Mock Trial team falsely accused of phone use
Posted Apr. 16, 2024
Sports Editor
The DDHS Mock Trial team overcame an unfortunate incident at their regional meet to place 4th out of 12 teams, narrowly missing qualifying for the state tournament.
After the second round there was an argument with a Parkrose volunteer against senior Kasper Dunham, senior Ramla Abdullahi, and senior Ethan Hansen. It started when the DDHS team filed a rule 35 in violation of the bar where a phone was used in court. They called out a Parkrose student who was using their phone and then the student accused Abdullahi of using her phone which Douglas established in preliminary that she needs her phone to monitor her insulin level. Then a short argument ensued but the judge quickly put it down.
As the lawyers began to clear out the room, Dunham was confronted by the Parkrose volunteer, who aggressively accused Dunham’s motion of being racially motivated. Abdullahi got involved, which she then explained to her that she has type 1 diabetes and she needs her phone to monitor her insulin level, which they had established in the preliminary. One of the Parkrose students yelled out, “Yeah right!” Hansen yelled at the volunteer to “back off,” then was ushered away by his teammates.
David Douglas called for a delay for their students to gain back some composure after the debacle.
“I’ve been a part of mock trial for four years,” said Dunham. “Never have I seen this level of disrespect from a team.”
The scene was then reported to Sierra, who later organized a zoom meeting with the head coach of Parkrose in which they stated they were very unhappy with what happened and apologized. “We have no ill will against them,” said Abdullahi. “They were a fun team to go against. We hope the JV team can have fun competing against them.”
Though they didn’t make it to state, the team won two out of three rounds, with the 3rd round beating the mock trial regional champion Lincoln.
“It was a good day,” said Mock Trial head coach Alex Sierra. “They worked hard and we got a lot accomplished.”
As usual, Mock Trial will always deal with a case that can be argued either way, the case of Tommy Wright vs. USA (2023) is no different. The case involves an expert pilot, Tommy Wright, who runs an aerial tourism business in Oregon flying around mountains and forests, his business partner Jammie Henderson, a nature photographer, and a deceased former Navy pilot Mike Metcalf. Metcalf was a passenger on Wright’s plane which crashed, killing Metcalf and injuring both Henderson and Wright.
The case can be argued either way, as whether if Wright was flying more safely Metcalf could’ve lived or Wright had no control over the crash it was downdrafts.
The first round they went on the defense against a Catlin Gabel team and losing underperforming objections and presenting evidence,
“Not being able to address the rules of evidence and objections as well,” said Sierra, “was the critical part of not scoring higher.”
Senior Quill Chin presented the opening, Dunham as Wright, senior Orion Kluttz as Direct Taran for Hawkins, senior Diana Lu direct for Lin, senior Amir Abdul as Lin, and Abdullahi as cross of treat of Mitchell, senior Ryan Lao is the cross of Marshall, Hansen as the Bailiff, junior Alex Bowman plating direct of Wright, sophomore Samantha Guerra-Nunez as Hawkins, sophomore Megan Lao as the cross of Henderson, and finally sophomore Griffin Bloomquist as closing.
“They did a fantastic job as witness, presentation, and lawyer questioning,” said Sierra.
The second round they prosecuted against Parkrose, winning the case by exceeding in objections, and the cross teams, while retaining composure and presenting reasonable counter arguments. With Dunham as the opening, Ryan Lao as Direct of Treat Mitchell, Klutz as Mitchell, Bloomquist as treat for Henderson, Lucas Henderson, Abdullahi as direct of Marshall, Chin as Marshall, Hansen as the cross of Wright and closing statements, Guerra-Nunez the cross of Hawkins, and finally Bowman the cross of Lin.
The third round was shortened due to a delay, they were on defense against Lincoln, winning the case through their witness teams, of which they presented difficult rebuttals towards Lincoln's crosses. Establishing counter arguments towards Lincoln rebuttals earning enough points to win the rounds.
“Amir as the witness went insane in the third round,” said Kluttz.
Though they placed fourth, the team did their best, with hopes that the JV team will follow in the footprints of the seniors.