NYS Mock Trial

2023 NYSBA LYC Mock Trial State Finals

The New York State High School Mock Trial Finals were held at the James T. Foley Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany New York on May 22 & 23, 2023.

Eight teams from around the state competed on May 22 to determine who would move to the final round on May 23.

The teams were:

Region I               Frewsburg Central High School

Region II              Maine-Endwell High School

Region III             Augustine Classical Academy

Region IV             The Mount Academy

Region V              Abraham Joshua Heshel School

Region VI             Hunter College High School

Region VII           W. T. Clarke High School

Region VII           Huntington High School

The two teams that moved on to the Finals were The Mount Academy (Region IV) and Abraham Joshua Heschel School (Region V) who argued the case in front of Judge John Cronan, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. After a competitive round, the Abraham Joshua Heschel School prevailed and was named NYS Mock Trial Champions for 2023!

The video of the final round can be seen here:

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, 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.

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.

2022 – People of the State of New York v. Shawn Miller
Mock Trial Tournament State Finals were virtual due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This criminal case involves two lifelong friends and now business associates accused of securities fraud.

2021 – Macca Elery McLaughlin v. Lee and Robbie McLaughlin
Mock Trial Tournament was virtual due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This case is a civil case brought in New York State Supreme Court under the New York Mock Trial Prudent Investor Act.

2020 – United States v Phoenix Jones
Mock Trial Tournament was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this criminal case, United States v Phoenix Jones, Phoenix Jones (PJ) is accused of purchasing allegedly stolen items over the Internet and using Bytecoin, the new cryptocurrency, as the payment source to shield his/her identity. The prosecution contends that PJ, while using a fake name, would have packages of stolen goods delivered to a company offering a virtual mailing address. PJ would then hire a ride-hailing service to deliver the packages to his/her collaborator, a pawn shop, where the stolen items would be put up for sale. A federal investigator became involved after receiving a call from a postal inspector that a suspicious package had arrived at an airport post office facility. After opening and examining the contents of the package, it was suspected that the items had been stolen and transported across state lines. The investigator later determined that PJ was the perpetrator of the scheme. PJ was then arrested and charged with the federal offense of conspiring with others (18 U.S.C. §371) to receive and sell stolen goods that were conveyed through interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. §2315).

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.