw Cameron being hit by the car? Well, I was concerned of course. He just got hit by a car. So I quickly ran to Cameron to see if he was okay. He was breathing. His body was limp, though. And I ran back home and called 911. What did the car do after hitting Cameron Douglas? The car hit Cameron, slowed down, and sped off. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions at this time. Thank you. Yes, Your Honor. And for the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Emily Johnson. Good evening, Ms. Liu. Good evening. Now, it was hard for you to see on the night of the accident, correct? Yes, but I have good vision. And isn't it true that it was cloudy? That is true. And dark? Yes, that is true. And isn't it true that five out of the six street lamps weren't working on the night of the accident? Yes, that is true, but I was standing near a working street light. And now, regardless of this positioning of the street light, isn't it true that the light would have illuminated the accident? Yes. Your Honor, may this witness approach the diagram? Yes. Now, can you please reiterate by pointing and verbally the direction of the vehicle on the night of the accident? The vehicle was going north when it hit Cameron. And then, can you also reiterate where you were? I was on my porch smoking a cigarette right next to the box labeled Q. So now, correctly if I'm wrong, but that puts you on the passenger side of the vehicle, correct? That's correct. And you say that you saw the driver wearing a white t-shirt, correct? Yes. And you were only able to identify or describe one person in the vehicle, correct? Yes. Now, considering that you were on the passenger side, isn't it more likely that you would have seen the passenger as opposed to the driver? I'm just telling you what I saw. Can you elaborate as to what you saw? I saw what the driver was wearing, a cardinal and gold baseball cap, a white t-shirt, and I did it to the glow of the cell phone screen. Your Honor, may this witness please be seated? Now, you just described the physical characteristics that you could see about the person that was in the vehicle. Could you please, or were you able to see the face of the driver? No, and I'm totally keeping myself from not being able to see the face of the driver. So this means that you could not identify the driver of the vehicle, could you? No, and I'm still keeping myself. And you knew Cameron Douglas prior to the incident, correct? Yes, we talked a couple of times and he seems like a nice guy. In fact, you have admiration towards Cameron Douglas, correct? Yes, he rides his bike every day. Thank you, Your Honor, nothing further. Can you redirect in the screen? Yes, Your Honor. Did the accident clearly? Yes. And are you sure of what you saw? Yes. And are you certain that you saw the driver when you described the clothing and the cell phone? Yes, I'm sure I saw the driver. And would you say that you know Cameron Douglas well? We talked a couple of times. That's fair. Thank you, Your Honor, no further questions. Thank you. Ms. Lee may be seated. Step down and be seated. Thank you. At this time, the prosecution moves that the exhibit barring the markings made on it be entered into evidence. Any objection from the defense? Once the markings have been erased, there are no objections. Would you prefer that I erase the markings now or wait till later? I can do them later, thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. The prosecution rests. At this time, the defense will give its opening statement. Yes, Your Honor. Please proceed. And for the convenience of the scoring attorney is my name is Emily Johnson. Tonight, the prosecution has presented you with an elaborate work of fiction designed to convince you of Adrian Vega's supposed guilt. However, their carefully crafted story does not align with the facts. Your Honor, the case that is being brought before you today is one where jealousy, paired with reckless driving, led to a brutal accident. Adrian Vega and Mr. DeLuca, who had lived in Italy for most of his life, were both members of the Hidden Valley Highlander Swim Team. They both had the dream of excelling in their sport and attending the University of Los Angeles. Naturally, because of their similar desires, they became competitive. On the night of April 19, 2012, this rivalry was heightened at a state championship qualifying swim meet in which the two would compete. Adrian, after the meet had ceased, was approached by a scout from the University of Los Angeles, leaving Mr. DeLuca feeling left out and disappointed. After the meet, Adrian and Mr. DeLuca got into Adrian's car to leave. The prosecution has attempted to place Adrian in the driver seat of the Blackbillar GT. However, Mr. DeLuca was the person truly controlling the vehicle that night. Adrian was too excited to drive the car, so Mr. DeLuca drove instead. What followed was the reckless driving of an 18-year-old who had his driving experience in Italy. The outcome was Mr. DeLuca failing to perform his duty after an accident, which brings us here today. Today, Dallas DeCamp, an eyewitness of the crime, will recount the events of the accident and will provide a truly objective account of the events. Furthermore, he will share his experience with the police department that will show negligence in officer rights investigation. Next, another member of the Highlander swim team, Aubrey Fox, will inform you that Cameron Douglas was extremely zealous and would do anything to get Adrian's mother, the mayor, out of office. Subsequently, Adrian's swim coach, Taylor Barrar, will tell you of Adrian's good character and how she is a very responsible driver. Finally, the defendant, Adrian Vega, will recount what really happened on the night of April 19, in turn showing her innocence. Despite the prosecution's best efforts tonight, their story will never be anything more than a work of fiction because it is unsupported by the evidence. Your Honor, the prosecution has the burden of proof in this case, needing to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Adrian Vega was the driver of the vehicle when Cameron Douglas was hit. After all the evidence is presented tonight, you will see that they have not met this burden of proof. We ask that you see past the prosecution's fictitious story and base your verdict on the facts in this case, which clearly identify Adrian Vega as not guilty. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. All right. Will the defense call their first witness, please? The defense calls Dallas to camp to the stand. Dallas to camp, please rise. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you are about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition? I do. Please be seated and say your name for the convenience of the scoring attorneys. For the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Nicholas Heath. And for the convenience of the scoring attorneys, once again, my name is Emily Johnson. Good evening, Mr. DeCamp. Good evening. Please state your age and school you attend for the record. I'm 20 years old and I'm a sophomore at the University of Los Angeles. I'm majoring in political science. Now, prior to this court hearing, did you have any personal relationship with the victim? No, I didn't know. And where were you on the night of April 19th, 2012? Well, I was out watching a movie with my friends. And I drove back home to my house, which is near the intersection of Skyline and Grant. And did you see anything unusual over that night? Yeah. When I got on my car, I looked over at the intersection. I saw a bicyclist crossing. But then this black car came speeding out of nowhere and slammed into him. And were you able to see this bicyclist prior to the incident? Yes. He was wearing white headphones and looking down at his MP3 player. Now, were you able to clearly identify the model of the vehicle? Well, of course. I know a lot about cars. It was a black viewer GT, probably from the early 1960s. Did you see anything else occur in the intersection at this time? Yeah. I saw my neighbor, Quinn, run down to the victim and then run back into the house called 911. What did you then proceed to do after Quinn went to the house? Well, as soon as I knew the bicyclist was hurt, I ran to him and I stayed with him until the ambulance arrived. I felt really sorry for him because I couldn't imagine how horrible it must have been to get him by a car. What occurred when you were with the victim? Well, he mumbled a few things, but I couldn't understand anything he was trying to say. He didn't even tell me who was driving the car that hit him. And did the police interact with you in any way after the accident? Well, yeah. I was given a brief interview by two police officers afterward. I later called back the police station because I felt I might have been able to give them more information, but they never responded to my call. Thank you, Your Honor. Nothing further at this time. Across to the animation, Mr. Patel. Yes, Your Honor. Once again, for the convenience of the scoring judges, my name is Keshon Patel. Good evening, Mr. Camp. Good evening. Now, Mr. Douglas was wearing a headlamp while he was biking on the night of the accident, correct? Yes, he was. And you say the car that struck him was going about 35 to 40 miles per hour. Yeah, it was going way too fast. Isn't it true that this was a posted 25 mile per hour zone? Yes, it is. And this was a metal on metal craft between a car and a bicycle, correct? Yeah. Objection and relevance? Your Honor, I'm laying foundation for my next question. Your Honor, may I respond? Yes. The fact that it was a metal and metal collision. Collision is irrelevant. Overruled. Thank you, Your Honor. So, knowing this was a metal on metal crash, would it be safe to say this would be a fairly loud crash? I guess so. Now, you very clearly described the vehicle that struck Kamenogas as a vintage black wheeler GT probably from the 1960s era, correct? That's correct. And are you certain of your identification of this vehicle? Definitely. I know what I saw. And after the accident occurred, the car seemed to slow down for a bit, correct? Well, a little bit, but not much. But then it just sped away, didn't it? Yeah. And after the accident occurred, you went to Kamenogas' side until ambulances arrived on the scene, correct? That's correct. And he was obviously in an enormous amount of pain for he had just been in a hit-and-run accident. Definitely. And when he tried to speak, it came out more as a mumble. Yeah, I couldn't understand anything he was saying. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions. Can you read the word? Yes, Your Honor. Were you able to see clearly on the night of the accident? Well, of course. And going along this path, were you able to see the model of the car correctly? Yes. And lastly, what occurred when you were with the victim? Well, he tried to mumble some things to me, but he didn't tell me anything. I couldn't understand anything he was saying. And did he tell you who the driver of the vehicle was? No, he didn't. Thank you, Your Honor. May this witness be excused? Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next witness, Your Honor. Yes. Defense calls Taylor Burrard to the stand. All right. Taylor Burrard, please follow me. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you're about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition? I do. Please be seated and state your name for the convenience of the scoring attorneys. For the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Julia Ayers. And for the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Logan Blunley. Good evening, Ms. Burrard. Good evening. Could you please state your age and occupation for the record? I'm 34 years old and I'm a private swim coach. Do you know Adrian Vega? Yes, I'm her swim coach. And how would you describe Ms. Vega? Oh, she's very mature for a very responsible, great kid. How do you know she is responsible? Well, her parents are always telling her about the caution she should take as a driver and be very aware of distracted driving and she always takes her advice very seriously. And do you know Cameron Douglas? Yes, we're in the same bike club together. And is Cameron very boisterous at these meetings? Yes, he's always saying something negative about Mayor Vega and it gets quite drastic. Like, you wanted to do this huge protest and take over Grand Avenue. And do you think this is too much? Yes, I think a simple petition would suffice. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions at this time. Cross-examination. Yes, Your Honor. And once again, for the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Keshon Patel. Good evening, Ms. Burrard. Good evening. Now, I'm sure that you've been Adrian Vega's personal swim coach for the past five years, correct? Yes. And that you want her to do well because you're training her for the 2016 Olympics. Yes, I've had my own personal experience at the Olympics so I feel I can really get back to these students. And this would reflect positively on your career if one of your swimmers reaches the Olympics? I suppose, but I'm more focused on my master's degree. But, Ms. Burrard, this would reflect positively on your career. Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered. Sustained. Yes, Your Honor. And Ms. Burrard, you testified that the defendant is a responsible person, correct? Yes. And would it change your opinion in any way if you learned that the defendant, that multiple people had seen the defendant driving recklessly around town on numerous occasions? No, because my personal experience with her is that she's very responsible and mature. So no amount of evidence would change your opinion of the defendant? Objection, Your Honor. This is outside the scope of this witness? No. Your Honor, I believe this witness would have enough knowledge to answer this question about what she thinks about Ms. Burrard. Mr. Dornley? Then I would also say this is calling for speculation. The objection is overruled. Thank you, Your Honor. Would you like me to repeat the question? Yes, please. So no amount of evidence would change your opinion of Ms. Burrard? I'm pretty strong on my opinion of her. And Ms. Burrard, you've never been a passenger in her car while she was driving, have you? No, I have not. And you also testified that the defendant is a mature person, correct? Yes. So she would never do anything dishonest such as disobeying her parents, would she? Not that I know of. And you would not want to see Ms. Vega convicted of this crime, would you? No. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions. Read direction. Yes, Your Honor. Go ahead. Ms. Burrard, would you lie to protect Adrienne Vega? No, I wouldn't. And is, which is more important to you, your master's degree or getting Adrienne to the Olympics? My master's degree. And so you would not lie for Adrienne, even if it were, to help your career? No, I would not. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions. May this witness be excused? Yes. Next witness. Defense calls Aubrey Fox to the stand. Aubrey Fox? At this time, Defense requests a time check. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you're about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition? I do. At least be seated and state your name for the convenience of the scoring attorney. For the convenience of the scoring attorney, my name is Keanu Lee. And for the convenience of the scoring attorney, my name is Logan Bowenlein. Good evening, Ms. Fox. Good evening. Do you know Adrienne Vega? Yes, I do. How do you know Adrienne? I've known her for years since I was five years old. And do you know Tony DeLuga? I mean, yeah, I know him. And did you see Tony on the night of April 19th? Yes, I did. And where did you see Tony? Well, I was celebrating with our student body about our swim team's win at our state championship qualifying meet. And I saw them. They were standing. I saw Tony and Adrienne. They were standing about 50 feet away next to Adrienne's dad's car. I noticed that Tony was wearing a light blue shirt. Ladies and gentlemen, non-responsive and the witness is lapsing into a narrative. It's the same. Move to strike the answer. Yes. Thank you, your honor. Ms. Fox, could you, from where you were standing, how far away was Tony? 50 feet away. And could you clearly see Tony? Yes, Tony was wearing a light blue shirt. And so despite all that was going on with the celebration, you are confident in seeing Tony? Yes, he was standing by the driver's side of the car. Thank you. And do you know Cameron Douglas? Yes, I do. How do you know Cameron? I am a biker and I talk to Cameron on occasion. Cameron is very concerned about the needs for bikers. He feels that the mayor isn't doing enough. And he once told me that he would do absolutely anything to get the mayor out of office. Injection, your honor, hearsay. May I respond, your honor? Yes. It goes to the state of mind of Cameron Douglas. Mr. Park? For that limited purpose, submitted, your honor. All right. For that limited purpose, there has been a dejection over the years. Thank you, your honor. No further questions at this time, your honor. All right. Ross, Mr. Park. Yes, your honor. For the convenience of the scoring judges, my name is Austin Park. Good evening, Ms. Fox. Good evening. Now you've known the defendant since he was five years old. Is that right? Yes, we were both five years old. She's been such a great friend. It's been awesome getting to know her. And like you say, you've been close friends this whole time, correct? Yes. You wouldn't want to see the defendant convicted of this crime, would you? No, because I know that she's very honest, and I trust her, and I know that she would never do anything like that. Injection, your honor, nonresponsive. I did not ask why this witness would not want to see the defendant convicted of the crime. Mr. Gordon. I believe she was merely explaining her answer, your honor. The objection is overruled. The answer can stand. Yes, your honor. You were at a Hidden Valley swim meet on April 19th, correct? Yes, I was. I'm so excited because we won. And the State Chamber is qualifying me. It was a great night for me. You saw Tony Lluca and Adrienne Vega that night, didn't you? Yes, I did. And you saw Tony Lluca standing by the driver's side door of the vehicle, correct? Yes. You say, in your witness statement, you were taken by surprise that the defendant would let Tony Lluca drive the Bueller. Is that correct? Yeah, I was surprised because Tony is a horrible driver. The reason for your surprise was that Adrienne Vega never let anyone drive his Bueller, correct? That is true, yes. But you never saw Tony Lluca driving the Bueller that night, did you? No. Can you answer yes or no? I saw Tony standing by the car and it looked to me like Tony was going to drive. Your Honor, objection. Speculation as to Tony was going to drive. She cannot tell from the position of Tony that he was going to drive or not. Thoroughly. Nothing to add, Your Honor. All right. It is speculative as stated, so then. Move to strike just the last portion of the answer, Your Honor. The last portion of the answer is correct. So let's be clear. You did not see Tony Lluca drive that night, did you? No, I did not. You did not see Tony Lluca holding car keys, did you? No, but I didn't see Adrienne drive either, so. You didn't see Tony Lluca open the driver's side door? No. You didn't see Tony Lluca get in the driver's seat? No, but I did see Tony standing by the driver's side and it looked to me like Tony was going to drive. We are well aware. Now, you didn't see Tony Lluca or Adrienne Vega leave that night, did you? Direction, Your Honor, that has a compound question. Your Honor, may I rephrase? Yes, the objection is sustained. You didn't see Tony Lluca leave? No. You didn't see Adrienne Vega leave? No. So you don't know with any certainty who was driving that night? I don't know, but Tony was standing by the driver's side, so to me it looked like Tony was going to drive. Direction, Your Honor, speculation? Again, can we strike the last portion of the answer? I'm going to overrule it. I think the way the question set it up brought it in, so. Yes, Your Honor. You did not, you have no idea who was driving that night, do you? I am not certain, but it looked to me like it was Tony. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions. All right. Do you have any read or read? Yes, Your Honor. You said you thought Tony was a horrible driver. Why? I have been in a car with Tony before, and I know that Tony has a bad habit of running through stop signs. Objection, Your Honor, improper character evidence, referring the court's attention to page 52 under the subheading character evidence, evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion. The prosecution anticipates that they are going to use this character evidence so that Tony Lugo is more likely to be driving. May I respond, Your Honor? Sure. The witness did not testify to only one specific instance. She was testifying to a habit that she does know that Tony has. It is in her witness statement. May I be heard, Your Honor? Yeah. I'm not objecting to lack of personal knowledge. I'm objecting to improper character evidence. Whether or not she has knowledge is not my issue at this time. May I respond, Your Honor? Yes. I'm not improper character evidence because it is not one specific instance. Your Honor, may I be heard? Last chance. I'm not saying that she only observed one specific instance. Rather, I'm saying that the specific instance they are using, she is using the character evidence to prove the specific instance on April 19th. I did not hear her mention one specific instance, Your Honor. Yeah. I didn't see any of the objections overall. Thank you, Your Honor. Ms. Fox, would you lie under oath to protect Adrienne? No, of course not. Thank you. No further questions, Your Honor. May the witness speak? Yes. Thank you. The final witness. Yes, Your Honor. The defense calls the defendant, Adrienne Vega, to the stand. Adrienne Vega, please follow me. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you're about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition? I do. Please be seated and state your name for the convenience of the scoring attorneys. For the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Caroline Gerstead. And for the convenience of the scoring attorneys, my name is Jessica Granger-Jones. Good evening, Ms. Vega. Good evening. Now, could you please state your age and school you attend to for the record? Yes, I am 18 years old and right now I'm a senior at Intervali High. Do you have any hobbies? Well, yeah. Ever since I was a kid, I've loved swimming. I compete all the time. So were you at the swim competition on the night of April 19th? Yes. And is there anything in particular about this swim competition that makes it stand out? Well, yes. Not only was it the state qualifying championship meet and we won. So that was very exciting. But I also got approached afterwards by the scout from the dream school. So how did you feel about the scout approaching you? It was very exciting because that's what I've been working for. And so it was really a dream come true. So what did this excitement lead you to do? Well, I was very excited. And all I wanted to do was text my parents and my family and tell them what had happened. And so naturally I let Tony drive home which was a horrible mistake. So Tony drove home? Yes, he did. And how was Tony's driving? He was an awful driver going way too fast and it was a windy road. And was there anything that occurred in the car to make Tony's driving even worse? Yes, it was actually really awkward because he wasn't saying anything. So I tried to talk to him and break the silence. But then he just seemed to get really upset and he took my hat saying I didn't look good in the school colors. My phone started pretending to text people and pushed all the buttons. So did anything happen shortly after this? Yes, very shortly after he hit something. And what did you do after you felt like Tony hit something? Well, I immediately told him to pull over and he didn't. And did you eventually get Mr. DeLuca to pull over? Yes, after a while down the road he did pull over. And what did you do when he pulled over? Well, I had to drive home because not only had he been driving awful but now he had hit something. So did you drive home? Yes, I drove the rest of the way home. And what did you do when you reached your house? Well, when I got home I just needed to get out of the car because all these events had happened so rapidly. So I just parked the car and got out and went for a walk and just tried to relax. So how were you feeling when you got home? It was overwhelming because I had been from over enjoying about getting my dreams about to come true. And all of a sudden I made a horrible mistake and I let Tony drive. And he drove awfully and he hit something with my father's car. So I was just completely overwhelmed and I just tried to walk and just find out what the responsible decision would be. So would you ever lie under oath? No, never. And did you drive away from the Suomi on the night of April 19th? No, Tony drove the car. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions at this time. Cross? Yes, Your Honor. My name is Alcon. Your name is Vega. Your father's car is a vintage, expensive model, is that correct? Yes. And he has explicitly told you not to let Agenos drive this car. Your Honor, this is hearsay. Your Honor, this is not going to prove the truth of the matter that... Excuse me. This is an exception to the hearsay rules. It shows the state of mind of the defendant in that no one is allowed to drive this car. And therefore she knows that no one is allowed to drive this car. Your Honor, the state of mind exception refers to the state of mind of the usher, not the listener. Anything further? Then I would say that this is for the effect upon the listener, Your Honor. The objection is sustained, I don't think this is appropriate state of mind. You have gotten around. Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Vega, you never let anyone drive that car, is that correct? Yes. You never have let Tony DeLuca drive that car before the night of April 19th, is that correct? No, I did not. So, on this one night of all nights, you claim you let someone else drive? Yes, I was way too excited and all I wanted to do was expect it was a five mile drive home. I didn't think I could have ever been that bad. So you were texting in the car? Yes, in the passenger seat I was texting my family and telling them what had happened and all my friends. And you were wearing a cardinal and gold baseball cap? Yes, I was until Tony grabbed it and said I didn't look good in school colors. You were wearing a white t-shirt? Yes, I was. You say that Tony stole your hat and phone? Yes, he stole my hat and said I didn't look good in school colors and then he took my phone and started mocking me. Did Tony DeLuca ever steal your t-shirt, Ms. Vega? Well, obviously not. You heard a loud crash when you were driving, is that correct? I felt an impact, yes. In your statement you say you felt a crash as well? Yes, that's an impact. Yes, it's a crash. So you could both hear and feel that the car may have struck something? Objection is who we would go ahead and finish the question. You could both hear and feel that the car appeared to have struck something? Yes, it hit something. Did you stop the car, Ms. Vega? I was not driving, I could not stop the car. Did the car stop at any point after hitting something? Yes, after a while Tony finally pulled over. And why did Tony pull over? Because I told him to and I kept telling him to. Why did you want him to pull over? I mean he had just hit something with my father's car and had been driving horribly the whole night. Of course he had to pull over. Did you drive back to the scene after getting the wheel from Tony DeLuca? No, I just wanted to get home, we were so close and I just needed to figure out what the responsible decision would be. So you just drove home? Yes. And when you got home you saw that there were scratches on the left front bumper of the car, is that correct? Yes, I did. At that point did you go back to the scene of the accident? No, I never could have assumed that it was that bad, it was just a few scratches on the front. I did not know what it was. You didn't contact the police? No, not at that time, I went for a walk and by the time I got back the police were already there so I don't know me to. So you didn't contact the police or drive back to the scene you just went for a while? Objection, this is a compound question. It is a compound sustained. So you just went for a walk, is that correct? Yes, I went for a quick walk to figure out what to do. And what you really needed to do was figure out what to tell your parents, is that correct? Yes, and I was also trying to figure out what the responsible decision would be at that time. You decided to tell your parents that Tony DeLuca was driving? I told them the truth, yes. And you knew your parents were going to be furious? Furious with what? Because you let Tony DeLuca drive your car. Yes, absolutely, it was a horrible mistake. But not as angry as they'd be as if you had been the one to drive the car, hit something, and leave the scene. Is that correct? No, there would have been much more anguish. Objection, speculation. Your Honor, the witness will know whether or not her parents will be more angry about her committing a felony or letting a friend drive her car. It is still speculation as it is the opinion of a lay witness. Objection is overruled. Had you finished your answer? No, may I please read the question? Your parents were not going to be as angry as they would be as if you had been the one to hit something and drive away. Is that correct, Ms. Vega? Of course, it would have been furious if I would have ever driven that back to sleep. Ms. Vega, your University of Los Angeles is your dream school, correct? Yes, I've been working very hard to get in. And you're hoping to compete in the 2016 Olympics? Yes, if everything goes well, that should happen. But wouldn't a felony conviction destroy your chances of going to the University of Los Angeles? Objection, speculation. Your Honor, this is common sense that universities are not generally accepting felons into their freshman classes. I don't have to make a joke about that. You want me to respond? Yes. Seeing as Ms. Vega has no personal relationship to the University as she is not an employee, she would not be able to make a holistic judgment as to whether or not this would affect her chances. Anything further on this, Ms. Conn? Yes, as a senior in high school, Ms. Vega would have been actually applying to universities and likely has a great deal of information at her disposal about universities, specifically your dream school, as you mentioned, the University of Los Angeles is. Your Honor, may I respond? Yes. Merely applying to schools does not mean that she is able to tell whether or not she would be able to be admitted based on her character. I'm going to sustain the objection. To move to strike? Yes. Any conviction could destroy your dreams, couldn't it? Objection, Your Honor, this is still speculation. Ms. Conn? Ms. Vega's dreams are to go to the University of Los Angeles and compete in the Olympics. These are both difficult things to do while in jail for a felony. Your Honor, may I respond? Yes. This is what we argued over the last question, so you merely rephrased it. I'm going to sustain the objection. Ms. Vega, did you ever return to the scene after arriving home? No, I did not. I never could have assumed that that would happen. But you could tell what your card hit something, couldn't you? Yes, it did hit something. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions. Is there any redirect, Ms. Granger-Jones? Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Vega, how are you feeling after you switched places with Tony DeLuca? I was exhausted, I was frustrated, and I just wanted to get home. We were so close. So, when you arrived home, what did you do to clear your mind of these emotions? Well, I just went for a brief walk because I was locked out of my house. I just tried to figure out what was the best decision to make. So, after you went on this walk, had you figured out what the best decision to make was? Yes. And before making contact with the police, were you able to call them? No, by the time I figured out what to do, the police were already at my house when I went back. And by the time you figured out what to do, were you able to return to the scene of the accident? No, the police were there at my house, so I could not leave. And would you ever lie under oath? No, never. And did you drive away from the swim meet on the night of April 19th? No, I left Tony Drive. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions at this time. This witness may be excused. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Vega. Now, was that the defense rest? Yes, Your Honor, the defense rests. All right. Closing arguments, Your Honor? Yes, we've reached that stage. The evidence is in and the parties will have an opportunity to argue the case to the court. The prosecution will go first, Mr. Park. Are you prepared? Yes, Your Honor. Go ahead. She just drove away. She left Cameron Douglas laying broken in the street. Until now, Ms. Vega has been able to escape responsibility for a crime. That ends today. Today, the prosecution has met our burden of proof on each of the four elements of felony hit-and-run. We've shown first, that Adrienne Vega was driving. Second, that Adrienne Vega permanently crippled Cameron Douglas. Third, that Ms. Vega knew she had hit someone. And fourth, that she neither stopped nor offered assistance. For this, Adrienne Vega is guilty of felony hit-and-run. The second and fourth conditions are not in dispute today. It is stipulated that Cameron Douglas' right knee is permanently injured, and we know that the defendant did not stop or offer assistance to Cameron Douglas. So this case comes down to two questions. Wasn't Ms. Vega driving, and did she know she had hit someone? Let's start with the second question. The bureau is traveling north on Skyline as Cameron Douglas rode east on Grand. The bureau struck Cameron Douglas with its left front bumper, so not only was Mr. Douglas the closest witness to the incident, but also directly in the driver's line of sight. The bureau was speeding through the intersection, but after the collision, it slowed down. Ms. Vega knew she had hit someone. In that moment, her fear fought her conscience. Fear one, Ms. Vega fled, leaving Cameron Douglas to die. Have you ever heard of car crash? It is loud, and it is unmistakable. Adrienne Vega acknowledged this loud crash in her testimony. Anyone who has heard a loud crash would automatically check the rear view mirror to see if they had hit something. A simple glance would reveal Cameron Douglas laying broken in the intersection. Tony Lucas' headphones may have muffled the sound, but he still felt a large impact, and he asked Ms. Vega what happened. She immediately defended herself. We didn't hit anything. She didn't say, I'm not sure what happened, because she was sure. She saw the bicyclist. She heard the sound of her car slamming into Cameron Douglas' bike and body, and she felt the impact that shattered his right knee, broke his collarbone, and sent him flying through the air. This brings us to the last question. Was Ms. Vega driving? Both Tony DeLuca and Cameron Douglas placed Adrienne Vega behind the wheel of the car. Tony DeLuca's statement is 100% consistent with the evidence we've heard today. Tony DeLuca said he saw the light of his cell phone, excuse me. Tony DeLuca said the driver was texting and driving recklessly. Tony DeLuca saw the light of his cell phone in the car, and Dallas DeCamp said the car blew through a soft sign at 35 to 40 miles per hour. What's more, Quinn Lewis saw that the driver was wearing a white t-shirt and a cardinal and gold baseball cap. The same colors the scout had given the defendant earlier that night. Cameron Douglas' identification of Adrienne Vega is undeniable. When Mr. Douglas looked out from his bike, he was only a few feet away, and the driver was directly in his line of sight. He didn't have time to stare, but he didn't need it. We all know that human eyes can recognize visual cues in a split second. Cameron Douglas saw Adrienne Vega driving the car directly before he was struck. It is a concrete fact. The defense called on Aubrey Fox to say that she saw Tony DeLuca standing by the driver's side door of the Bueller before Mr. DeLuca and Adrienne Vega left the swimming. She did not see Mr. DeLuca driving, and she never has. She's never seen Mr. DeLuca driving the Bueller. This is because as she testified, Adrienne Vega never let anyone else drive her father's precious black Bueller. Now in a minute, the defense is going to get up and tell you that Adrienne Vega is a good guy. She may be, but that does not make her innocent. That's the problem with the defense. Their theory is based on the defendant's testimony. Her testimony alone. Adrienne Vega is the only one claiming Tony DeLuca drove the Bueller. Adrienne Vega is the only one lying to protect her freedom and her future. The prosecution has brought two witnesses placing Adrienne Vega in the driver's seat. We have evidence that the defendant matched the suspect description given by Quinn Liu. We have evidence that the defendant would never let anyone else drive her father's Bueller. The prosecution has met our burden of proof on each of the four elements of felony hit-and-run, and we have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Adrienne Vega is guilty. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Park. All right. Ms. Granger Jones, are you going to deliver the closing argument for the defense? Yes, Your Honor. At this time, the defense requests a time check. And again, for the convening to the scoring attorneys, my name is Jessica Granger Jones. Your Honor, tonight the prosecution has presented you with an elaborate work of fiction designed to convince you of Adrienne Vega's supposed guilt. However, their carefully crafted story does not align with the facts. There are two victims in this case today. The first is Cameron Douglas, who was hit with a car while riding his bicycle on the night of April 19th, and the other victim is the defendant, Adrienne Vega. Ms. Vega has been wrongfully accused of a grave crime. Adrienne Vega has been brought before the court today, charged with a violation of California Vehicle Code 20,001. However, Ms. Vega is innocent. The prosecution is faced with the burden of proof to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt, but they have not done this. What the prosecution presents as fact is merely a work of fiction. Adrienne Vega did not drive away from the swim meet on the night of April 19th. Your Honor, Adrienne Vega is innocent. After the swim meet, Adrienne was too excited to drive. Trying to make the responsible decision, she allowed for Mr. DeLuca to drive from the five miles back to the Vega residence. However, Mr. DeLuca, who had his driving experience in Italy, was unable to fulfill this simple request. Aubrey Fox testified before you today that she even saw Mr. DeLuca standing by the driver's side door after the swim meet. In the driver's seat, loathing began to arise in Mr. DeLuca as he clutched the steering wheel and drove recklessly. His horrible driving was also testified to by Aubrey Fox today. And Mr. DeLuca's already reckless driving became even more erratic due to his jealousy. He grabbed Adrienne's hat and phone, not paying any attention to the road. He ran a stop side, hitting a bicyclist on the north side of the intersection between Skyline and Grant. Adrienne testified today that she tried to get Mr. DeLuca to pull over and finally managed to farther down the road. The Hidden Valley Police Department's investigation was fraught with bias and unreliability. On the night of April 19th, Officer Kelly Wright was faced with two reasonable interpretations of the accident. Officer Kelly Wright interviewed Tony DeLuca, who testified to Ms. Vega's guilt, and interviewed Ms. Vega, who testified to Mr. DeLuca's guilt. However, instead of investigating both of these claims, Officer Wright chose to ignore the latter and conduct an incomplete investigation. Much of the prosecution's case rests upon the lies of Tony DeLuca. The Italian exchange student was hospitably taken in by the Vega family, and how did he repay their generosity? By accusing the Vega's daughter, Adrienne, of a crime that Mr. DeLuca himself committed. Mr. DeLuca testified today that he would do anything to reach his goal of swimming at the University of Los Angeles. He also testified that he wants to make his family proud. Being convicted of a felony is no way to get into university or gain the respect of one's family. Panicking about the possible consequences of his actions, he decided to blame the only other person in the vehicle that night, Adrienne Vega. Now, to fulfill their burden of proof, the prosecution also relies upon Cameron Douglas's identification of Adrienne Vega being the driver of the vehicle that night. However, Mr. Douglas is mistaken. Dallas DeKamp, a non-biased eyewitness of the accident, testified before you today that Mr. Douglas was looking down at his MP3 player before being hit. Mr. Douglas was distracted and would have been blinded by the oncoming headlights. Thus, he would not be able to clearly see the driver. Because of this, Mr. Douglas testified that he is only pretty sure that Adrienne Vega was the driver of the vehicle that night. Instead, he was more concerned with the car identification, which he was able to confidently describe as being a black beuler, Adrienne Vega's car. Because the car belonged to Adrienne Vega, Mr. Douglas made the assumption that Adrienne was driving that night, and the reckless driving fit his already low opinions of Mayor Vega, thus leading to him to his mistaken identification of Adrienne Vega being the driver of the black beuler that night. The prosecution also uses Quinn Lu's observations as proof that Adrienne was driving that night. Quinn Lu testified today that she saw somebody in that car wearing a white t-shirt. However, where Ms. Lu was standing, she would have been closer to the passenger side of the car. Thus, the person whom Quinn Lu actually saw in the vehicle that night wearing the white shirt was the passenger, Adrienne Vega. Your Honor, Adrienne Vega is as much a victim in this case as Cameron Douglas. Adrienne has been the victim of the lives of the prosecution and she should receive justice. Tony DeLuca was the one to drive away from the swimming on the night of April 19th. Tony DeLuca was the one to hit Cameron Douglas with a black beuler. And Tony DeLuca was the one to fabricate a false story in a desperate attempt to clear his name by placing the blame upon Adrienne Vega. Your Honor, the prosecution has not met their burden of proof. Their fictitious story does not prove beyond or reasonable doubt Ms. Vega's guilt. In the case that relies upon circumstantial evidence, a case such as this, if there are two interpretations of the evidence, one pointing to innocence and the other to guilt, the trier of fact must choose innocence. Your Honor, the defense asks that justice be upheld and Adrienne Vega be found not guilty. Thank you. Mr. Ark, any rebuttal on our prosecution? Yes, Your Honor. What sounds more like an elaborate work of fiction? Cameron Douglas disliking the Mayor Vega's policies concerning bikes and possibly making up a story that Mayor may not send Adrienne Vega to jail in order to somehow improve biker's rights in Hidden Valley? Or two concrete identifications of Adrienne Vega behind the wheel of the car? Regardless of Quinn Liu's position, she was focused on the driver. She saw the driver wearing a white t-shirt. Only the defendant had one on. Aubrey Fox saw Mr. D'Luca near the driver's side door of the Bueller. She did not see him holding keys. She did not see him behind the wheel. She did not see him drive and she never has. This is because Adrienne Vega was driving. As Aubrey Fox testified, Adrienne Vega never let anyone else drive her father's precious black Bueller. We request that you adopt verdicts of guilty for the crime Adrienne Vega has committed. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Park. Ms. Granger Jones? Yes, Your Honor. Your Honor, Mr. Park relies upon the identifications of Tony D'Luca and Cameron Douglas who identified Adrienne Vega as being the driver of the car that night. However, Mr. D'Luca has an obvious motive to lie, seeing as he was the actual driver that night and would not want to be convicted of a felony. Cameron Douglas also only stated that he's only pretty sure that Adrienne Vega is the driver. Attentive identification does not fulfill the prosecution's burden of proof. Furthermore, Mr. Lucas only stated that Ms. Vega was the driver after Ms. Vega had already been arrested. Officer Wright could have easily let the fact that Adrienne Vega had been accused slip and Mr. Douglas seized this as a chance to hurt the mayor's reputation. The lack of physical evidence turns this case into one reliant upon circumstantial evidence and in the case reliant upon circumstantial evidence, if there are two interpretations of the evidence, one pointing to innocence and the other to guilt, the trier fact must choose innocence. Your Honor, the defense asks that justice be upheld and Adrienne Vega be found not guilty. Thank you, Ms. Granger Jones. Thank you, prosecution. Thank you, defense. As the defense argument pointed out, this is a circumstantial evidence case and the defense attorney stated the jury instruction correctly. There are two reasonable interpretations of circumstantial evidence and one of those reasonable interpretations points to guilt and the other points to innocence. You must adopt the reasonable interpretation that points to innocence. It's the old prosecutor in me but I always remember the last sentence of the instruction which says that however when evaluating circumstantial evidence you must adopt reasonable interpretations and reject any that are unreasonable. Too many years of that and grating that in my mind. The question here becomes in this case is the argument that's been presented by the defense in this case about the motives, the tentative identifications, the statements that are made by the witnesses and the testimony the defendant herself, whether those are reasonable interpretations that point to innocence. And when evaluating this there are just a lot of questions that are raised in the court's mind about the validity and the veracity of the defendants testimony more than anyone else in this case and you have the testimony of Cameron Douglas who admittedly is biased against the defendant's parent, the defendant's mother and you also have Tony DeLuca who may be somewhat biased as well but you have to accept that one time and many, many, many, many times all of a sudden the defendant allows someone else to drive the car and you have to ask yourself well does that make a lot of sense? Is it reasonable? We are dealing with 17 and 18 year olds here so I have a lot of experience in that area but again, you have to take it and decide if that's reasonable and after listening to all the evidence and considering the law I do find that in this case the only reasonable interpretation is the one that's been presented by the prosecution and therefore the court finds that defendant Adrian Bacon guilty of the crime of violating vehicle co-section 20,001 a felony and with that I know that the scores have to give their scores but with that you've completed it, you've done it give yourselves a hand I know it's been a long road and I know just from personal experience I've known a number of you out here since you were much, much younger and to see how you've all progressed and the wonderful job that you've all done is just fantastic to the attorney coaches and the teachers big thank you for all the time that you put in this type of case is very difficult I had a case actually before me a couple of years ago that had somewhat similar facts so actually where someone was very, very badly injured who was a bicyclist in a hit and run accident and he's been unable to compete since then that actually was something that I ended up handling as a judge so this type of fact situation is an extremely difficult one this Miranda problem that you see is something that we deal with every single day and in fact I have a little file in my cabinet and the case of Burkimer v. McCarty is in it so it's something that we deal with every single day in the court system this particular problem so I know that the judges are getting their scores together and best of luck both sides did an outstanding job really shows that all those hours all that preparation that you put in really paid off as I like to say I know for some of you here I mean you're able to do several things at once but this is like doing the winter sport some people might be doing basketball if someone here is able to combine both I don't know how do you do it but the time that is put in the hours, the effort I've said before I'll say it again the presentation that you put forward is outstanding it's as good as and sometimes better than what we see and we'll be reminded of this tomorrow morning but this is a very difficult case it's a tough fat situation so again congratulations to each and every one of you thank you all for doing this and to the parents thank you for your support of your children it's great to see all the parents here supporting and again to the coaches and the teachers I know this is a lot of time and a lot of effort so once again congratulations the team in a very close result the team who came in second place in the county of Santa Cruz for 2013 is Scotts Valley High