Module 1 OverviewIn Module 1 readings, you will begin to l.docx

Module 1 Overview
In Module 1 readings, you will begin to learn about the major
distinctions among the various definitions of forensic
psychology. Which definition do you think makes the most
sense? As you begin to consider the roles that forensic mental
health professionals assume, it is important to remember that
they work in service of the legal system. They need to provide
information that is helpful to the legal system in fulfilling its
duties. In order to better understand the relationship between
the law and the work of forensic mental health professionals,
you will begin to study landmark court decisions and their
impact on forensic practice. You will begin to make plans for
the fieldwork that you will conduct later in the course. For now,
you will simply need to develop a list of potential field
placements—places you would like to visit.
· Describe key processes and players within the legal and
correctional systems.
· Define and analyze the impact of landmark case law on the
practice of forensic psychology.
· Define key psycholegal concepts (e.g., competency, insanity,
dangerousness) and the role of forensic mental health
professionals and legal theory in relation to the application of
these concepts.
· Identify and evaluate key data sources related to the
populations served by the practice of forensic psychology (e.g.,
National Uniform Crime Reports, court decisions, statistics
related to competence and sanity defenses, demographics of
prison populations, etc.).
· Compare and contrast how forensic mental health
professionals work within mental health, corporate, government,

legal, and correctional systems.
· Examine sources of professional ethical standards (e.g., APA,
ACA).
History of Forensic Psychology
Search your textbook for the important benchmarks in the
history of forensic psychology. These benchmarks highlight the
important trends that have continued to influence the field.
Many of the trends started from seemingly small questions.
Here is a good example. Suppose that I were to ask you to tell
me what the weather was one week ago today. Can you recall
the weather one week ago? In your recollection, how confident
do you feel that what you recall is in fact accurate?
Questions such as these were of interest to J. McKeen Cattell.
In 1893, Cattell performed an experiment that had implications
for the psychology of eyewitness testimony (Psych Central,
2013). Cattell asked college students a variety of questions
(e.g., the weather one week earlier) and asked them to rate how
confident they felt about their answers. Cattell learned that just
because people believe they had provided a correct answer or
recollection, they were not always able to do so. Furthermore,
Cattell learned that just because individuals rate themselves as
confident in their answers, their confidence ratings do not

necessarily reflect the accuracy of their answers. Can you see
how this experiment had important implications for the
courtroom?
Cattell probably had no idea of the widespread implications of
his findings. His findings were replicated by many researchers
who followed. He probably had no idea of the extent to which
his experiment was a forerunner of an explosion of research in
the areas of eyewitness testimony that came later. Indeed, many
contemporary issues in forensic psychology, such as the fairness
of allowing mentally ill individuals to stand trial, the
circumstances under which mental illness may lessen
responsibility for a crime, and the extent to which it is fair to
impose treatment on mentally ill people who do wish to receive
treatment, have been debated for many years. One of the most
important legal cases pertaining to criminal responsibility and
the insanity defense, the M'Naughten case, was decided in Great
Britain in 1843. This gives you an important clue to
understanding the field of forensic psychology. As far as the
law is concerned, what happened previously often continues to
exert influence in contemporary matters of forensic mental
health practice. Keep this in mind as you proceed.
Forensic Psychology
Forensic psychology is a relatively new and emerging specialty,
first recognized by the American Psychological Association
(APA) in 2000. It should not be surprising to discover that
forensic psychology appears to have a variety of definitions.
The major distinction among the various definitions appears to
be how broadly the field is defined. Some authors have
proposed a broad definition for the field, suggesting that
forensic psychology is reflected by any application of
psychological knowledge or methods to a task faced by the legal

system. Others such as Bartol and Bartol (2008) suggested the
following:
It is both (a) the research endeavor that examines aspects of
human behavior directly related to the legal process (e.g.,
eyewitness memory and testimony, jury decision making, or
criminal behavior), and (b) the professional practice of
psychology within or in consultation with a legal system that
encompasses both criminal and civil law and the numerous areas
they interact. Therefore, forensic psychology refers broadly to
the production and application of psychological knowledge to
the civil and criminal justice systems.
Other authors have defined forensic psychology using a more
applied context. In The Petition for the Recognition of a
Specialty in Professional Psychology, forensic psychology is
defined by the APA as the:
professional practice by psychology professionals within the
areas of clinical psychology, counseling psychology,
neuropsychology, and school psychology, when they are
engaged regularly as experts and represent themselves as such,
in an activity primarily intended to provide professional
psychological expertise to the judicial system.
The American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP)
recognizes forensic psychology as a specialty and defines the
field as the "practice of psychology as related to the law and
legal system." You should note that the two major distinctions
in the various definitions of forensic psychology are in the
breadth of the field and concern—whether the focus is on the
professional practice of psychology or whether the professional
practice of psychology is coupled with the application of
psychological research to legal issues.
Forensic vs. Clinical Psychology
The relationship between the legal system and mental health
professionals has been termed as an "uneasy alliance" (Melton,

Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007, p. 1). Why would anyone
make such a statement? What is the source of this unease? It's
important to remember that the legal system and those who
work within it and mental health professionals bring quite
different motivations to their work. Most mental health
professionals receive their education with the idea of providing
treatment and other types of mental health services. Inherent in
providing treatment is the idea of helping another person. But
many times, forensic involvement does not help the individual.
In fact, in many instances, the work of the forensic professional
may in fact be counter to the interests of the individual.
But there are other sources of unease that exist when mental
health and legal professionals work together. The legal and
mental health fields use different terminologies. Furthermore, it
is not always clear how to utilize data from psychological
assessments to address legal issues and questions. After all,
there is no "insanity" scale on the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI-2). There is no psychological
instrument that can tell you whether an individual should be
considered "disabled" in the legal sense, whether another
individual has the "parenting capacity" to raise a child
appropriately, or whether yet another individual has been
"injured" in the psychological sense and deserves some form of
"compensation." Therefore, forensic mental health professionals
must take data from instruments and methods that, in many
cases, are developed for clinical purposes and translate their
findings to address legal concepts. Such translations are not
always easy to accomplish.
Forensic Mental Health Professionals
How Forensic Mental Health Professionals Become Involved in
Legal Cases

As you begin to develop a sense of how and in what ways
forensic mental health professionals are involved with the legal
system, it is helpful to understand that their involvement always
follows the legal process, regardless of whether the case is
being handled within the criminal or civil system.
The Forensic Mental Health Professional and the Civil Court
System
When most people think of forensic psychology, they think of
work in the criminal system. And it's true that this course will
focus mostly on criminal issues. But there are many issues that
are addressed in civil proceedings or civil courts. For example,
a forensic psychologist may consult with attorneys regarding
the presence of psychological "injury," as the attorney seeks to
help a plaintiff obtain compensation in a personal injury case.
Forensic psychologists may examine children or adults in child
custody and child protective cases. The psychologists may be
asked to determine the effects of abuse and to report those
effects to a child protective service agency or a court.
Alternatively, forensic professionals may evaluate an individual
when there are questions pertaining to competency in civil
matters such as in the context of a legal proceeding to determine
whether the individual can handle his or her own financial
affairs. Forensic professionals are sometimes involved in civil
matters when individuals are considered for involuntary
commitment to treatment. This may occur when someone is
considered mentally ill and dangerous, or it may occur in the
case of someone convicted of a sex offense in order to
determine whether the individual represents an undue risk to the
community and is, therefore, in need of treatment.
Conclusion

In this module, you have begun to gain an understanding of the
field of forensic psychology. That is, you learned about how
forensic psychology is defined—and sometimes defined
differently, depending on the source. You learned a little about
the history of the field and its importance in contemporary
forensic psychology practice. You have also begun to learn
about the differences in legal and clinical concepts, something
about which you will continue to learn as you proceed in the
course and in the forensic psychology program. You have
started to gain an understanding of the many roles and functions
of forensic psychologists, both on the criminal and civil sides of
the law. Now, you are ready to deepen your understanding of
the field of forensic psychology and that of the professionals
who work in the field and their contributions to the field.
In your first assignment, you will post information about
yourself to the M1 Assignment 1 Discussion Area. That way,
you will have the opportunity to learn about your instructor and
your classmates, who will accompany you as you start the work
of this course. Soon you will need to start considering forensic
sites that you may wish to visit in your fieldwork assignment.
For now, in M1 Assignment 2, you will just need to consider
some potential forensic sites. You will submit a plan later in the
course describing your proposed placement and how you think
you can benefit from it in relation to the work of this course. In
the materials you have read, you learned about the importance
of the court system and legal decisions made by the courts.
In M1 Assignment 3, you will provide summaries of landmark
legal decisions in important areas of forensic psychology.
The Criminal Process

© 2014 Argosy University
Page 2 of 3
Psychology and the Legal System
©2014 Argosy University
2 The Criminal Process
Let’s learn about the various types of issues in the criminal
process.
Preapprehension Issues
Even before an individual is apprehended, forensic mental
health professionals might be involved in
attempting to identify the person responsible for a crime—that
is, the identification of a suspect. One
investigative technique that has risen in popularity in recent
years is criminal profiling. Criminal profiling
falls within a broader area of work referred to as investigative
psychology. You will learn a lot about
profiling and investigative psychology in Modules 2 and 3.
Pretrial Issues

Before a forensic mental health professional or a psychologist
sees an individual involved in a legal case,
much has already happened. The individual, now termed a
“defendant,” has been arrested, charged with
one or more crimes, and perhaps indicted—a formal process of
registering the charges. Usually, the
professional is not involved until after the individual’s arrest
and prior to adjudication of his or her case.
Three pretrial issues may arise in which a mental health
professional’s input is requested. One of the most
frequent requests of forensic psychologists is a Competency to
Stand Trial (CST) examination. Criminal
defendants are presumed to be competent unless a legitimate
issue of their competency is raised. When
this issue is raised, it must be resolved before the case can go to
trial. Sometimes, an exam is performed,
the individual is determined to be CST, and he or she proceeds
with the legal process. However, in some
cases, the individual might not be competent, might need
treatment, and might receive mental health
and competency restoration services prior to trial.
Another pretrial issue that sometimes arises in criminal cases is
the issue of competency to waive the
right to remain silent—that is, the individual’s competency to
waive Miranda warnings. Once an individual
thought to have committed a crime has been detained by the
police, he or she must be given a Miranda
warning, a verbal statement informing him or her that it is not
necessary to speak, that statements may
be used in a court of law, and that there is a right to an attorney.
If the individual elects to speak to the
police, any statements made might be considered a confession
that can be used in the court. In
determining whether the individual appropriately waived the
right to remain silent prior to making a

confession, the court will examine whether the confession was
made knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily. While the court is responsible for the final decision
in such a case, a mental health
professional may be able to help the court make this decision.
In such a case, the matter will need to be
resolved prior to trial so that the prosecution and defense will
know whether the confession will be
admissible. As a final example, a forensic professional may
evaluate a juvenile in a criminal case in order
to determine whether the juvenile is amenable to treatment and
whether he or she should be tried in
adult as opposed to a juvenile court.
Issues Addressed at Trial
An important issue that may be the subject of debate in a
criminal trial is that of the defendant’s criminal
responsibility. Often, this involves an examination to determine
whether the defendant may have been
“insane” at the time of committing a crime. As you will learn in
Module 3, a determination of insanity
usually involves assessment of two areas: (1) the individual’s
capacity to know right and wrong at the time
of the crime and (2) the individual’s ability to control his or her
behavior. If this issue is raised by a
defendant and his or her attorney, an MSO examination may be
performed. The findings can then be
Page 3 of 3

©2014 Argosy University
3 The Criminal Process
addressed in the trial. Of course, both the defense and the
prosecution may each request an examination
of the mental state issue, and the findings of the respective
experts may be in disagreement. The experts’
opinions may then be presented in court, and the trier of fact
(judge or jury) will be responsible for the
final decision.
Issues That Arise Following Trial
So far, we have talked about the issues that may be raised prior
to and at the time of trial. But once the
trial concludes, other issues may warrant attention of mental
health professionals. Posttrial issues often
involve questions of treatment for the mentally ill individual. It
is not unusual for the judge to order a
presentence mental health evaluation. Many questions may be
associated with a presentence evaluation.
Does the person need psychiatric hospitalization? Does the
person need outpatient care while
undergoing probation? Or in the case of someone convicted of a
sex offense, should the individual be
committed to a residential treatment program for sex offenders?
These are the types of questions with
which forensic mental health professionals can often help. One
of the most compelling situations prior to
sentencing occurs in capital murder trials, where the court
considers the question of whether the death
penalty is appropriate under the law. In this situation, mental

health professionals may be called upon to
provide information to the court that will help determine the
appropriateness (or lack thereof) of a death
penalty. In helping the trier of fact make its decision, the
forensic professional may help to identify
mitigating and aggravating factors to be considered at
sentencing.
Page 1 of 1
An Example
Let’s talk about an example. Let’s say that you were called by
the prosecutor to evaluate a woman who has
killed her husband and who has been charged with first-degree
murder. The prosecutor wants you to
conduct a mental-state-at-the-time-of-the-offense (MSO)
examination and help the court determine her
criminal responsibility.
You learn that another expert, one working for the defense, has

already evaluated the defendant and
opined that she was under “extreme emotional distress” at the
time of the incident. The prosecutor does not
agree that such a finding is in accordance with state law and
believes you will see the situation differently.
If you disagree with the defense expert and opine that the
defendant was not under extreme emotional
distress, how will you feel about the effect of your opinion on
the defendant who may have difficulty arguing
that she should be entitled to a manslaughter verdict rather than
murder?
This is just one of many situations in which the opinion of a
forensic mental health clinician may not be
helpful to the individual in question. There are many examples
from civil law as well. Suppose for a moment
that you are asked to conduct a disability or workman’s
compensation evaluation on an individual applying
for benefits. Your opinion may have a strong influence on the
legal decision maker (hearing officer) in the
case. Depending on your opinion, the individual may or may not
be entitled to benefits.

Mock Trial
U.S. v. Michael Davis
A college student is charged with felony rape after his girlfriend
alleges that he forced her to have
sexual intercourse against her will. (This is an updated version
of U.S. v. David Jones)
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic
at Georgetown University Law Center
Distributed by Street Law, Inc.
This trial may be used and duplicated for non-commercial
academic use.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE DISTRICT OF NEW COLUMBIA
---------------------------------------------------------x
:
United States :
:
:
-v- : Civil Case No.: CV01-192009
:
:
Michael Davis :
:

---------------------------------------------------------x
STIPULATED FACTS1
Ashley Williams is a 21-year-old senior majoring in business at
New Columbia
University. Ashley lives with a roommate, Pat Daniels, at 110
Michigan Ave, N.E., apartment
410, in Metropolitan, New Columbia. Pat Daniels, also a student
at New Columbia University,
majors in communications. Michael Davis is a 22 year old
senior also majoring in business.
Michael lives with a roommate, Terry Washington, at 3601
Connecticut Ave, N.W., apartment
2B, in New Columbia.
Ashley has been taking birth control pills since she was 16
years old. Her doctor
prescribed this as a treatment to correct her medical problem of
irregular menstrual cycles.
Ashley and Michael met and began dating in October 2005
during their freshman year
(2005-06). They dated until May 2006. During this first
relationship, Ashley and Michael had
1 The foregoing summary of the case is provided solely for the

convenience of the participants in the Mock Trial
Tournament. This overview itself does not constitute evidence
and may not be introduced at trial or used as
impeachment. All parties agree and stipulate to the accuracy of
the stipulated facts.
Page 2 of 59
US v. Davis
DC Street Law Clinic
Georgetown Univeristy Law Center
sexual intercourse. After a 15-month separation, Ashley and
Michael began dating again in
September 2007. This second relationship lasted from
September 2007 until December 7, 2007.
On Thursday, December 6, 2007, Ashley and Michael attended
an off-campus party.
Afterward, Ashley returned with Michael to his apartment.
Sexual intercourse took place early
on the morning of December, 7, 2007. No one else was present
in the apartment that night.
Ashley made her first formal allegation that Michael raped her
to Randy Miller, a
counselor at the New Columbia University Health Clinic. She
made this allegation on December

8, 2007. She filed a formal complaint with the Metropolitan
Police Department on Monday,
December 10, 2007.
On December 11, 2007, Detective Jessie Young obtained a legal
warrant to search
Michael’s Connecticut Avenue apartment. As a result of the
search, the police found a torn shirt
matching the description of the shirt Ashley said she was
wearing at the time of the alleged rape.
Michael Davis was later arrested and charged with raping
Ashley Williams.
CHARGES AND DEFENSE
The State of New Columbia charges that Michael Davis forcibly
overpowered Ashley
Williams on the morning of December 7, 2007, forcing her to
have sexual intercourse against her
will. This act amounts to first degree sexual abuse or one of the
lesser included offenses of
second degree sexual abuse or misdemeanor sexual abuse,
pursuant to New Columbia Code
section 22-3002, 22-3004, and 22-3006. The State of New
Columbia urges the judge to find
Michael Davis guilty of this offense and sentence him

accordingly to a term of years in prison.
Michael Davis, defendant, claims that Ashley Williams was a
voluntary participant in all
activities that occurred on the morning of December 7, 2007.
Therefore, Michael Davis requests
Page 3 of 59
US v. Davis
that the court find him not guilty, based on the defense that he
acted with Ashley Williams’ full
consent.
WITNESSES TO BE CALLED AT TRIAL
Prosecution
Ashley Williams, alleged sexual assault survivor.
Randy Miller, rape counselor, New Columbia University Health
Clinic.
Jessie Young, Detective, Sex Crimes Unit, Metropolitan Police
Department.

Defense
Michael Davis, Defendant.
Terry Washington, roommate of Michael Davis.
Lee Stream, Psychologist.
EVIDENCE
Police Report by Detective Jessie Young.
Pages taken from the personal journal of Ashley Williams.
Photographs of defendant’s apartment.
*All witness affidavits are sworn statements.
Page 4 of 59
US v. Davis
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]
Page 5 of 59
US v. Davis

APPLICABLE LAW
Statutory Law:
New Columbia Code section 22-3002. First degree sexual abuse.
A person shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
and in addition, may be fined in
an amount not to exceed $ 250,000, if that person engages in or
causes another person to
engage in or submit to a sexual act in the following manner:
(1) By using force against that other person;
New Columbia Code section 22-3004. Third degree sexual
abuse.
A person shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and
may be fined in an amount not to
exceed $100,000, if that person engages in or causes sexual
contact with or by another person
in the following manner:
(1) By using force against that other person;
New Columbia Code section 22-3006. Misdemeanor sexual

abuse.
Whoever engages in a sexual act or sexual contact with another
person and who should have
knowledge or reason to know that the act was committed
without that other person's
permission, shall be imprisoned for not more than 180 days and,
in addition, may be fined in
an amount not to exceed $1,000.
New Columbia Code section 22-3007. Defense to sexual abuse.
Consent by the victim is a defense, which the defendant must
establish by a preponderance of
the evidence, to a prosecution under sections 22-3002 to 22-
3006.
Page 6 of 59
US v. Davis
Case Law:
Masters v. United States, 810 A.2d. 966 (2006).*

Summary of Facts: On appeal. John Masters was convicted of
raping the complaining
witness on the night of October 12, 2005, in the back seat of
Masters’ car in a parking lot of a
local shopping center. Masters met the complaining witness for
the first time earlier that evening
at a gathering at a friend’s (Jason White) house. The
complaining witness was in need of a ride
home, and Masters volunteered to drop her off. Relying on the
knowledge that Masters was a
trusted friend of White’s, the complaining witness accepted the
offer.
On the way home, Masters pulled over into an empty parking lot
and overpowered the
complaining witness, forcing her to have sexual intercourse
with him. Masters is a large man,
6’3” tall, weighing 205 pounds, and muscularly built; whereas
the complaining witness is
substantially smaller in size and stature, 5’4” tall and 132
pounds. Masters allegedly slapped the
complaining witness across the face, resulting in multiple
bruises that were shown in the pictures
admitted as part of the District’s evidence. Meanwhile, he
continually threatened the

complaining witness with severe bodily harm if she did not
comply with his demands to “give
me what I want right now.” The complaining witness testified
that she stopped putting up any
sort of resistance for fear of further, more severe harm.
As soon as she was able, the complaining witness freed herself
from Masters’ control,
fled from the car, and immediately sought assistance. The police
were summoned right away,
and within five minutes of the call, they found Masters, just as
he was described by the
complaining witness, passed out in the back seat of the car with
his pants and undergarments
down. Masters was tried and convicted of felony rape.
Page 7 of 59
US v. Davis
Holding: In any prosecution for rape, there must be the absence
of consent by the
complaining witness to warrant conviction. Masters contends
that since the complaining witness

admitted that she gave up her defensive efforts against him, she
effectively consented to further
acts. This court finds, however, that the cessation of resistance
by the complaining witness was
an act of submission to an overwhelming force. Submission
cannot be considered “consent”
because it was induced by putting the woman in fear of grave
bodily harm or death, or by
exercise of actual force against her person. Utmost resistance by
the complaining witness is not
required. Furthermore, specific intent to commit a rape is not
required to warrant a conviction, as
long as it can be proved that a rape occurred.
In this case, ample evidence existed to warrant a conviction of
felony rape by the lower
court. Based on (1) the testimony of the complaining witness,
(2) the witnesses from the parking
area who encountered the complaining witness as she fled from
the car, (3) the police officers
who found Masters shortly after receiving report of the attack,
and (4) the medical examination
evidence and pictures of the bruises. Judgment of the trial court
is Affirmed.

Campbell v. United States, 805 A.2d. 196 (2003).*
Summary of Facts: On appeal. On the afternoon of March 21,
2002, Jane Smith was
allegedly attacked and sexually assaulted by the defendant,
Thomas Campbell, in Smith’s own
home. Campbell and Smith were acquaintances via mutual
friends. They saw each other
intermittently at various social functions and parties, and they
knew each other for about five
years prior to the attack. Campbell owned a painting company,
and when Smith decided to
repaint her house, she contacted him for an estimate. He came
over with his assistant and
completed the estimate, after which, he and his assistant both
left. Campbell, however, returned
Page 8 of 59
US v. Davis
an hour later, claiming that he had left some papers behind.
Meanwhile, Smith had decided to

take a bath. When the doorbell rang, she answered the door
wearing only her bathrobe.
According to Smith’s testimony, Campbell entered the house,
claiming to be looking for
misplaced documents. Then, while she was helping him look for
the papers, he grabbed her from
behind and forced himself on her. Smith claimed that she never
acted in any manner to provoke
the attack.
Campbell’s testimony claimed that when he returned to the
house and saw that he had
interrupted Smith’s bath, he offered to come back at a time
more convenient to Smith, but that
she insisted he come in. Campbell further claimed that Smith
then “moved around the house in a
very provocative manner,” allowing her bathrobe to fall open,
bearing her shoulders and legs to
him. Campbell does not deny having sexual intercourse with
Smith. He claims, however, that it
was with her full consent and invitation.
After the incident, Smith apparently left her home and went to
her sister’s apartment,
where she spent the next few days. She did not call the police to
report the incident for a week

following the alleged attack, and she did not have a medical
examination.
Police investigation of the Smith home did not reveal evidence
that any struggle
occurred, although the bed sheets appeared to be pulled
partially off the bed. No one else was
present in the home or witnessed Campbell’s coming or going.
At trial, Campbell was convicted of rape based solely upon the
testimony of the
complaining witness, Smith.
Holding: The case presented against Campbell is highly
circumstantial. The complaining
witness is the only one to provide direct testimony regarding the
allegations. Smith delayed
reporting the attack for seven days and did not have a medical
examination. Furthermore, police
Page 9 of 59
US v. Davis
search of the premises revealed no evidence of struggle. This

court has held previously that rape
charges must be corroborated, and that circumstantial evidence
may be sufficient to corroborate
rape charges as long as there is enough evidence in total to
show guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. In this case, however, there is no corroborating evidence.
Is it clear from reviewing the
record of the trial court that jurors acted with their hearts, and
not their heads. Although one of
the qualities of our justice system is the judge’s and jury’s
ability to consider human factors such
as sympathy in the decision-making process, these human
factors cannot be a basis for a
decision. Judgment of the trial court is Reversed.
*These cases are fictitious. For the purpose of this mock trial,
however, they are interpretations
of the application of the New Columbia Code section 22-3002
thru 22-3007 and are to be treated
as binding precedent.
Page 10 of 59
US v. Davis

Page 11 of 59
US v. Davis
Affidavit of Ashley Williams
My name is Ashley Williams. I am a 21-year-old senior at New
Columbia University,
and I am majoring in business. I currently live at 110 Michigan
Ave, N.E., apartment 410, in
Metropolitan, New Columbia. I have been at this address since
the beginning of my sophomore
year. I live with my roommate Pat Daniels.
I met Michael Davis during my freshman year. We were both
business majors, so we
took three or four of the same classes. He borrowed notes from
me a few times, and we talked a
little now and then. In the middle of October, we started dating.

I really liked Michael a lot from the very start. We saw each
other almost every day from
mid-October to May. It was a pretty serious relationship at the
time. We were very close
emotionally, and we were sexually active as well. I was very
much in love with him.
We were separated from each other the summer between our
freshman and sophomore
years. He got a job in Chicago for the summer and wanted me to
come with him. I was going to
go at first, but then I was offered a great job here for the
summer and decided to stay instead. He
didn’t like that very much, and we argued about it a lot. He
couldn’t understand that although I
wanted to be with him, I couldn’t pass up this opportunity. He
probably thought I would go out
with other guys if he was not around. That’s funny, since I
heard he was dating other girls while
he was in Chicago. It really hurt me that he could date someone
so soon after we were apart.
At first, I called him a lot, but he never seemed very happy to
hear from me, and he didn’t
even call me once – he said he couldn’t afford it. When I did
call him, he talked about the people

he was meeting and the parties he would go to. He’d also try to
make me feel guilty about not
coming. He complained about how much money he could’ve
saved if I had worked in Chicago
and lived with him for the summer.
Page 12 of 59
US v. Davis
During the summer I realized that I had become very dependent
upon him and that, if it
continued, it would be very bad for me. I still loved him and
missed being with him, but I could
not allow the relationship to continue that way. We managed to
avoid each other all of
sophomore year. During the fall of my junior year, we ended up
having a class together. I
thought that I was over him, but once we had lunch together, we
started talking again and some
old feelings came back. One thing led to another, and we
decided to give it one more try. I

purposely kept some distance between us, emotionally and
physically, because I wanted to make
sure I didn’t become too dependent on him again. Although I
fell in love with him again, I would
not have sex with him. I stayed over his apartment a lot during
this second relationship. Although
we stayed in his bedroom, we only had sex once, on my
birthday, November 3rd. There were a
few more times when we almost did, but I always made him
stop. He would always persist a
little, but in the end, he would back off. Sometimes it got really
hard to say no, but I wasn’t ready
yet, and he seemed to respect my decisions. That is, until the
last time.
I know it probably appeared to his roommate, Terry, that we
were very active sexually
because I was over there a lot. Michael didn’t help the situation
any when he would joke and hint
about it in the morning – he’d make those remarks that guys
think are funny – but we really
usually stayed up talking or watching late movies.
I don’t know exactly how it all happened. On December 6,
2007, we went to a party. I
had a couple of beers there, and I know that Michael had a few

as well. I didn’t think that either
of us was drunk, though, maybe just a little buzzed. I know I
wasn’t drunk because if I were, I
probably wouldn’t have tried to stop him later. We had a great
time at the party, although
Michael spent a lot of time with Jenny Jackson. I wasn’t too
happy about that.
Page 13 of 59
US v. Davis
We left the party and went back to his apartment. After we went
to his room, he went to
the bathroom, and I laid down on his bed to rest. When he came
back, we started kissing, and he
started to unbutton my shirt. I pushed his hand away, but a little
while later, he tried again. I was
enjoying the kissing and touching for a few minutes, but then I
began to get nervous and said,
“Please stop!” He said I wasn’t being fair to him, and if I really
loved him, I would show him. I
told him, “No. I don’t want to.” I did love him, and it was so

hard for me to say no because I
wanted to make him happy, but I just wasn’t ready. I thought he
understood that. He said I was
playing games with him because we had done it before. I don’t
see why that should matter.
I didn’t want to yell at him; I didn’t want to start a fight. I was
very serious when I told
him no, but he wouldn’t listen. I tried to get out of bed, but he
grabbed my shirt and my arm and
pulled me back, ripping my shirt and twisting my arm. He
pulled my skirt up, pulled down my
underpants and forced me to have sex with him.
Afterwards, I was upset. I put on my underpants and took off
my ripped shirt. I couldn’t
stand to have it on me anymore. Then I put on an old sweatshirt
and sat down in the chair at his
desk. I wanted to talk to him, tell him I was angry and that he
shouldn’t have forced me, but I
was afraid I would start crying so I didn’t say anything. I just
sat there staring at the desk and
trying not to cry. I saw some stupid note this girl Jenny had
written to Michael. The note said,
“Honey, you’re a great husband. See you tomorrow.” The note
bothered me, but it wasn’t the

reason why I was upset. He asked me what I was doing at the
desk. I didn’t answer because I
knew if I opened my mouth, I would either cry or yell at him. I
just walked out and slammed the
door.
I went back to my apartment. Pat, my roommate, could tell I
was upset and asked me
what was wrong, but I couldn’t talk about it. I really wanted to,
but I couldn’t get the words to
Page 14 of 59
US v. Davis
come out. I took a shower, locked my door, and cried myself to
sleep. Later that day, December
7, I told Pat I wasn’t feeling well, and I skipped my classes. I
felt like I was frozen, like all I
could do was cry. All I could manage to do that whole day was
write in my journal. I’ve written
in my journal since high school, but since college I only write
in it when something really

meaningful happens. When Pat got back from classes, I was
finally able to talk about what had
happened. Pat suggested I go to the doctor or at least talk to
someone at the school clinic.
At first I didn’t want to go to the clinic. Michael was my
boyfriend, we were at his
apartment, and we had been drinking. I didn’t think anyone
would believe me, and what could I
do about it anyway? Also, I didn’t want my family and friends
to hear about it. A part of me was
wondering if I could have done something more to prevent it, if
maybe it was my fault in some
way. I felt hurt, confused, angry, doubtful, and scared all at
once. I didn’t know what to do. Pat
and I talked for a long time and finally agreed to go to talk to a
counselor.
The next day, December 8th, I met with Randy Miller, who is a
rape counselor at the
clinic. Randy told me a lot of information about date rapes on
college campuses, and that my
psychological reactions and especially self-doubt were normal,
but that I shouldn’t blame myself.
A part of me didn’t think that a person could be raped by her
boyfriend. Randy said that no

means no, and if it was against my will it was rape.
The next few days were hard because I felt like somehow
everyone knew, even though I
know now that they didn’t. I felt ashamed and humiliated.
Talking with Pat and Randy really
helped. They kept suggesting that I report it to the police.
Eventually, on December 10, I got
enough nerve to go.
It’s still hard to deal with. I am still angry at Michael. I do
everything I can just to avoid
him. I still have nightmares sometimes, and I lost a lot of
weight for a while afterwards. I wonder
Page 15 of 59
US v. Davis
if he knows any of this, or if he even realizes what he did was
wrong. I really know now that it
wasn’t my fault. I took me a while to realize it, but I’m sure of
it. I really loved and trusted him,
but he abused that love and he broke that trust. Someone has to
make Michael realize what he

did was wrong.
Page 16 of 59
US v. Davis
Page 17 of 59
US v. Davis
Affidavit of Randy Miller
My name is Randy Miller. I work at the New Columbia
University Health Clinic as a
psychological counselor. I have a bachelor’s degree in
psychology and a master’s degree in
social work. I have worked here for five years – during the first
two years, I was a general
counselor, but I’ve specialized in assisting rape and sexual
assault victims for the last three years.

Previously, I volunteered as a hotline counselor for the clinic
two or three times a week during
my sophomore, junior, and senior years at New Columbia
University. I became interested in the
clinics' rape assistance program because my sister was raped
while she was in college, and I
witnessed the trauma she went through at the time.
I met Ashley Williams for the first time on the morning of
December 8th. When she
entered my office, she appeared very calm, and she seemed to
answer my preliminary questions
without any problems. When I began to question her about
Michael and her relationship with
him, however, she became tense and uneasy. I could tell that it
was difficult for her to talk about
him without getting very angry and upset. She was fighting back
the tears.
As she told me about what happened, she displayed a wide
variety of emotional reactions
She was angry one minute, then smiling and laughing the next,
then she’d become withdrawn
and sad. She even cried a couple of times. She expressed her
worries that maybe in some way

she was to blame for what had happened to her. She was afraid
that she may have led Michael on
somehow, that she may have asked for it. Ashley seemed very
open and honest.
She showed me her personal journal. The entry she wrote the
day after the attack
indicated her emotional confusion, anger and pain. She did not
recount in detail what had
happened, however, and she did not use the word rape
specifically, because at the time she did
not realize that was what actually happened to her.
Page 18 of 59
US v. Davis
Ashley’s reaction was pretty normal, if there is such a thing
where sexual assault
survivors – we prefer to call them survivors rather than victims
– are concerned. In truth, there is
no set reaction that can be expected from someone who was
raped, but psychologists and
medical professionals have recognized some fairly common

patterns of reactions that they have
termed the “Rape Trauma Syndrome” (RTS). RTS consists of
two phases. The first, the acute
phase, which is the period immediately following the attack, is
characterized by extreme
disorganization and disturbance. During this time, a woman may
become excessively emotional,
or alternatively, she may try to completely mask her emotions.
Physically, she may experience
tension and disturbances to her eating and sleeping routines.
Emotionally, the survivor of a
sexual assault may experience fear, denial, guilt or angry.
Depending upon the woman, her
reaction during the acute phase may include any combination of
these aspects.
The other phase of RTS is the chronic phase that occurs
approximately two to six weeks
following the attack, although the duration may vary. Some
women have little difficulty
recovering completely and quickly, while others never fully
recover. During the chronic phase,
the survivor tries to reorganize her lifestyle. Some women have
moved or changed jobs in
reaction to sexual assault. Some women reach out to family and

friends, some shy away more
from fear of embarrassment. Social and work relationships often
change, becoming more distant.
Except for the survivor’s very closest friends, there is little
trust for anyone else. The survivor
may experience nightmares, and often develops fears and
phobias, usually related to the
circumstance of the rape itself.
A woman who has been raped often does not know how to react
anymore. Being raped
destroys a woman’s sense of self control, and that feeling of
loss often spills over into other areas
of her life including work, school and relationships with other
men or with people in general.
Page 19 of 59
US v. Davis
Often, in response to his feeling of loss of control, a woman
will do things to try to regain control
of her life, and she’ll act in ways where she alone has control
over what happens.

For instance, when a woman delays reporting a rape, she often
does so because that
information is completely within her control before she tells
anyone, but once she does tell, it is
out of her hands. In counseling rape survivors, I try to
emphasize the importance of coming
forward and getting the police involved. Silence is permission –
if a woman does not report a
rapist, even if it’s someone they know very well, that person is
free to rape again and again, and
he probably will because he won’t realize what he has done was
wrong.
In helping Ashley recover, there were a few key points I wanted
make sure she realized.
The first was that rape is a crime of violence, not of sex. Men
who rape don’t do it for the sex
itself. There are other, easier ways to do that. Rather, they do it
for the sense of control or
empowerment that they get in being able to force someone to
succumb to the wishes. A woman
cannot be held responsible for the arousal level a man
experiences – it’s his body. Ashley did not
force Michael to rape her; he made that decision and carried
through with the actions himself. In

the situation of date rape, misunderstanding and
miscommunication between the man and
woman can also be a contributing factor to the act. Although it
may help explain why it
happened, it does not negate the fact that a rape did occur, nor
does it excuse the rapist from
culpability.
Also, I wanted to make sure that Ashley knew that there is no
right or wrong reaction to
what happened to her. Any and all feelings that she had were
real and valid, and that she
shouldn’t be afraid to express them.
Page 20 of 59
US v. Davis
Another thing Ashley needed to be told was that alcohol cannot
be used to excuse the act,
even in a situation like this where both Ashley and Michael had
been drinking. Alcohol does not
reduce accountability in any other life situations. Take drunk

driving as an example.
Finally, Ashley needed to know that she is definitely not alone.
In the general population,
a rape occurs every five to six minutes. In fact, one in every
three women will experience a
sexual assault or an attempted sexual assault in her lifetime.
Women between the ages of 14 and
24 are at the highest risk. Surveys show that one in every four
college women is raped. And what
people find most surprising is that in 60-70 percent of all rapes
the assailant is someone the
victim knows. I don’t know of any statistics that show how
often women falsely report rape, if
they do so at all.
One major contributor to the ongoing problem is that often, men
like Michael do not
realize that what they have done is wrong. Our social system
often works to encourage this kind
of thinking in men. Somehow, people need to be educated. The
men need to be more aware of
their accountability, and the women need to be more sure of
their bodily integrity.
From everything I’ve heard from Ashley about the case,
Michael is guilty of rape. Men

must be stopped from abusing women in this way.
Page 21 of 59
US v. Davis
Affidavit of Jessie Young
My name is Jessie Young. I am a 12-year veteran of the
Metropolitan Police Department.
I am currently employed as a detective in the Sex Crimes Unit. I
have been in this position for
the last six years. As a member of this unit, I am responsible for
answering and investigating
claims of crimes of a sexual nature, such as: rape, sexual
assault, prostitution, pornography, child
molestation, and exploitation.
I am the detective in charge of investigating the alleged rape of
Ashley Williams by
Michael Davis. According to our records, the report of the
alleged rape was first made on the

afternoon of Monday, December 10, 2007, by Ms. Williams. Per
procedure, I conducted an
interview with Ms. Williams and recorded her statement.
I asked her questions which were standard in cases such as this,
including whether she
had a medical examination or any record of medically-
confirmed evidence that a rape had
occurred. She stated that she showered shortly after the
incident, effectively eliminating such
evidence, and since she had no other physical injuries other than
a bruised arm, she did not see
the need to go to the doctor. This is not unusual for rape
victims. Unfortunately, right after the
occurrence they are usually too upset or embarrassed to see a
doctor. They also feel disgraced
and dirty and just want to wash away any contact they had with
the assailant. I wish these
women would start to realize they would make our job a lot
easier if they had an exam right after
the incident instead of showering and waiting to see a doctor.
However, upon close inspection, I
could see that there were traces of what could have been bruises
on her arm at the time of the

interview. When I tried to photograph them, however, they were
too faint to be seen in the
pictures.
Page 22 of 59
US v. Davis
I also inquired as to the existence of any witnesses. She stated
that she and Michael were
the only people in the apartment at the time of the incident, and
that she did not tell anyone what
had happened until the next afternoon. At that time, she told her
roommate, Pat Daniels, what
had happened. She stated that Mr. Davis ripped the shirt she
was wearing that night. When I
asked her to bring the shirt, she stated that it was still at Mr.
Davis’ apartment.
I got a search warrant for the Connecticut Avenue apartment
and went there on December
11, 2007. Upon a search of that apartment, I found several
articles of Ms. Williams’ clothing,
including a shirt fitting the description of the one she was

wearing that night. The shirt was torn
along the side hem as if it has been pulled on with some degree
of force. I read Mr. Davis his
Miranda rights, which he waived. When I questioned him about
how the shirt was torn, he
seemed very defensive and said that if he had raped her, he was
smart enough not to keep the
shirt if it could later be used against him.
When I asked Mr. Davis what happened, he replied that that had
made love that night and
that she consented. He stated that Ms. Williams became angry
after reading a note written to Mr.
Davis by a classmate, Jenny Jackson. Mr. Davis explained that
the nature of the note was
jokingly romantic, as Ms. Jackson was merely playing along
with the theme of their joint class
project. I asked Mr. Davis to show me the note, but when he
looked for it, he couldn’t find it. In
an effort to corroborate his story, however, he did show me an
assignment sheet which described
the project he was working on and named Jenny Jackson as his
“partner/spouse”.
There was no physical evidence of a struggle in Mr. Davis’
apartment or any evidence

that Ms. Williams was there against her will. All the evidence
relating to Ms. Williams in the
apartment seemed to indicate her voluntary presence in the
apartment, except for the torn shirt.
Page 23 of 59
US v. Davis
For example, several other articles of clothing were there, as
well as a toothbrush, hairbrush, and
some of her school books.
I also interviewed Pat Daniels, Randy Miller, and Terry
Washington. None of them could
claim any actual knowledge of the incident, although all three
had heard about it from either Ms.
Williams or Mr. Davis.
Basically, it all comes down to Ms. Williams’ word against Mr.
Davis’. This is a typical
for an alleged rape of this type. There aren’t any witnesses and
no concrete evidence. A jury
really needs to listen to both stories and decide who is telling

the truth. I just gather the facts and
evidence. I don’t make any judgments as to who is right or
wrong.
But I can say that in my years of experience, I have seen several
situations like this –
maybe half a dozen – where there is little or no hard physical
evidence, where there is a delay in
reporting the crime, and where there are no witnesses. In some
of those cases, the charges are
brought out of spite, anger or jealously. However, in many cases
the woman has been forced to
have sexual intercourse without her consent. Even if the two
individuals are adults and know
each other well, one party should not be forced to have sex with
another person without their
consent.
I don’t know what type of situation this case is. Like I said,
that’s not for me to say. Ms.
Williams says she was raped, and there are some facts to
support this. On the other hand, Mr.
Davis believes very strongly he did not do anything wrong
either, and in my mind his
explanation for the shirt and everything can be believable too.

of 59
US v. Davis
Page 25 of 59
US v. Davis
Affidavit of Michael Davis
My name is Michael Davis. I’m 22 years old. My address is
3601 Connecticut Ave.,
N.W., apartment 2B, Metropolitan, New Columbia. I’m a senior
at New Columbia University.
I’m a business major with a minor in economics.
I first met Ashley Williams during freshman year. She seemed
really nice and she was

very helpful. We had several of the same classes, and she
seemed pretty bright, so I asked to
borrow notes from her. I missed classes occasionally because of
work. Since my freshman year, I
have worked part time at a local youth center. I help the director
of the athletics department there
develop and run programs to get kids off the streets and keep
them out of trouble. Eventually, we
started going out. I thought she was great, and I really enjoyed
being with her.
I thought everything was going pretty well. Of course we had
our share of arguments like
every couple does, and there were times when I wanted to spend
more time with my friends, but
I ended up spending most of my time with her. I even had plans
to spend the summer with her in
Chicago where I was going to be working. I found us a place to
stay and everything. I thought it
was all set, then one day she said she was staying here because
she got a job offer. Then she
started worrying about the future, and what was going to happen
between us and things like that.
I couldn’t understand why she had to create problems when
there weren’t any. I more or less just

was taking things for what there were at the time, and I thought
things between us were very
good.
That summer we spent apart was pretty lonely for me. I was in a
different state where I
didn’t know anyone. I asked Ashley to come visit me, but she
said she couldn’t afford it. She
called a few times in the beginning of the summer, but then I
got fewer and fewer calls until they
Page 26 of 59
US v. Davis
just stopped. I couldn’t really afford to come back here or call
her very often since I was paying
for both my Metropolitan apartment and the place I was staying
at in Chicago. When I tried to
explain that to her, she said she was just as busy as I was and
just as tight financially, and if I
really wanted to be with her, I would figure out a way to do it. I
didn’t know what she expected
me to do, so I did what I could to keep myself busy. I went out

with some friends I met at the
office and at some parties, but just for fun. I didn’t date anyone,
I just hung out. She had her
friends here, and I had no one. What else was I supposed to do?
That next year things weren’t the same, so we didn’t see each
other. But then last year we
had a class together, and somehow things started up again.
Ashley kept saying she didn’t want to
make the same mistakes. I wasn’t exactly sure what mistakes
she was talking about, but she
seemed very happy, so I didn’t worry about it. I was just a little
more careful not to push her too
much – I kept my distance a little more, but eventually she
began to stay over again, and things
seemed like they were getting to be the way they used to be.
Since we’ve been back together, we had sex once before
December 6th – on her birthday.
But most of the time she stayed over, we’d just watch TV or
hang out. We would stay together in
my bedroom. I take sex seriously, unlike some guys I know. I
always told Ashley that, too, so
when she didn’t want to do it, I didn’t force the issue. When
Ashley would say no I knew she

meant it, like one night about a week before when she got mad
and walked out at 2:00 in the
morning. Besides, Ashley and I were very smart about sex. She
was taking birth control pills, so
I knew she wouldn’t get pregnant.
Then one night we went to a party at one of my buddies’
apartments. We had a great
time, and I felt like things were better than ever. I remember at
one point she seemed a little mad
at me – like she was jealous or something – because I was
talking to this girl, Jenny Jackson, for
Page 27 of 59
US v. Davis
a while. When I explained that Jenny and I were working on an
economic project together,
everything seemed all right.
Later, I asked Ashley to come back to my place with me, and
she said okay. She got into
bed, and I went to the bathroom to put on a condom, just in case
we had sex. I got into bed with

Ashley, and we started kissing. She said no or stop once or
twice, but she didn’t act like she
meant it. I thought she was just playing because she would
smile and laugh and start kissing me
again. Even when she got out of the bed, and I pulled her back
by her shirt and accidentally tore
it. She was a little mad about the shirt, but then we kissed again
and she didn’t say anything
about it. I asked her to take off her clothes but she said no so
we didn’t bother with it. We made
love. It was very special to me, like the night of her birthday. I
thought she felt the same way too.
I had a few beers at the party and may have been a little buzzed
when we left the party, but by
the time we had sex, I was fine. I knew what was happening and
so did she.
Afterwards, she got up and went over to my desk. Ashley found
this note Jenny wrote to
me about meeting to discuss our economics project, but she
misinterpreted it. My project
involved doing budgets as if we were husband and wife. Jenny
is a really fun girl who likes to
goof around a lot. The note said, “Honey, you’re a great
husband. See you tomorrow.” It was

completely harmless.. Ashley was upset but didn’t say anything.
She just stormed out and
slammed the door.
I figured I should just give her a little time to cool off. The next
morning, I went to class
thinking I would see her, but she wasn’t there. I ran into Pat,
her roommate, and asked where she
was. Pat said Ashley wasn’t feeling well. I wanted to go by and
check on her, but I had to ref a
basketball game at the center. It was the championships, and I
couldn’t miss it. I got home pretty
late that night and I tried to call, but I got the answering
machine. I kept leaving messages that
Page 28 of 59
US v. Davis
night and the next day, but she never called me back. It was
pretty clear that Ashley was still
mad. I couldn’t believe she got so jealous.
I even had my roommate Terry try to talk to her to find out what

was going on, but
Ashley wouldn’t talk to Terry either. I thought that was really
strange because she and Terry
have been pretty good friends. I didn’t know when or if she was
ever going to cool down enough
to let me explain things.
I even went to see her but Pat wouldn’t let me in. Finally, I
figured the only thing I could
do was give her some space and time to cool off, if that was
what she needed. I figured when she
was ready, she would talk to me again. We’ve always been able
to talk about things. I thought I
was doing what she wanted me to. I had no idea all this stuff
was going on until Detective Young
came by a couple days later. I was in shock.
Detective Young had a warrant to look for Ashley’s shirt, and
asked to have a look
around. Detective Young found the shirt and took it, along with
a few other things that belonged
to Ashley. The officer also asked me a few questions, which I
answered.
I’ve been with Ashley for a long time. I thought I knew how she
felt about me, but

apparently I didn’t. But I know for sure that on that night she
felt the same way I did. I could tell.
She didn’t get mad until afterwards. I certainly didn’t force her
to do anything that she didn’t
want to, and I didn’t hurt her. I loved her, I would never do that
to her. I thought she loved me as
much as I loved her. I guess I was wrong, about her feelings, I
mean. She’s definitely not the
person I thought she was – I never thought she could lie like
this.
Page 29 of 59
US v. Davis
Affidavit of Lee Streams
My name is Lee Streams and I’m a practicing psychologist. I
have my own private
practice. I have a B.A. in psychology and a master’s degree and
a doctorate in clinical
psychology. I’ve been in practice for 10 years and see different
types of patients, but my focus

has been on adolescent psychology.
Michael Davis first came to see me a couple of days after his
arrest. He was naturally
quite upset and couldn’t understand why Ashley was claiming
Michael raped her. He discussed
his relationship with Ashley and it clearly sounded as if they
cared a great deal for each other.
They had gotten back together after they had broken up the year
before. Things seemed to be
going well, even if Ashley did get a little jealous at times.
Michael came to see me for five one-hour sessions. During
these sessions we discussed
his relationship with Ashley and other women, his attitude
towards sex, and how he reacts to
unfavorable situations. In addition, I administered a battery of
psychological tests.
From the results of the tests and our talks, I have come to the
conclusion that Michael
Davis is a stable young man with a positive attitude towards
sex. There has been nothing in our
talks or in the tests to indicate Michael is a violent person. Rape
is a violent crime and Michael
does not react in that way. He has very rarely been in any fights

and tends to avoid
confrontations. In my opinion, Michael is an honest person.
Michael enjoys sex and is quite open about that. Although he
has only been seeing
Ashley at this time, he has never had any problems asking
women out. He is a nice-looking
young man and has no shortage of dates. There is no reason for
Michael to force himself on
someone. All of us have been in situations where we get carried
away by the emotions of the
Page 30 of 59
US v. Davis
moment and we might be sorry we did something when we look
back. Ashley may have felt she
should not have slept with Michael when she looked back at the
night, but that doesn’t mean
Michael forced himself on her.
A lot of women seem to want everything their way. They want
to be able to have sex

when they want to and will often lead a man on. If things go too
far, then they start crying rape
when they know they wanted it all along. Ashley and Michael
spent a lot of time alone together.
They were in Michael’s room and in his bed. They had sexual
intercourse previously. I’m sure
Ashley knew Michael would want to have sex. What healthy
man wouldn’t? If Ashley didn’t
want to have sex with Michael she just shouldn’t have been
there with him. Women have to take
some responsibility for their actions.
The basic issue in these cases is whether the woman gave her
consent, or whether she
was forced or coerced. The problem is that some experts think
that unless a woman actually says
“yes” before she has sex, it is rape. In my opinion, a woman can
give consent in other ways
besides saying “yes”. For example, she can encourage the man
with body language, facial
expressions, or continued kissing.
Ashley having symptoms like the Rape Trauma Syndrome
doesn’t mean anything. The
so-called reactions in RTS are so vague that she could have
been reacting to anything or it could

have been a normal pattern of behavior. She could’ve felt bad
about the way she was treating
Michael and didn’t know what to do.
Michael is very confused at this point. He has been in a
relationship with Ashley for quite
some time and thought they had something very serious
together. He still can’t understand why
she reacted this way. It seems a little ridiculous to cause all
these problems just because she was
jealous over a silly note from another girl.
Page 31 of 59
US v. Davis
Since I am an expert in my field, Michael has paid me my usual
$100-per-hour fee for his
visits. For testifying Michael has paid me an additional $400. I
don’t think Michael should be
treated this way by Ashley. He needs some protection too.

of 59
US v. Davis
Page 33 of 59
US v. Davis
Affidavit of Terry Washington
My name is Terry Washington. I live at 3601 Connecticut Ave.,
N.W., apartment 2B,
Metropolitan, New Columbia. I’m 21 years old, and a senior at
New Columbia University,
majoring in political science.
I’ve known Michael Davis for almost seven years. We went to
the same high school
together. He and I have always been really good friends. For as
long as I’ve known him, he’s

always had the reputation of being very honest, respectable,
hard-working, friendly, and good-
tempered. When we found out that we were both going to New
Columbia U, we decided to find
an apartment together. I haven’t had any problems living with
him, other than the normal
inconveniences you get with living with a roommate.
I met Ashley Williams when she and Michael started going out.
I thought she was a very
nice person. We all hung out together a lot, along with some
other friends of ours, so I got to
know her pretty well. I like sports, both participating in the and
just watching, so sometimes
when Michael refereed games at the youth center, I’d go with
Ashley to watch. We would talk
about different things, like school, work, her and Michael,
whatever. She also spent a lot of time
over at our place, so I saw her quite often. We were really
getting to be friends.
I also saw the way she and Michael were when they were
together. They seemed so
happy. I kind of envied them because I could tell that they both
really liked each other, and
situations like that are hard to come by. I thought they may even

end up getting married, since
they broke up once and were apart for an entire year but still
felt strongly enough about each
other to get back together again.
Page 34 of 59
US v. Davis
They seemed very close since they spent so much time together.
Michael told me that he
wanted the relationship to develop further, and that he was
frustrated. He didn’t understand why
Ashley kept saying no.
I was at the party they went to that Thursday night. I saw them
together the entire night
except for awhile when Michael was talking with his economics
partner, Jenny Jackson. Jenny
and Michael had been working on their class project a lot, and
she had been over a couple times
because of it. She’s stayed at our place pretty late once or
twice. I’m not sure how late since I

went to bed before she left. They seemed like they were friends
to me, although Brandon Jones,
the bartender at the school pub, told me he saw Jenny and
Michael there pretty often during
November.
Anyway, at the party, I know both Michael and Ashley had a
couple beers and they
seemed like they were really into each other; they were very
close. At one point, Ashley almost
fell when she bumped into me as she walked by, but I grabbed
her by the arm to keep her from
hitting the ground. She said she was looking for Michael and
didn’t see me.
After they left, I stayed for another hour or so and then decided
that I’d go stay at a
friends’ house instead. I wanted to spend time with my friend,
but I also thought I would give
Michael and Ashley some privacy. We were all pretty
comfortable together, but you know how it
is when you know someone is in the next room.
The day after the party, Michael asked me if I had seen Ashley.
I told him I hadn’t, and
he told me about the fight they had the night before about the
note from Jenny. He said that

Ashley had seen Jenny’s note calling him honey, but it was just
a joke, since they were husband
and wife in an economics project. Michael was pretty upset
because it was all a mistake. A
couple days went by, but Ashley still didn’t come by or call. It
seemed like she was really mad at
Page 35 of 59
US v. Davis
Michael. I tried to talk to Ashley about it since she was my
friend too. I thought I might be able
to clear things up, but Ashley wouldn’t talk to me either.
Then one day that police officer showed up at the apartment. I
couldn’t believe that it was
all happening. I still can’t. I don’t think Ashley’s the type who
would intentionally lie to try to
hurt Michael, but I know Michael really well, and when he says
that things didn’t happen that
way, I believe him. Michael is no rapist.
From what I saw of the two of them together, especially that

night of the party, her story
just doesn’t make sense. They were acting almost like
newlyweds who are madly in love with
each other. In one sense it was romantic, but in a way, it gets
kind of annoying, if you know what
I mean.
This has really messed up Michael’s life. He may try not to
show it too much, but he’s
hurting. If I had to interpret what was going on with Ashley,
though, I’d say that she is just
jealous over nothing and won’t listen to reason. She’s definitely
not thinking straight. Doesn’t
she realize how this is going to affect Michael? She could
potentially ruin the rest of his life.
Ashley may be a friend of mine, but what she is doing is not
right.
Page 36 of 59
US v. Davis

of 59
US v. Davis
Page 38 of 59
US v. Davis
Page 39 of 59
US v. Davis
Page 40 of 59
US v. Davis

of 59
US v. Davis
Diary of Ashley Williams
November 4th ‘07
It was my birthday yesterday. I had a great day! First Mom and
Dad sent me some
flowers and a check for $100. Pat gave me a gorgeous light blue
blouse. But the best part of the
day was the time I spent with Michael. Since we’ve been back
together, everything is going
better than ever. He’s been so sweet and understanding. I know
it’s been hard for him at times –
we’ve come so close to sleeping together but I keep making him
stop. He’s been really patient.
Last night was so romantic. Michael took me to a nearby city
for dinner and he gave me a
red rose. Then after dinner we took a walk down by the water –
it was pretty warm out. He
handed me a teddy bear, and it was so cute. I thought that was
my present, but the bear had a

gold chain around its neck. It’s beautiful. I’ll never take it off! I
was so swept away by
everything that by the time we got back to his place, I didn’t
want to say no. (It’s a good thing I
bought some condoms before because I don’t think he expected
for things to happen so he wasn’t
prepared.) This was the first time we made love since we got
back together. Even though I told
myself I wouldn’t until I was absolutely sure it was right. I
couldn’t help myself. I hope he
doesn’t expect it to happen again, though, because I’m not sure
I want it to.
November 27th ‘07
Michael and I had a big fight last night. I was at his place
hanging out, but when we
started getting close, I said no but he didn’t take me seriously.
Sometimes when I say no he stops
right away, but other times I really have to get mad before he’ll
stop. This was the worst it’s been
so far. I actually had to leave for him to understand that I meant
it. I was really upset, and was
thinking that maybe I shouldn’t spend time over there anymore,
but then he called this morning

of 59
US v. Davis
and apologized. I told him I wasn’t going to spend time over
there if it was going to cause
problems, but he said that he didn’t’ want that to happen and
that he was sorry. I guess I’ll have
to wait and see what happens and if he really means it.
December 7th ‘07
Last night was the worst night of my life. I’m so upset right
now I don’t know what to do.
Everything started out fine – Michael and I went to a party and
had a great time. When we got
back to his place, things started to happen, but when I tried to
stop him, he wouldn’t listen. I told
him “no” and I meant it. Every time I said “no” before he
always stopped. I don’t know why he
didn’t this time. He didn’t even stop when I started to cry.
I’m so angry, but I love Michael. Maybe I’m being unfair. No,

it’s my body. I’m allowed
to say no. I wanted to explain things to him, but I couldn’t get
the words out. Then he actually
accused me of being jealous over some dumb note! That really
pissed me off. I had to get out of
there, but he wouldn’t let me leave. I had my shirt in my hand
and he grabbed it and ripped it. I
loved that shirt – it’s the one Pat gave me for my birthday.
Pat says I should talk to a counselor and to the police. She says
what Michael did was
rape. I can’t believe it! I wish I could pretend that none of this
ever happened, but I can’t. I just
don’t know what to do.
Page 43 of 59
US v. Davis
Page 44 of 59
US v. Davis

Page 45 of 59
US v. Davis
2009 MOCK TRIAL
TOURNAMENT RULES
Page 46 of 59
US v. Davis

The annual Mock Trial Tournament is governed by the rules set
forth below. These rules are designed to
ensure excellence in presentation and fairness in judging all
trials.
TEAM PRESENTATIONS
1. The official mock trial materials, consisting of the Statement
of Stipulated Facts, Witness
Statements, Relevant Statutes and Case Law, and Pieces of
Evidence, comprise the sole source of
information for testimony. The Stipulated Facts and any
additional stipulations may not be
disputed at trial.
2. Each witness is bound by the facts in the given witness
statement. All participants agree that the
witness statements are signed and sworn affidavits. Witness
Statements may not be introduced as
evidence, but may be used for impeachment.
Fair additions which (a) are consistent with facts contained in
the witness affidavits and (b) do not
materially give an advantage to the testifying party are
permitted. If a witness is asked a question
on cross-examination which is not dealt with in the witness's
statement, the witness may invent an
answer favorable to that witness's position.
Students may read other cases, materials, or articles in
preparation for the mock trial. However,
they may only cite the materials given, and they may only
introduce into evidence those
documents given in the official mock trial packet.

3. If a witness testifies in contradiction of a fact in the witness
statement during direct examination,
there is no objection for “violating the rules of the mock trial.”
The opposition must show the
contradiction on cross-examination through correct use of the
affidavit for impeachment. If a
witness testifies in contradiction of a fact on cross-examination,
the cross examining attorney
should show the contradiction through impeachment also. This
procedure is spelled out in the
Simplified Rules of Evidence.
4. If on direct examination witness invents an answer which is
likely to affect the outcome of the
trial, the opposition should show this on cross-examination
through correct use of the affidavit for
impeachment. This procedure is spelled out in the Simplified
Rules of Evidence. The scorers
should consider such inventions of facts in scoring the witness’
presentation.
5. Witnesses are not permitted to use notes in testifying during
the trial.
6. All participants are expected to display proper courtroom
decorum and collegial sportsmanlike
conduct. The decisions of the judges with regard to rules
challenges and all other decisions are
final.
7. The trial proceedings are governed by the Simplified Rules of
Evidence. Other more complex
rules may not be raised in the trial.
8. During the actual trial, teachers, attorneys, other coaches,

affiliated non-participating team
members, parents and all other observers may not talk to,
signal, or otherwise communicate with
Page 47 of 59
US v. Davis
or coach their teams. Team members may communicate with
each other during the trial.
Instructors from opposing teams are advised to sit next to one
another, if possible, and be
reasonable. The purpose of this rule is to prevent last minute
coaching; it is not intended as a
device to disqualify an opposing team.
9. Neither team may introduce surprise witnesses nor call
witnesses from the other side. All
witnesses (three for each side) must take the stand, in whatever
order or sequence determined by
the party calling them.
10. Witnesses will not be excluded from the courtroom during
the trial.
11. All teams in the tournament must consist of from three to
eight attorneys, and three witnesses.
Exceptions may be made by the D.C. Street Law Clinic after
consultation.
12. Only students registered in their high school for the Street

Law class as of February 07, 2009 will
be eligible to participate in the Mock Trial Tournament unless
otherwise approved by the
Director.
13. Teams are expected to be present at the Superior Court for
the District of Columbia by 5:30 p.m.
the days of the trials. Trials will begin at 6 p.m.
14. The starting time of any trial will not be delayed for longer
than 15 minutes. Incomplete teams
will have to begin without their other members, or with
alternates.
JUDGING
1. Presiding judges for the mock trials may include Judges and
Commissioners of the District of
Columbia, law school faculty, members of the D.C. Bar, other
attorneys, or others approved by
the Director.
2. All judges receive the Guidelines for Judges, Judge’s Score
Sheet, the Simplified Rules of
Evidence, and the Mock Trial Packet.
3. Presiding judges are asked to make a legal decision on the
merits of the case, but this does not
affect a team’s score. The decision on team scores is made by a
scoring panel, consisting of two
or more scorers selected by the Street Law Staff and, in some
instances, the presiding judge. The
criteria for scoring are discussed in the Guidelines for Scorers
and the Score Sheet.

4. All decisions of the judges are final.
Page 48 of 59
US v. Davis
Page 49 of 59
US v. Davis

SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
Page 50 of 59
US v. Davis
To assure each side a fair trial, certain rules have been
developed to govern the types of evidence that may
be introduced, as well as the manner in which evidence may be
presented. These rules are called the
"rules of evidence." The attorneys and the judge are
responsible for enforcing these rules. Before the
judge can apply a rule of evidence, an attorney must ask the
judge to do so. Attorneys do this by making
"objections" to the evidence or procedure employed by the
opposing side. When an objection is raised,
the attorney who asked the question that is being challenged
will usually be asked by the judge why the
question was not in violation of the rules of evidence.
The rules of evidence used in real trials can be very
complicated. A few of the most important rules of
evidence have been adapted for mock trial purposes, and these
are presented below.
Rule 1. Leading Questions:
A "leading" question is one that suggests the answer desired by

the questioner, usually by stating some
facts not previously discussed and then asking the witness to
give a yes or no answer.
Example: "So, Mr. Smith, you took Ms. Davis to a movie
that night, didn't you?"
Leading questions may not be asked on direct or redirect
examination. Leading questions may
be used on cross-examination.
Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, counsel is leading the
witness."
Possible Response: "Your Honor, leading is permissible on
cross-examination," or "I'll
rephrase the question." For example, the question can be
rephrased:
"Mr. Smith, where did you go that night? With whom did you
go to the
movies?" (This would not suggest the answer the attorney
desires.)
Rule 2. Narration:
Narration occurs when the witness provides more information
than the question called for.
Example: Question - "What did you do when you reached
the front door of the house?"
Witness - "I opened the door and walked into the kitchen. I was
afraid that he
was in the house -- you know, he had been acting quite
strangely the day before."
Witnesses' answers must respond to the questions. A narrative

answer is objectionable.
Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, the witness is
narrating."
Response: "Your Honor, the witness is telling us a complete
sequence of events."
Rule 3. Relevance:
Page 51 of 59
US v. Davis
Questions and answers must relate to the subject matter of the
case; this is called "relevance." Questions
or answers that do not relate to the case are "irrelevant."
Example: (In a traffic accident case) "Mrs. Smith, how many
times have you been married?"
Irrelevant questions or answers are objectionable.
Objection: "Your Honor, this question is irrelevant to this
case."
Response: "Your Honor, this series of questions will show
that Mrs. Smith's first husband was killed
in an auto accident, and this fact has increased her mental
suffering in this case."

Rule 4. Hearsay:
"Hearsay" is something the witness has heard someone say
outside the courtroom. Also, any written
statement made outside the courtroom is hearsay.
Example: "Harry told me that he was going to visit Mr.
Brown."
Hearsay evidence is objectionable. However, there are two
exceptions to the hearsay rule for purposes
of the mock trial. If an exception applies, the court will allow
hearsay evidence to be introduced.
Exception: In a mock trial, hearsay evidence is allowed when
the witness is repeating a statement
made directly to the witness by one of the witnesses in the case.
Hearsay is also allowed if one of the
witnesses is repeating a statement made by an individual who is
no longer alive.
Note that this exception to the hearsay rule does not extend to
witness testimony about what another
person heard a witness say. This is "double hearsay."
Example: Mary, the plaintiff, told me that Harry, the
defendant was drunk the night of the accident.
Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, this is double hearsay."
Response: "Your Honor, since Harry is the defendant, the
witness can testify to a statement he heard
Harry make."
For mock trials, other exceptions to the hearsay rule are not
used.

Rule 5. Firsthand Knowledge:
Witnesses must have directly seen, heard, or experienced
whatever it is they are testifying about. A lack
of firsthand knowledge is objectionable.
Example: "I saw Harry drink two beers that night. I know
Harry well enough to know that two
beers usually make him drunk, and he seemed drunk that night,
too."
Page 52 of 59
US v. Davis
Objection: "Your Honor, the witness has no firsthand
knowledge of Harry's condition that night."
Response: "The witness is just generally describing her
usual and actual experience with Harry."
Rule 6. Opinions:
Unless a witness is qualified as an expert in the appropriate
field, such as medicine or ballistics, the
witness may not give an opinion about matters relating to that
field. Opinions are objectionable unless
given by an expert qualified in the appropriate field.
Example: (Said by a witness who is not a doctor) "The

doctor put my cast on wrong. That's why I
have a limp now."
Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, the witness is giving an
opinion."
Response: "Your Honor, the witness may answer the
question because ordinary persons can judge
whether a cast was put on correctly."
Ruling: A judge will likely sustain this objection because it
may not be within an ordinary
person’s knowledge to know whether an incorrectly placed cast
will cause a limp.
As an exception to this rule, a lay witness may give an opinion
based on common experience.
Example: "It looked to me like Harry was drunk that night.
I’ve seen him drunk and have seen
other drunks before.”
Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, the witness is giving an
opinion."
Response: "Your Honor, the witness may answer the
question because ordinary persons may judge
whether or not a person appeared drunk based on the witness’
experience."
Rule 7. Opinions on the Ultimate Issue:
Witnesses, including experts, cannot give opinions on the
ultimate issue of the case: the guilt or
innocence of the defendant or the liability of the parties. These
are matters for the trier of fact to decide.

Example: "I believe that Mr. Smith was negligent in driving
too fast in this case."
Opinions on the ultimate issue in a case are objectionable.
Objection: "Your Honor, the witness is giving an opinion on
the ultimate issue – the negligence of
Mr. Smith."
Page 53 of 59
US v. Davis
Response: "The witness is commenting that the driver was
speeding. This is not the ultimate issue
in this case."
Rule 8. Additional Rules of Evidence:
1. Objections during the testimony of a witness must be
made only by the direct examining and
cross-examining attorneys for that witness.
2. Cross-examination is not limited to the scope of direct
questioning.
3. A short redirect examination, limited to no more than two
questions, will be allowed following

cross-examination, if an attorney desires. Questions on
redirection are limited to the scope of the
cross-examination.
4. If an attorney (on direct or cross-examination) repeatedly
asks a witness to discuss the exact same
matter, opposing counsel may object to the question as being
“asked and answered.” It is in the
court’s interest to have the trial move along in a timely manner.
5. Witnesses must be treated with respect by opposing
counsel. If an attorney continuously, and for
no valid trial or evidentiary purpose, takes a disrespectful tone
with the witness, the opposing
counsel may object that the questioning attorney is “badgering
the witness.”
Rule 9. Special Procedures:
Procedure 1. Introduction of Documents or Physical Evidence:
Sometimes the parties wish to offer as evidence letters,
affidavits, contracts, or other documents, or even
physical evidence such as a murder weapon, broken consumer
goods, etc. Special procedures must be
followed before these items can be used in trial.
Step 1: Introducing the Item for Identification
a. An attorney says to the judge, "Your Honor, I wish to
have this (letter, document, item) marked
for identification as (Plaintiff's Exhibit A, Defense Exhibit 1,
etc.)."
b. The attorney takes the item to the clerk, who marks it
appropriately.

c. The attorney shows the item to the opposing counsel.
d. The attorney shows the item to the witness and says, "Do
you recognize this item marked as
Plaintiff's Exhibit A?"
Witness: "Yes."
Attorney: "Can you please identify this item?"
Page 54 of 59
US v. Davis
Witness: "This is a letter I wrote to John Doe on September 1."
(Or witness gives other
appropriate identification.)
e. The attorney may then proceed to ask the witness
questions about the document or item.
Step 2. Moving the Document or Item into Evidence.
If the attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the
document or item itself as part of the evidence and
not just as testimony about it, the attorney must ask to move the
item into evidence at the end of the
witness examination. The attorney proceeds as follows:
a. The attorney says, "Your Honor, I offer this (document/item)

into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit A,
and ask that the court so admit it."
b. Opposing counsel may look at the evidence and make
objections at this time.
c. The judge rules on whether the item may be admitted into
evidence.
Procedure 2. Impeachment
On cross-examination, an attorney wants to show that the
witness should not be believed. This is best
accomplished through a process called "impeachment," which
may use one of the following tactics: (1)
asking questions about prior conduct of the witness that makes
the witness' truthfulness doubtful (e.g.,
"Isn't it true that you once lost a job because you falsified
expense reports?"); (2) asking about evidence of
certain types of criminal convictions (e.g., "You were convicted
of shoplifting, weren't you?"); or (3)
showing that the witness has contradicted a prior statement,
particularly one made by the witness in an
affidavit. Witness statements in the Mock Trials Materials are
considered to be affidavits.
In order to impeach the witness by comparing information in the
affidavit to the witness' testimony,
attorneys should use this procedure:
Step 1: Repeat the statement the witness made on direct or
cross-examination that contradicts the
affidavit.
Example: "Now, Mrs. Burke, on direct examination you testified
that you were out of town on the night

in question, didn't you?" (Witness responds, "Yes.")
Step 2: Introduce the affidavit for identification, using the
procedure described in Procedure 1.
Step 3: Ask the witness to read from his or her affidavit the
part that contradicts the statement
made on direct examination.
Example: "All right, Mrs. Burke, will you read paragraph
three?" (Witness reads, "Harry and I decided to
stay in town and go to the theater.")
Step 4: Dramatize the conflict in the statements. (Remember,
the point of this line of questioning
is to demonstrate the contradiction in the statements, not to
determine whether Mrs.
Burke was in town or out of town.)
Page 55 of 59
US v. Davis
Example: "So, Mrs. Burke, you testified that you were out of
town on the night in question, didn't you?"
"Yes." "Yet, in your affidavit you said you were in town, didn't
you?" "Yes."
Note: For an impeachment for a contradictory prior statement,
the point is that because the
witness has made two contradictory statements about a matter,

the witness may not be believable
on that matter. The contradiction also may cast doubt on the
witness’ truthfulness, generally.
Impeachment does NOT disprove a statement; it only casts
doubt on either statement.
Procedure 3. Qualifying an Expert
Only a witness who is qualified as an expert may give an
opinion as to scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge in the area of his/her expertise. (Note: A
lay witness may give an opinion about
something related to one's common experience (see Rule 6).
Experts cannot give opinions on the
ultimate issue of the case.
Before an expert gives his/her expert opinion on a matter, the
lawyer must first qualify the expert. There
are two steps to qualify an expert. First, the lawyer must lay a
foundation that shows the expert is
qualified to testify on issues related to that expert's field of
expertise. To lay a foundation, the lawyer
asks the expert to describe factors such as schooling,
professional training, work experience and books
he/she has written that make a person an expert regarding a
particular field. Second, once the witness has
testified about his/her qualifications, the lawyer asks the judge
to qualify the witness as an expert in a
particular field.
Example: The wife of Harold Hart is suing Dr. Smith and
General Hospital for malpractice. She claims
they did not treat Mr. Hart for an obvious heart attack when he
was brought to the hospital. Mrs. Hart's
lawyer is examining his expert witness, Dr. Davis:
Q: Dr. Davis, what is your occupation?

A: I am a heart surgeon. I am Chief of Staff at the Howard
University Medical Center.
Q: What medical school did you attend?
A: I graduated from Georgetown Medical School in 1978.
Q: Where did you do your internship?
A: I did a two-year internship in cardiology at John Hopkins
University from 1978-1980.
Q: Did you afterwards specialize in any particular field of
medicine?
A: Yes, I specialized in heart attack treatment and heart
surgery.
Q: Have you published any articles or books?
A: I wrote a chapter in a medical text on heart surgery
procedures after heart attacks.
Q: Describe the chapter.
A: I set out the steps for identifying heart attacks and doing
open heart surgery.
Page 56 of 59
US v. Davis

Q: What professional licenses do you have?
A: I am certified by the D.C. Board of Medical Examiners to
practice medicine in D.C.
Attorney #1: Your Honor, I ask that Dr. Davis be qualified as an
expert in the field of medicine.
Judge: Any objection?
Attorney #2: We object. No foundation has been laid regarding
Dr. Davis's ability to render an
opinion as to all fields of medicine.
Judge: Objection sustained. Dr. Davis's expertise seems to
be limited to certain areas of medicine.
Attorney #1: Thank you, your Honor. We ask that Dr. Davis be
qualified as an expert in the
field of heart surgery.
Judge: Any objections?
Attorney #2: No, your Honor.
Judge: Let the record reflect that Dr. Davis is qualified to
testify as an expert in the field of heart
surgery.
Once qualified, an expert may give opinions relating only to the
expert's area of expertise. That is, an
expert cannot give an opinion in an area outside his/her
expertise.
Example: (Dr. Davis has been qualified as an expert on heart
surgery.)

Q: Dr. Davis, what is your opinion as to Mr. Hart's cause of
death?
A: The patient suffered a massive heart attack caused by
clogged arteries.
Q: Dr. Davis, in your opinion, is it true as the defense
contends that the patient also suffering from a
rare lung disease transmitted through contact with the North
American mongoose as the defense
contends?
Objection: The witness is testifying outside her area of
expertise.
Judge: Sustained. Please confine your opinion to matters
related to care and treatment of the
heart.
Q: Dr. Davis, in your opinion, how should the patient's
doctors have treated him?
A: They should have recognized that the patient was having
a heart attack based on his chest pains,
purple face, difficulty breathing, and numbness in his left arm.
They should have given him the
proper medication and treated him in the emergency room right
away.
Q: Who was at fault in this matter?
A: Dr. Smith and General Hospital were definitely negligent.

of 59
US v. Davis
Objection: The witness is testifying to the ultimate issue of the
case, which is whether Dr.
Smith and General Hospital are liable for malpractice. That is a
question of fact
for the judge (or jury, when the case is tried before a jury) to
decide.
Judge: Sustained.
Page 58 of 59
US v. Davis
Special Thanks to:
Algie Said
Jacqueline Smith
Chris Difo

Tori Gordon
Aja Sae-Kung
Jadine Johnson
Wiline Justilien
Ande Durojaiye
National Institute for Citizen Education in the Law
Street Law Inc.,
The Students of the DC Street Law Clinic
Minuteman Press
Stipulated factsApplicable lawAffidavit of Ashley
WilliamsAffidavit of Randy MillerAffidavit of Jessie
YoungAffidavit of Michael DavisAffidavit of Lee
StreamsAffidavit of Terry WashingtonIncident/arrest
reportDiary of Ashley WilliamsPhotographs of defendant's
apartment2009 D.C. Mock Trial Competition rules
Assignment 3: Individual Research Task
Individual Research: Overview
As a forensic psychology professional, you need to critically
analyze statutory and case laws related to psycholegal issues
and correctly apply the knowledge from your analysis in your
work. The individual research course projects will provide you
with the opportunity to analyze the landmark cases related to
psycholegal issues.
In Module 1, identify at least one landmark legal case or court

decision for each of these important psycholegal areas: CST,
criminal responsibility (MSO), the right to mental health
treatment, the right to refuse psychiatric treatment, coercion to
mental health treatment, and participation in treatment and civil
commitment of sex offenders.
Critically analyze the essence of the selected cases.
You may be asking what it means to discuss the "essence" of a
court decision. The essence of a court decision involves two
things: (1) the issue under dispute and (2) how the court decided
that issue. You can usually summarize this information in one
or two paragraphs. Remember that you need to identify the final
decision by the highest court. Landmark cases are almost always
the cases that have been appealed to higher courts for a ruling
on an issue of law.
Looking Ahead
Through Modules 2 and 3, you should continue to conduct
research on professional literature to find additional information
regarding the selected cases to create a case report. Note that
professional literature may include the Argosy University online
library resources, relevant textbooks, peer-reviewed journal
articles, and websites created by professional organizations,
agencies, or institutions (.edu, .org, and .gov).
You may refer to the following links for additional information:
· Landmark Cases of the US Supreme Court
· Supreme Court of the U.S.
· Google
· US Supreme Court Center
In M4 Assignment 2, you will create and submit a case report
for each case related to competency and criminal responsibility
right to treatment, right to refuse treatment, coercion,
and participation in treatment and civil commitment of sex
offenders. You are highly encouraged to work on these case
reports on a weekly basis and not wait until Module 4 to
complete. Write each case report in 2–3 paragraphs, providing
your analysis and interpretation of the case. In addition, analyze
the roles and responsibilities of a forensic psychology

professional in the circumstances presented in each case.
Click here to view a sample case report, which you will use as a
template in your M4 Assignment 2 to write your case reports.
Note: Remember that you do not need to use the sample report
in this assignment. You only need to write about the essence of
the case. You will utilize the sample case format in Module 4.
Landmark Case Selection
In this assignment, you will research specific cases, describe the
essence of each case, and critically analyze how each relates to
the practice of forensic psychology.
Click here to view a list of landmark cases.
Tasks:
· Select one case for each of the following six legal areas:
· CST
· Criminal responsibility (MSO)
· Right to receive mental health treatment
· Right to refuse psychiatric treatment
· Coercion to mental health treatment
· Participation in treatment and civil commitment of sex
offenders
Conduct individual research from professional literature to
critically analyze the essence of the selected cases in forensic
psychology. Note that professional literature may include the
Argosy University online library resources, relevant textbooks,
peer-reviewed journal articles, and websites created by
professional organizations, agencies, or institutions (.edu, .org,
and .gov). Present your choices, as well as your critical analysis
of the essence of each case, in 2- to 3-paragraphs in a Microsoft
Word document.
All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules
for attributing sources.
Submission Details:
· By Wednesday, April 19, 2017, save your documents as
M1_A3_Lastname_Firstname.doc and submit it to the M1
Assignment 3 Dropbox.
Assignment 3 Grading Criteria

Maximum Points
Articulated the essence of each selected case related to the six
legal areas.
80
Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated
ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of
sources; displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
20
Total:
100
Page 1 of 3
Case Law by Topic
o Bonsignore v. City of New York (1982)
Courts ruled that the police agency can be held liable for the
actions of employees who were
not properly screened.
o Conte v. Horcher (1997)

Courts ruled that police agencies have a right to order an officer
to submit to a physical or
mental exam to determine the officer’s ability to perform the
requirements of the job.
o David v. Christian (1987)
Courts upheld that the employing agency that requests an
evaluation is the client and holds the
right of confidentiality.
o McCabe v. Hoberman (1969)
Courts ruled that police agencies have a right to include
psychological evaluations in their
screening process.
o Vinson v. The Superior Court of Alameda County (1987)
The court ruled that the examiner should have the freedom to
probe deeply into the plaintiff’s
psyche without interference by a third party.
o The Estate of Sam Shepard v. State of Ohio (2000)

The judge ruled that a former FBI profiler would need to limit
his or her expert testimony and
could not testify. The judge ruled that such testimony would
amount to profiling evidence, and
profiling testimony did not meet the standards of Daubert.
o U.S. v. Robinson (2000)
Federal courts ruled that forensic psychology professionals may
not testify as to whether an
individual could or could not have committed a crime based on
typologies.
o Faretta v. California (1975)
The court ruled that competency to waive one’s right to counsel
had no relationship to the
defendant’s actual ability to legally self-represent.
o Godinez v. Moran (1993) (Competency to stand trial)
The court ruled that no different or higher standard was
required for the waiver of important
rights than the Dusky standard.

of 3
2
Case Law by Topic
o Jackson v. Indiana (1972) (Competency to stand trial)
The US Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant is determined
incompetent, the state may
involuntarily hospitalize and treat the defendant for a
reasonable period of time to determine the
probability that the person can achieve trial competency in the
foreseeable future.
o Pate v. Robinson (1966) (Competency to stand trial)
The US Supreme Court ruled that a trial judge must raise the
issue of competency if any
evidence presented creates a “bona fide doubt” about the
defendant’s competency.
o Riggins v. Nevada (1992) (Competency to stand trial)

The US Supreme Court ruled that a defendant found
incompetent could be administered
medication against his or her will if the state can show that the
medication is essential for the
defendant’s safety or the safety of others or that there are no
other less intrusive means to
obtain an adjudication of guilt or innocence.
o United States v. Duhon (2000) (Competency to stand trial)
The court ruled that the release of a mentally retarded defendant
who did not pose a danger to
himself or society since he would never achieve trial
competency.
o Durham v. United States (1954) (Criminal responsibility)
The court ruled that when attempting to determine guilt there
has to be both free will and intent
to do harm.
o United States v. Brawner (1972) (Criminal responsibility)
The court repealed the Durham rule and adopted a modified
version of the Model Penal Code
Rule (The Brawner rule).

o United States v. Hinckley (1982) (Criminal responsibility)
The US Congress passed the Federal Insanity Defense Reform
Act (1984). Defendants must
prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence
o Washington v. Harper (1990)
The US Supreme Court upheld that an administrative hearing is
sufficient to administer
psychoactive drugs to an inmate against his or her will.
o McKune v. Lile (2002) (Coerced treatment)
The US Supreme Court ruled that a prison could withdraw
privileges if an inmate refused to
participate in a treatment program.
Page 3 of 3
3

Case Law by Topic
o Barefoot v. Estelle (1983)
The US Supreme Court ruled that a mental health professional’s
expert opinion regarding the
prediction of dangerousness met the criteria for the Daubert
standard regarding admissibility of
evidence.
o Ford v. Wainwright (1986)
The US Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to
execute an inmate who does not
appreciate what is happening to them due to a mental illness.
o Joseph v. Brierton (1984) (Right to treatment)
The ruling of Estelle v. Gamble was extended to include
psychiatric care.
o Penry v. Lynaugh (1989)

The US Supreme Court ruled the execution of a mildly mentally
retarded individual (Penry) did
not violate constitutional safeguards if the individual was found
competent to stand trial.
o Washington v. Harper (1990)
The US Supreme Court upheld that an administrative hearing is
sufficient to administer
psychoactive drugs to an inmate against his or her will.
o Estelle v. Gamble (1976) (Right to treatment)
The court ruled that an inmate must prove that prison officials
were deliberately indifferent to
the health needs of the inmate.
o Wellman v. Faulker (1983) (Right to treatment)
The ruling of Estelle v. Gamble was extended to include
psychiatric care.
o Kansas v. Hendricks, (1997)

The US Supreme Court ruled that if an individual convicted of a
sex offense is dangerous to
others due to a “mental abnormality,” the individual may be
committed to treatment indefinitely.
The Court ruled that such a commitment does not constitute
“double-jeopardy.”
A Sample Case Report
Title and Citation: Gilbert v. Homar, 117 S. Ct. 1807 (1997).
Type of Action: Civil Suit for Violation of Due Process
Facts of the Case: Homar was employed as a police officer at
East Stroudsburg University, a state institution. He was arrested
on August 26 at a friend’s house during a drug raid and charged
with possession of marijuana, possession with intent to deliver,
and criminal conspiracy to violate the controlled substance law,
a felony charge. He was suspended without pay the next day by
the university. Although the charges were dropped by the state
police on September 1, the university wished to pursue its own
investigation. The university officials met with Homar on
September 18 to hear his side of the story. On September 23, he
was demoted to groundskeeper and was told he would receive
back pay at the groundskeeper rate, though he eventually
received back pay at the police officer rate. The union president
met with the university president, Gilbert, on September 24.
The demotion was based, in part, on a confession by Homar
given to the state police on the night of his arrest. Homar

contended that he was denied due process since there was no
hearing prior to his suspension without pay.
Contentions of the Parties: Homar contended that he was denied
due process since he did not have a hearing prior to being
suspended without pay. He used prior cases in which the
Supreme Court had ruled that a tenured state employee must
have a pretermination hearing. Thus, a tenured state employee
cannot be fired without due process. However, as presented by
Justice Scalia, Homar had simply been suspended and not
terminated. The issue of denying him his livelihood was only
temporary, during his suspension, and should not have posed a
hardship.
Issue: Can the state suspend a tenured employee without pay
without hearing the employee’s side of the case?
Decision: The court ruled three issues that are to be considered.
First is the respondent’s (Homar’s) interest and how it is
affected by the official’s decision. In this case, Homar was
denied pay during his suspension. The second consideration is
the risk of an erroneous decision by the officials due to the
procedures used to reach the decision and any safeguards in
place to reverse an erroneous decision. Homar was granted a
hearing with the university officials approximately three weeks
after the suspension took effect. The third consideration by the
court is the government’s interest.
Reasoning: The court ruled that there was probable cause for
university officials to believe Homar had violated the law due
to his alleged confession in the police report. Thus, they were
justified in suspending Homar. The court ruled that the
suspension was not final and that the deprivation of income was
also only temporary, pending a postsuspension hearing. Finally,
the state has an interest in immediately suspending public
officials who occupy highly visible roles when they are charged

with felony crimes.
Rule of Law: Due process must be viewed as procedures that
take into account the circumstances of the situation for both
parties involved. Here, the state was able to delay the due
process by immediately suspending Homar. However, the
suspension was viewed as temporary, pending a prompt hearing
(Homar’s due process), and the state’s interest in maintaining
public trust in the university police force justified an immediate
suspension. The court also ruled suspension with pay would
essentially be a “paid leave at taxpayer expense” and is not
constitutionally protected.
Page 1 of 1
Page 2 of 1

Module 1 OverviewIn Module 1 readings, you will begin to l.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Module 1 OverviewIn Module 1 readings, you will begin to l.docx (11)

More from raju957290 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Module 1 OverviewIn Module 1 readings, you will begin to l.docx