Well, in no particular order.....
While the prosecutor was qualifying his witness:
"Professor," Mr. Mayfield said, "would you be kind enough to list your major publications."
Dr. Yardley was about to begin when the defense lawyer arose. "If it please the court, your Honor," Mr. Tappin indicated, "in the interests of saving time, the defense is quite prepared to acknowledge the expertise of Professor Yardley in the field of evolutionary biology. His reputation as a first-rate scholar is recognized internationally, and we feel there is no need to go through the usual procedures for establishing expertise with respect to this witness."
"So noted," acknowledged Judge Arnsberger. "Thank you for expediting matters, Mr. Tappin."
I'd have sharp criticism for any moot court student who simply let the defense stipulate to the qualifications of an expert witness. Quite often a trial involving technical issues boils down to a battle of the experts. An important part of that battle is to make your witness look more credible than the opposition. By the prosecution allowing the defense to stipulate, the jury is deprived of its only opportunity to hear all of the witness's qualifications. It's well-established black letter law that the defense is not allowed to stipulate the prosecution's case.
Immediately following:
"Your Honor," the prosecutor said, "before beginning my examination of this witness, I would like to introduce into evidence, at this time, the People's Exhibit, marked "A"." While saying this, he had returned to his table, picked up a document, checked its identity, and delivered the bundle of papers to Judge Arnsberger.
The Judge examined the papers briefly and made a few notations, presumably, in her own log of the trial. Having done so, she said: "You may proceed Mr. Mayfield."
No foundation given for this Exhibit, no response from the defense on the request to have it admitted, and no ruling from the judge on whether the Exhibit is admitted. These are all such fundamental errors that I might well fail a moot court student on the basis of these things alone. In the past, when I have been a moot court judge in a competition, I would occasionally not rule on an objection to test whether the student would realize there was no ruling and insist on one. It was one way to determine how much attention the student is paying to the process.
Next, the prosecution begins questioning his witness on Exhibit A:
"What is your opinion, Professor Yardley, of the educational merit of these curriculum materials as far as the teaching of evolutionary biology is concerned?" the prosecutor inquired.
"Well, in certain ways," he asserted, "they appear to be reminiscent of the kind of material which is taught under the misleading title of creation science. And ..."
"Objection, your Honor," Mr. Tappin blurted out.
"On what grounds?" Judge Arnsberger asked.
"Your Honor, as has been clearly stated in the defense's opening statement, Mr. Corrigan's position is not that of the so-called "creation scientists". Unless the prosecution demonstrates in what way the position of Mr. Corrigan is "reminiscent" of the position of the creation scientists and unless the relevance of that reminiscence to the present case can be established, then all references to creation science are really immaterial and irrelevant to these proceedings, as well as being quite prejudicial to the interests of my client."
"Mr. Mayfield," inquired Judge Arnsberger, "does the prosecution intend to provide the court with the sort of demonstrations and connections about which Mr. Tappin is concerned?"
"No, your Honor," indicated the prosecutor.
"Very well," she said. "The objection of the counsel for defense is sustained, and the statement of the witness will be stricken from the records. You'll have to begin again, Mr. Mayfield."
This is rather silly. First, just because some of the state's evidence is inconsistent with the defense's argument, that doesn't make it irrelevant. As you might imagine, quite often the defense arguments and the prosecution's arguments are at odds with one another.
If, on the other hand, there was some genuine question about the applicability of the witness's observation to the case at bar, the prosecution should have been prepared to meet that question and present evidence or argument to connect the observation to the issues. Otherwise, this is yet again another elementary error, even for moot court.
Furthermore, unless I missed it, quite possible since I pretty much skimmed most of the "transcript," there was no further mention of Exhibit A until closing arguments. There, this was all that the prosecutor had to say:
First, you have been supplied with materials that constitute the written part of Mr. Corrigan's curriculum, and I believe these materials speak for themselves.
This is absurd. The prosecution has the burden of proving to the jury beyond a reasonble doubt that Corrigan "[taught] material that conflicts with established principles of both science and evolutionary theory." Simply saying the materials speak for themselves is the poorest argument I've ever heard in my life. The state needs to show what was taught and how that teaching "conflicts with establishes principles...." To expect the jury to wade through the stuff and come to its own conclusions on these matters is awful trial practice.
The prosecution did a horrible job of putting its evidence in. It consisted of complex testimony from an expert witness. The worst possible way of presenting such evidence is to let the witness drone on and on. His testimony during several places went on for many paragraphs without a single question from the prosecution. For example, beginning at the top of page 2 in part two, the witness spoke for 24 paragraphs before the prosecutor asked a clarifying question.
In the first place, most judges will not allow this sort of narrative testimony. Testimony usually consists of a question related to a particular issue, followed by an answer responsive to that question. By proceeding in this manner, the opposition has an opportunity to object to testimony that they believe to be improper in some manner, and the judge has an opportunity to rule, before the jury hears the testimony.
That aside, I guarantee that at least some, perhaps most or all, of the members of the jury will have tuned out most of the witness's testimony. It's very difficult for a jury to assimilate that much information, particularly about a complex matter, in that short a period of time. The much better practice is for the prosecutor to ask a narrow question and let the witness address that one point. Then the prosecutor asks another question and the witness answers that one. And so on.
Are those enough examples for ya, Moe? If not, I'm sure I can find more. However, unless you are prepared to suggest that these things are not rather fundamental errors, I think I've made my point.
The fact that you appear not to consider these things errors gives one pause to wonder what you were doing for your 23 years in courtroom.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
™ Version 4.2