Case Questions & Answer Posting Schedule

2025 NHSMTC Case Questions and Answers 

 Posted Friday, April 11 

 

The affidavits of both Lupé Campos (lines 253-255) and Dut Dut Abdullahi (160-162), as well as Exhibit 11 (Section 1 bottom of paragraph 1), all indicate that Lupé Campos clearly indicated the angle at which s/he was standing in Exhibit 5. Where is this marking in Exhibit 5? 

 

Response:  There is no change to the case materials, and no further guidance on this issue will be provided. 

 

Rule 4.11 states that no case specific costumes or props are allowed. I was wondering if you would be able to clarify if that applies to immaterial props solely for the purpose of building characters. For example: fake glasses for nerdy character or hand wipes for germophobe character. Would that be considered a rules violation? 

 

Response:  The NHSMTC Rules Committee has determined that the examples in the question would violate Rule 4.11. 

 

Is there any way a phonetic guide can be posted for the teams to be able to pronounce all the witness names properly? It’s awkward in a trial when two teams are pronouncing something differently. 

 

Response:  The witness names are pronounced as follows: 

 

Lupé Campos: LOO-peh KAM-pohs 

Dut Dut Abdullahi: Doot Doot Ab-doo-LAH-hee 

Finn O’Malley: Fin Oh-MAL-ee 

Hollis Trimble: HAH-lis TRIM-bul 

Tajari Hakika: Tuh-JAR-ee Ha-kee-kah 

beck: BEK 

 

Jury instructions clarity:  The case materials do not appear to include an elements instruction for the charged offense and there seems to be some inconsistency between “The Charged Offense” section on pages 12-13 and the wording of the Indictment, including the absence of any information in that section regarding the dangerous felony enhancement alleged in the Indictment.  Are teams expected to construct their own elements instruction by combining the language in the Indictment and “The Charged Offense” language?  If so, may teams refer to and incorporate information from the Arizona statutes cited in the Indictment?   

 

Response:  The question of whether the alleged offense is a dangerous offense will not be submitted to the jury.  The second paragraph of The Charged Offense jury instruction on page 12 of the case materials will be modified to read as follows: 

 

The crime of “Attempt to Commit First-Degree Murder” requires proof that the defendant, intending to cause the death of Lupé Campos, and acting with premeditation, intentionally committed any act that was a step in the course of conduct that the defendant planned would cause the death of Lupé Campos. 

Posted Friday, April 18 

 

Should there be a change in the detective’s affidavit based on Exhibit 9? 

 

Response:  There is no change to the case materials. 

 

The affidavit of Lupé Campos doesn’t specifically mention familiarity with exhibit (the Campos bank records), though he/she mentions the wire transfer. It seems that he/she would be familiar with his/her own records. Can you clarify? 

 

Response:  There is no change to the case materials, and no further guidance on this issue will be provided. 

 

Are teams allowed to request that the presiding judge give limiting instructions (i.e. instruct the jury that evidence can be considered for one purpose but not another) during objection arguments or following rulings? 

 

Response:  This question is answered by National High School Mock Trial Rule of Evidence 105. 

Posted Friday, April 25 

 

When it says on page 50, lines 118-120, “I researched whether Lupé Campos had sufficient audio content available to use a commercially available product to generate Lupé’s voice,” is the first name mentioned correct? Or should it be “I researched whether Tajari Hakika had sufficient audio content available to use a commercially available product to generate Lupé’s voice.” Otherwise, why would Lupé need to generate their own voice? 

 

Response:  There is no change to the case materials. 

 

Will the scorers have an exhibit binder of color exhibits, so that exhibits may [be] “deemed published” if admitted into evidence? 

 

Response:  The scorers will not be provided with an exhibit binder of color exhibits, but they have access to the case materials in the format in which they were published on the National Championship website.  National High School Mock Trial Competition Rule 4.28 addresses publication of exhibits admitted into evidence.  Questions regarding a judge’s preferences regarding publication of admitted exhibits in compliance with Rule 4.28 are best addressed to the presiding judge in each trial. 

 

Is it acceptable to enlarge a portion of an exhibit (no bigger than 8.5 x 11 inches) to supplement an admitted exhibit?  The enlargement would be used for demonstrative purposes but not admitted into evidence.   

 

Response:  National High School Mock Trial Competition Rule 4.11(a) provides that “[n]o enlargements of the case materials are permitted except as provided by the Host.”  National High School Mock Trial Competition Rule 4.26 provides:  “Teams may refer only to materials included in the trial packet. No illustrative aids of any kind may be used, unless provided in the case packet or by the Host.”  The proposed “enlargement” would be a direct violation of Rules 4.11(a) and 4.26. 

 

Stipulation #2 and Stipulation #4 deal with “authenticity” of exhibits and availability of objections to exhibits.  The ER 803(16) hearsay exception applies to certain documents “whose authenticity is established.”  At least one of the witnesses vigorously contests the authenticity of Ex. 2.  In other words, depending on whom you ask, Ex. 2 purports to be an actual document or a forged document.  This puts the stipulations in tension with ER 803(16).  Can Stipulation #2 be amended to clarify the scope of permissible evidentiary argument on the “authenticity” of Ex. 2?   

 

Response:  The case authors respectfully decline to comment on evidentiary arguments that may be made.  There is no change to the case materials. 

 

Some of the witnesses’ conduct at the Clarendon Hotel and Durant’s may violate AZ Rev Stat § 13-3005 (2024).  That statute deals with intentional, unauthorized interception of oral communications.  May at least some witnesses be examined and cross-examined on their awareness of that statute, assuming their awareness is otherwise relevant and admissible?  As residents of Arizona, do they have actual or constructive notice of Arizona’s laws? 

 

Response: National High School Mock Trial Competition Rule 4.26, which is entitled “Trial Materials; Outside Legal Research Prohibited at Trial,” provides that “[t]eams may refer only to materials included in the trial packet.”  Reference at trial to a statute that is not included in the case materials would be a direct violation of Rule 4.26.  Beyond this, no additional guidance as to what is appropriate witness examination will be given.   

 

For convenience and clarity, in the final version of the case, could the photograph exhibits with more than one photo in the exhibit (Ex. 6, 8, 9) be designated as Ex. 6A, 6B….; Ex. 8A, 8B…, etc.? 

 

Response:  Each page of the case materials, including exhibits, contains a unique page number.  And no page contains multiple photographs.  As such, teams should be able to make an appropriate record without the exhibits being renumbered.  Accordingly, we will not be renumbering the exhibits. 

 

On page 44, line 54 of Hakika’s statement, to which person or persons does “they/them” refer?  (We are aware that usage of “they/them” in the case is typically intended to mean an individual, in the same sense as “he/she/him/her.” However, in this instance, the usage appears to be particularly ambiguous.) 

 

Response:  The case authors do not perceive an ambiguity in the use of “they/them” in the cited portion.  There are no changes to the case materials. 

 

Is the prosecution’s party representative Lupe Campos or Dut Dut Abdullahi? 

 

Response:  A crime victim is not a representative of the State.   

 

Stipulation 9 provides that the State and the Defense have each given notice that they intend to introduce juvenile adjudications of both O’Malley and Campos.  Just because we gave notice of our intent, can we change our minds at trial and not attempt to introduce them?   

 

Response:  Nothing in the stipulation obligates either side to offer any exhibit into evidence.