Topics: Appellate Review


HAWAII LIQUOR COMMISSION v. JONES



Download 0.87 Mb.
Page41/77
Date26.02.2021
Size0.87 Mb.
1   ...   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   ...   77
HAWAII LIQUOR COMMISSION v. JONES
This case is a civil action brought by the Liquor Commission against Dan Jones and the Cut-Rate Liquor Store, for civil penalties, including possible revocation of Cut-Rate's liquor license. Investigator Bier is a typical investigator-police officer and has investigated many incidents. Bier's official report appears below.
Dan Jones and the Cut-Rate Liquor Store deny that Watkins was intoxicated on the evening of April 5 when he was in their store. Jones says that Watkins did not appear to be intoxicated when he observed Watkins in the store. Watkins was convicted of public intoxication at a prior trial. Watkins is not present for this Cut-Rate case.
1. Prepare to do a direct examination of Officer Bier for the Corporation Counsel.

2. Prepare to do a cross examination of Officer Bier for the Defense.




HAWAII LIQUOR COMMISSION OFFICIAL REPORT
My partner Donald Smith and I are investigators for the Hawaii Liquor Commission. On the evening of April 5, at approximately 8:45 p.m., we were parked near the Cut-Rate Liquor Store when we observed an individual, later identified as Walter Watkins, attempting to cross 7th Street. Mr. Watkins was staggering and had great difficulty making it to the other side of the street. He stumbled and almost fell at the curb on the south side of 7th Street. He walked to the entrance of the Cut-Rate Liquor Store, and then paused for a few moments before he entered the store. The front of the store had a plate glass window with displays and advertising in it. From our car, we could see Mr. Watkins from the shoulders up through the window. We observed Mr. Watkins approach the counter and say a few words to the clerk, Dan Jones. A few minutes later, Watkins emerged from the store carrying a bottle of Thunderbird wine in a brown paper sack.
I stopped Mr. Watkins as he exited the store. I detected the odor of alcohol and administered a field sobriety test. I then arrested Watkins and issued him a citation for public intoxication, seized the wine, and issued a citation to Dan Jones and the Cut-Rate Liquor store for violation of H.R.S. 281-78 which contains the following language:
No licensee nor its employees shall sell or furnish any liquor to any person at the time under the influence of liquor.
I have attached a diagram of the scene to this report.

Date: April 5 Time: 22:15 (Signature) J. Bier







HAWAII LIQUOR COMMISSION v. JONES*

EVIDENTIARY PROBLEMS
This assignment will focus on special evidentiary problems of witness examination, paying special attention to foundations, the introduction of exhibits, impeachment, and the use of prior statements. All this work will be done on the examination of Officer Bier from Hawaii Liquor Commission v. Jones. The facts are found in the prior one page handout.
1. On direct exam of Bier:
a. Introduce the diagram from Bier's report.
b. Introduce the bottle and bag seized from Watkins.
c. Refresh Bier's memory from the report, assuming that Bier forgets that Watkins stumbled crossing 7th Street. Is this a hearsay problem?
d. Assume that looking at the report does not refresh Bier's memory. Use the report to get the “stumbling” testimony into the trial. Is this a hearsay problem?
e. Using a witness other than Bier, introduce the inventory records of Cut-Rate Liquor Store (witness to make up the necessary facts) which indicates that Cut-Rate had Thunderbird wine in the store inventory on March 31.
f. Introduce a blackboard diagram of the scene similar to the diagram in Bier's report.
g. Assuming the actual bottle was dropped and broken on the way to court, introduce a bottle similar to the one from Watkins.
2. On cross-exam of Bier by the attorney for Cute-Rate:
a. Impeach Bier from the report, assuming Bier testified on direct exam:
“I saw Watkins from the waist up inside the store.”
b. Impeach Bier from the report, assuming Bier testified on direct exam:
“As I was watching him inside the store, I saw that Watkins stumbled and almost fell as he approached the counter.”

c. Impeach Bier, assuming that Bier was deposed under oath, and the deposition reads:


Q: Now Officer Bier, how was Watkins walking when he was inside the store?

A: I can't say for sure. I only saw him from the shoulders up when he was inside.

d. Impeach Bier, assuming that although he testified on direct exam that “Watkins stumbled and almost fell inside the store,” he was overheard outside the courtroom to say that, “I never really saw Watkins stumble inside the store.”

*The facts on this page should only be used for these evidentiary problems. DO NOT USE these facts when doing the direct and cross examination simulations.






Share with your friends:
1   ...   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   ...   77




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page