UPDATE!  The 2020 New York State High School Mock Trial Program Has Been Cancelled. 

 

The New York State High School Mock Trial Program is a joint venture of The New York Bar Foundation, the New York State Bar Association, and the Law, Youth and Citizenship Program. In this educational program, high school students have the opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge of civil/criminal law and courtroom procedures. Thousands of students participate each year.  Objectives of the tournament are to: Teach students ethics, civility and professionalism; further students’ understanding of the law, court procedures and the legal system; improve proficiency in basic life skills, such as listening, speaking, reading and reasoning; promote better communication and cooperation among the school community, teachers and students and members of the legal profession, and heighten appreciation for academic studies and stimulate interest in law-related careers.

Learn more about our New York State High School Mock Trial Program. Click here to view the brochure.


Future Dates for NYS Mock Trial State Finals
♦ 2020  –  May 17-19 at the Hilton, 40 Lodge Street, Albany, NY

♦ 2021 – May 23-25 | Hilton Albany
♦ 2022 – May 22-24 | Hilton Albany
♦ 2023 – May 21-23 | Hilton Albany
♦ 2024 – May 19-21 | Hilton Albany


Congratulations to the 2019 Winners:

♦ FAYETTEVILLE-MANLIUS HIGH SCHOOL (Onondaga County) – STATE CHAMPION

♦ THE MOUNT ACADEMY (Ulster County) – RUNNER-UP


Special Acknowledgement to the other six teams who competed in the State Finals:

♦ Buffalo Academy of the Sacred Heart (Erie County)

♦ Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School (Schenectady County)

♦ Forest Hills High School (Queens County)

♦ Brooklyn Technical High School (Kings County)

♦ The Wheatley School (Nassau County)

♦ Northport High School (Suffolk County)

 

Current Case and Corrections

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE CURRENT CASE


CLICK BELOW FOR CORRECTION MEMOS AND REVISED PAGES

Correction Memo #1: January 16, 2020
Correction Memo #2: January 27, 2020
Corrections Memo #3: February 7, 2020
Corrections Memo #4: February 25, 2020

Current Mock Trial Tournament Rules/Policies/Procedures
Click here to view and/or print the most current version of the Mock Trial Tournament Rules, Policies and Procedures.


Relevant Caselaw Text

Click the links below to view and/or print the text of each case cited on page 107 of the 2020 mock trial case materials for:

U.S. v. Rosa et al., 17 F.3d 1531 (1994)

U.S. v. Samaria, 239 F.3d 228 (2001)

U.S. v. Monaco, 194 F.3d 381 (1991)

U.S. v. Aleskerova, 300 F.3d 286 (2003)

U.S. v. Strauss, 678 F.2d 886 (1982)


Instructions for updating your copy of the case when a Correction Memo has been issued:
 1. PRINT the most recent Correction Memo and all corresponding Revised Pages.
 2. REPLACE the current pages in your case booklet with the most recent revised pages.

Please make sure that your case materials are up to date at all times!  You should have been printing the Corrections and replacing the pages in your case booklet as they are issued.


All questions or comments about the case should be submitted in writing (no phone calls please) to:

Kim Francis
Mock Trial Statewide Coordinator
New York State Bar Association
[email protected]

State Finals

New York High School Mock Trial State Finals
May 17-19, 2020 (Sunday-Tuesday)
Albany, NY


Details for teams competing in the State Finals will be available here later in 2020.

County Coordinators Information

The County Coordinators of the Mock Trial program are the primary reason the Mock Trial program in New York State is so successful. County Coordinators are responsible for fielding teams from the schools in their county, distributing materials to their teams, providing attorney mentors to teams in need, arranging the local tournament schedule, securing tournament space and judges, resolving any conflicts, and collecting all relevant CLE information. Nearly all the County Coordinators do even more, such as providing food and drink for teams, helping to arrange for transportation if needed, assisting students in attending the Mock Trial Summer Institute, and holding awards ceremonies for teams at the end of the season. Needless to say, the New York State Mock Trial tournament depends on the hard work of the County Coordinators, and the NYSBA and LYC are grateful for their continued effort each year.

PLEASE NOTE: The current Mock Trial Current Case and any Correction Memos or additional information about the case can be found at the “Current Case and Corrections” tab on the left side of this page.


Below is all the information previously sent to County Coordinators:

• Letter to Coordinators

• Checklist of Responsibilities

• Sample Dear Educator Letter (provided as an example if you choose to use it)

• Sample Mock Trial Tournament Entry Form (provided as an example if you choose to use it)

• Mock Trial Team Registration Form

• Request for CLE Credit Verification Form

• New York MCLE Rules for Mock Trial CLE Credit


Questions?  Contact Kim Francis at [email protected]

 

Earning CLE Credit for Mock Trial

MCLE RULES FOR ATTORNEYS: EARNING CLE CREDIT FOR MOCK TRIAL

Attorneys* or Judges who participate in mock trial can apply for New York CLE credit.

* Please note that newly admitted attorneys (less than 24 months) are not eligible for this type of CLE credit.

Click here to view the New York MCLE Rules regarding CLE credit for participation in mock trial.


The LYC Program will process all requests for MCLE credit through the New York State Bar Association’s Continuing Legal Education Department, an accredited provider of CLE approved by the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board. The procedure is as follows:

a) County Coordinators will receive and disseminate the REQUEST FOR CLE CREDIT VERIFICATION FORM to attorneys and judges that participate in their counties.

b) All attorneys and judges requesting CLE credit for their participation in mock trial must complete the Verification Form and return it to their County Coordinator or other designated on-site representative.  The County Coordinators will collect all Verification Forms and send a signed copy to the Mock Trial Program Manager in Albany by mail, email or fax by June 1.

c) CLE certificates will be generated and sent by email to the attorney or judge requesting the credit. Please note: CLE credit cannot be provided without the signed Verification Form. A valid email address must be included on the form.


Click here for the REQUEST FOR CLE CREDIT VERIFICATION FORM. 

NYS Mock Trial Case Archives

These fact patterns are copyrighted by the Law, Youth and Citizenship Program of the New York State Bar Association.  They are available for classroom use only and CANNOT be used for any tournaments that charge a fee for participation.

2019 – Harley Davison v Gotham City Department of Housing Preservation and Development
In this civil case, Harley Davison v. Gotham City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Harley allegedly resided with his/her great aunt, who was a tenant of a rent-controlled apartment in a building owned by the City of Gotham. His/her aunt, Barbra Stone, who was 95 years old and lived in the two-bedroom apartment until her death on March 15, 2018, resided in the apartment since 1968. Harley claimed to have moved in with his/her elderly aunt in February 2016 to assist in her care and well-being. Following his/her aunt’s death, Harley applied to the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (DHPD) for succession rights to the apartment. DHPD denied the request, determining that Harley had failed to provide sufficient proof that s/he resided in the apartment prior to his/her aunt’s death for the requisite period of time. Harley then commenced this proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the State of Nirvana Civil Practice Law and Rules.

2018 – People v. Carson Connors
In this criminal case, Carson Conners, a high school student, was observed by his/her English teacher, Lauren Smith, repeatedly pushing another unidentified student in the hallway. The teacher approached Carson and tried to lead Carson away by the arm; a verbal exchange ensued. A School Resource Officer saw the incident on closed-circuit TV and rushed to the scene. Carson was arrested, taken to the local police precinct and charged with Disorderly Conduct. Due to the arrest, Carson was not able to attend school until after the due process hearing, which caused him/her to miss taking the district-wide assessment tests. Because removal from school is typically the result of an arrest and a criminal prosecution, Carson believes that the teacher, Lauren Smith, precipitated the encounter to get him/her out of the classroom in advance of the assessment test. Carson and his/her defense team allege that the criminal charge was trumped up so that Carson would not be available to take the assessment test. The defense believes that the school has adopted a “school-to-prison pipeline” policy and practice, which results in “zero-tolerance” for even minor school infractions and in the prosecution of students in the juvenile and the adult criminal justice systems, rather than within the school disciplinary process. The school-to-prison pipeline policy primarily targets at-risk students charged with public order offenses, such as disorderly conduct, harassment, violation of school conduct codes or school-yard fighting, by preferring prosecution over in-school disciplinary measures. The Bigtown Civil Liberties Society alleges that the school cut funding to aid at-risk students, like Carson, and used the money to reimburse the city for the services of the two police officers.

2017 – Robin Berkman v. County of Dover
In this civil case, a convenience store was robbed and the store clerk was shot. Witnesses identified the suspect by only the name “Robin.” The Detective who investigated the crime focused on Robin Berkman as the prime suspect. Robin was eventually arrested and charged with the robbery and attempted murder of the store clerk. After a trial by jury, Robin was found guilty and sent to State prison. Robin, who always denied committing the crime, contacted the Actual Innocence Association (AIA) while in prison. The AIA reviewed the case and, convinced that Robin was innocent, asked the District Attorney to reopen Robin’s case. The DA’s office did so and found that another person who was confined to another State prison had confessed to committing the robbery and attempted murder. Robin was exonerated and released from prison. Robin subsequently filed a lawsuit for malicious prosecution against the County and its agents, stating that Detective Smith, who had originally handled the investigation, did not pursue any other suspects and focused solely on Robin as the perpetrator of the crime. Robin is seeking monetary damages for the malicious prosecution.

2016 – People v Kelly Roberts
In this criminal case, Kelly Roberts was observed by the police to be engaging in what appeared to be a drug transaction with a known addict. The police chased Kelly to an apartment building and upon entering the apartment, found an empty pill bottle with a label indicating that it had contained oxycodone. The police suspected that before they arrived, Kelly threw the pills out of the window into the back yard, which is next door to a daycare center. A rainstorm that would destroy the evidence was imminent, so the police retrieved the pills from the yard without a warrant. Kelly was charged with possessing the prescription-only pain medication, oxycodone, without a prescription (Penal Law § 220.06[1]). Defense counsel moved to suppress the evidence (the twenty oxycodone tablets on the ground), stating that the warrantless search was improper. The prosecution will attempt to show that the warrantless search of the defendant’s premises was justified under the Emergency Doctrine to prevent the contraband from harming young daycare children. Alternatively, the People may argue that under the Exigent Circumstances Doctrine, the officers had to move quickly to prevent the destruction of the evidence by the inclement weather.

2015 – Morningside Heights Booster Club Inc v Casey Cheatham
In this civil case, the Booster Club hosted a Fun Fair to raise money for funding some of the school’s extracurricular activities, which were being eliminated due to budget cuts. Casey Cheatham was assigned the responsibility of collecting the money raised from the ride tickets and games-of-chance at the Fun Fair. Casey Cheatham is accused of stealing from those specific funds in order to pay for expensive purchases and support his/her gambling habit.

2014 – People of the State of New York vs.Penn HydraGas, Inc. and Mitchell Tomley, CEO
In this criminal case, Penn HydraGas and Tomley are accused of polluting the drinking water supply of a small village in upstate New York as a result of the defendants’ “fracking” operation that is located near the village. The company and CEO are charged with violating section 71-4001 of the Environmental Conservation Law, a criminal offense.

2013 – Morgan Martin vs. Cattaraugus Programming University
In this civil case, the defendant is charged with deceptive business practices for giving misleading statements to the plaintiff during Martin’s tour of the college, which allegedly induced the plaintiff to apply for admission to the University.

2012 – State of New York v P.J. Long 
In this criminal case, the defendant is charged with Assault in the Second Degree for allegedly striking the victim in the head with a lug wrench, aka tire iron, in the parking lot of a popular dance club.

2011 – Pat Parker v Village of Empireville and Board of Trustees of the Village of Empireville 
This civil case involves a high school student bringing suit against the village and board for amending a parking law that the student believes is a violation of their right to due process.

2010 – State of New York v Shawn Miller 
This criminal case involves two lifelong friends and now business associates accused of securities fraud.

2009 – Chris Cross v Randy E. Porter 
This is a libel case involving a news story, written by a high school student journalist, which allegedly defamed the school principal.

2008 – Ryan Strongarm v Chris Rocket
This is a civil case of negligence which involves a hit and run accident.

2007 – State of New York v Pat C. Macintosh
This is a criminal case in which the defendant, a college sophomore, is charged with stalking a fellow student through messages posted in a campus-sponsored internet chat room.

2006 – State of New York v Terry C. O’Neal
This is a criminal case centered on the prosecution of a defendant for the death of a passenger caused by the allegedly reckless or negligent operation of a motor vehicle by the defendant.

2005 – Macca Elery McLaughlin v Lee and Robbie McLaughlin
This case is a civil lawsuit brought in New York State Supreme Court under the New York Mock Trial Prudent Investor Act.

2004 – Jo Moncrieff v WSUB-TV, Lee Juno
This civil case brings suit against a staff member and management of a TV news station under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

2003 – State of New York v C. C. Rider
In this criminal case, The People have charged the defendant with Assault in the Third Degree under New York Penal Law§ 120.00(1), claiming that the defendant intentionally caused physical injury to the complainant. Assault in the Third Degree is a Class A Misdemeanor.  The defendant, who has no prior criminal record, is an eligible youth within the meaning of the Youthful Offender Statute and is proceeding to a single judge trial.

2002 – Sandy and Pat Loam v The National Overland-Youngstown Bank  
In this civil case, the plaintiffs’ have two separate causes of action against a bank: First Claim: As customers of the bank, the bank had a duty to keep their personal financial information secure – as a result of the bank’s staff, agents and employees’ negligence, the plaintiffs’ personal financial information was disclosed to unauthorized third parties who ruined their credit, causing them to sustain damages in the amount of $250,000.  Second Claim: The plaintiffs’ claim that the bank breached its statutory obligations under § 349 of the General Business Law and 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq., also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or GLB, in that they actively engaged in deceptive and unlawful practices in their banking business, both through their ads and personal representations to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs request an order of specific performance forcing the bank to take corrective measures to correct their credit history, an unspecified amount of damages, attorney fees and court costs.

2001 – State of New York v Monk Agricultural Chemical Co., Taylor and Jefferson Monk
In this criminal case, the State charges that a company is violating the Environmental Conservation Laws of the State of New York by improperly disposing of waste, and consequently have been indicted under Section 71-2712 and 71-2713 of the Environmental Conservation Law. The defendants maintain their innocence and waived the right to a jury trial, so the case will be heard and decided by a judge.

2000 – State of New York v Mickey Jackson
This criminal case involves a school who is accusing a student of committing three crimes: (1) unauthorized use of a computer, in violation of N.Y.P.L. § 156.05; (2) computer trespass, in violation of N.Y.P.L. § 156.10; and (3) computer tampering in the fourth degree, in violation of N.Y.P.L. § 156.20. The criminal information alleges that the student broke into the school’s computer system, downloaded secure data on Internet usage, and then posted writings based on that information on a home website. The school principal further alleges that the student disabled the school’s Internet proxy server, preventing it from recording individual usage and deleted existing usage records. The principal claims that these actions created a safety hazard for the district, were motivated by a desire to embarrass the principal and vice-principal, substantially disrupted the educational process and school discipline, and undermined a safe and effective learning environment. The student disputes the factual basis of these charges, arguing that the school district created the problem when it “secretly” installed a “buffer” computer to track all Internet usage, thereby acting in bad faith; that the district improperly failed to protect the reasonable privacy rights of Internet users within the school by not securing the usage data but in fact allowed easy access to it by many people; and that such arrest infringes upon a student’s constitutionally protected right to free speech on a home-based website. The student further claims that the only actions taken with regard to school computers were authorized by and that the only changes to the school’s computer settings were within the scope of the directives.

1999 – State of New York v Brandon Berry
In this criminal case, The People charge a parent with a class A misdemeanor, Endangering the Welfare of a Child [N.Y. Penal Law § 260.10 (2)], in that as a parent of a child less than eighteen, the defendant failed or refused to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent the child from becoming a neglected child.  The defendant is pleading not guilty.

1998 – State of New York v Josie Winters
In this criminal case, three individuals are charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree, a Class A Felony.  Based on plea bargains, each trial has been severed from all others.  The Defense made a Motion requesting a Hearing to Suppress some specific evidence, which was granted. The Prosecution has the burden to proceed in order to show the propriety of the search while the Defense will attempt to show that the search was improper.

1997 – Jamie June v Dry Gulch Public School District  
In this civil case, a student is bringing suit against a public school district, alleging violations of rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The plaintiff specifically alleges that the district failed to provide adequate training for its staff and students; failed to take appropriate and adequate actions to protect plaintiff from sexual harassment once notified of the harassment.  The school district denies any and all responsibility for the alleged incidents and claims that it enforced and followed its sexual harassment policy.  The plaintiff’s parents are seeking damages in the amount of one million dollars; additional money to pay for counseling for the plaintiff; a court order to institute extensive staff and student training in regards to sexual harassment; attorney’s fees; and a public apology to be printed in the local newspaper.

1996 – Morgan and Jan Crewshank v Jody, Mickey and Rudi Ramirez
In this civil case, the parents, on behalf of their child who was the victim of a motor vehicle accident which resulted in the injury of their child, are suing the parents of the driver for negligence.  The suit seeks damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00 for future medical care, the medical injuries sustained, and the pain and suffering of their child.

All materials are copyrighted and are the property of NYSBA. These materials are for classroom use only and CANNOT be used for any tournaments that charge a fee for participation.

NYS Mock Trial Finals Videos

Click the links below to view the video from past Mock Trial Finals:

2019 Mock Trial Finals
Harley Davison v. Gotham City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (Civil)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Mae A. D’Agostino, United States District Court, Northern District of New York, Albany, NY
• First Place: Fayetteville-Manilus (Syracuse / Onondaga County / Region 2)
• Runner up: Mount Academy (Esopus / Ulster County / Region 4)

2018 Mock Trial Finals
Case of People v. Carson Conners (Criminal)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Mae A. D’Agostino, United States District Court, Northern District of New York, Albany, NY

• First Place: Goshen High School (Goshen / Orange County / Region 4)
• Runner up: Brooklyn Technical High School (Brooklyn / Kings County / Region 6)

2017 Mock Trial Finals
Case of Robin Berkman v. County of Dover (Civil)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Mae A. D’Agostino, United States District Court, Northern District of New York, Albany, NY

 • First Place: W. Tresper Clarke High School (Westbury / Nassau County / Region 7)
 • Runner up: Regis High School (Manhattan / New York County / Region 6)

2016 Mock Trial Finals
Case of People v. Kelly Roberts (Criminal)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Michael C. Lynch, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, Albany, NY

 • First Place: Fayetteville-Manlius High School (Manlius / Onondaga County / Region 2)
 • Runner up: High School of American Studies (Bronx / Bronx County / Region 6)

2015 Mock Trial Finals
Case of Morningside Heights Booster Club v. Casey Cheatham (Civil)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Michael C. Lynch, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, Albany, NY

 • First Place: Clarence High School (Clarence / Erie County / Region 1)
 • Runner up: Potsdam High School (Potsdam / St. Lawrence County /  Region 3)

2014 Mock Trial Finals
Case of People v. Penn HydraGas, Inc. and Mitchell Tomley, CEO (Criminal)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Susan Phillips Read, Associate Judge, New York State Court of Appeals, Albany, NY

 • First Place: William Floyd High School (Mastic Beach / Suffolk County / Region 8)
 • Runner up: Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School (Schenectady / Schenectady County / Region 3)

2013 Mock Trial Finals
Case of Morgan Martin v. Cattaraugus Programming University (Civil)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Karen K. Peters, Presiding Justice, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, Albany, NY

 • Winner: William Floyd High School (Mastic Beach / Suffolk County / Region 8)
 • Runner up: The Mount Academy (Esopus / Ulster County / Region 4)

2012 Mock Trial Finals
Case of State of New York v. P.J. Long (Criminal)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Robert S. Smith, New York State Court of Appeals, Albany, NY

 • Winner: Nyack High School (Nyack / Rockland County /  Region 4)
 • Runner up: Jamestown-Dewitt High School (Syracuse / Onondaga County / Region 2)

 

NYS Mock Trial 101 Program Training Video

NYS MOCK TRIAL 101 PROGRAM TRAINING VIDEO

Watch the video here!

This training video is designed to give Mock Trial teams a competitive edge, whether they are first-year teams or experienced participants.

Mock Trial 101 is part of the award-winning NYSBA Youth Empowering Youth Program honored by the American Bar Association as one of the winners of the ABA’s 2007 Outstanding Law Day Activity Award.


PLEASE NOTE:
This video was recorded in 2007.  As of September 2015, the contact information at the end of this video is out of date.  Please contact the current Program Manager below for more information about the New York State High School Mock Trial Program:

Kim Francis
LYC Program Specialist/Mock Trial Program Manager
518-487-5611
[email protected]