Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Mock Direct and Cross Examination Exercise: CLE 2 January Semester 2014

CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION II (January Semester 2014)
Mock Direct and Cross Examination Exercise:

Each student shall be on a team of two and will be assigned to the Prosecution or the Defendant.  Each student must conduct one direct examination of a teammate and one cross examination of an opposing witness.  Each student must also serve as a witness

Each team has a total of 24 MINUTES of net time to use for their directs and cross.

Each team should attempt to tender at least one exhibit for each of their witnesses during their witnesses’ direct examination.  You will need to create or bring your own exhibits.  They can include bottles, cans, permits, certificates, maps of the scene, etc.  You can be creative in coming up with the exhibits and do not have to be tied to the facts of the problem when coming up with an exhibit.  However, you cannot come up with an exhibit that is in conflict with the facts of the problem.  When tendering exhibits the teams should be mindful of the guidance provided in Kambaho Brian’s helpful Synopsis entitled Admissibility of Documentary Evidence and the legal authority cited therein.

OFFICER CAPTAIN SEWALI            State’s Witness #1
Officer Captain Sewali is a 35 year old police officer, and a 10 year veteran of the Ugandan Police Force.   Prior to March 2013 Sewali served as a foot patrol officer assigned to directing traffic.  Since March of 2013 Sewali has been serving as a vehicle patrol officer and has been provided with one of the fifteen new SUV’s that the UPF received thanks to a generous donation from the government of Norway.

Officer Sewali has not actually reached the rank of Captain.  Sewali used to be captain of a football team and the name just stuck.

Officer Sewali started a shift at 8:00 am on the morning of January 17, 2014 and was forced to work late that night because of cutbacks in the UPF's budget and because other officers that could have relieved him had malaria.  At 9:00 pm., Sewali was alone in her SUV patrolling the area near Seeta High School where there had been reports of burning tires. It was a clear, dry night and road conditions were excellent. There had been no rain all that day.

At approximately 9:40 pm. Sewali was driving eastbound along Jinja Road approaching its intersection with a newly constructed road called Kobs Crossing.  According to Officer Sewali the speed limit along this stretch of Jinja Road at that juncture is posted at 50 kph and Sewali was travelling at "about" 55 kph when she first noticed the white Toyota Prado.

When Sewali first saw it the Prado was travelling northbound on Kob’s Crossing towards its intersection with Jinja Road. There is neither a stop sign nor a traffic light at the intersection of JinJa Road and Kob’s Crossing.  The Prado came to a complete stop at the intersection, but then proceeded to make a right turn in front of Sewali’s SUV.  The Prado forced Sewali to brake suddenly.    The Prado continued along Jinja Road, with the police cruiser following it for about a kilometre.  While following the Prado, Officer Sewali noted the following:

1.    The Prado's speed was slow, travelling at approximately 25 kph;
2.    The driver's head moved constantly from left to right;
3.       The Prado weaved, somewhat, on two occasions, crossing one wheel over the
      centre line on each occasion;
4.   Suddenly, and for no apparent reason, the Prado swerved fully into the
      westbound lane (fortunately, there was no oncoming traffic).

Sewali had seen enough and decided to pull the Prado over.  Sewali activated the cruiser's flashing roof lights and signalled the Prado to pull over.  The Prado immediately pulled off to the side of the road.  Sewali pulled the cruiser up behind the Prado and promptly exited the cruiser and approached the accused, who was still sitting in the driver's side seat.  As the accused rolled the window down Sewali noticed a very strong smell of alcohol coming from the car.

Sewali asked the driver to produce a driver's licence.   Sewali was surprised to see that the driver’s legal name was Wallie Waragi.  As soon as Waragi spoke, Sewali was "was struck in the face" by the "smell of alcohol" on the driver's breath.  Waragi fumbled for, and eventually found, all of the required documents saying "Here they are officer, hope they're all in order".  Sewali asked whether Waragi had been drinking.  Waragi replied "yes officer, but I only had two or three beers at a house party".

When asked how long before the accused had consumed the beers, Waragi admitted to having one beer around 7:30 p.m and another between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m.  Next, Sewali asked Waragi is there was a reason the Prado had been going so slow and why it was weaving.  Waragi claimed to have been looking for the turn to a road leading to small village and claimed to be unfamiliar with the area.

Officer Sewali shone her flashlight into the car and saw a few empty beer cans on the passenger's side floor of the car.  Sewali asked Waragi to exit the Prado and accompany Sewali back to the police cruiser.  Sewali noticed Waragi walk slowly and with deliberate steps.  Sewali further noticed that Waragi's eyes were glassy and bloodshot.   Waragi was charged under Section 111 of the Traffic and Road Safety Act for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle.  All of Waragi's rights were fully complied with.

Waragi was taken to the police station, was booked and was then released pending trial. Unfortunately, the station's breathalyser machine was broken due to a power surge earlier that day and a test could not be administered to the accused.  Sewali does not recall Waragi ever requesting to have a breathalyser administered, but is it possible that Sewali could have forgot.  Officer Sewali "is quite sure" that Waragi would have "blown over 80, there is absolutely no question about it."

T. TOTALLER            State’s Witness #2
T. Totaller is a 68 year old Irish missionary/counsellor at Seeta High School.  T. Totaller happened to be out walking to a local trading centre on the late evening of January 17, 2014.  Totaller had left home around 9:00 pm, as was Totaller’s usual habit.

At approximately 9:40 pm that evening as Totaller was returning home, walking eastbound on the south side of Jinja Road, about 100 metres from the Seeta High School gate when Totaller observed "a couple of young punks" travelling slowly, and a little erratically, eastbound along Jinja Road in a white Prado.  Totaller believes Totaller saw the passenger drinking from a beer can.  However, Totaller cannot be sure.  All Totaller knows is that it looked a beer can.  Totaller will also admit that he rarely sees beer sold in cans in Uganda. 

Totaller will testify that a plastic bag containing some of the food Totaller bought at the trading centre had a hole in it and many of Totaller’s groceries had fallen out along the way.  When Totaller turned around to look for missing items along Totaller’s path Totaller noticed the Prado swerve "wildly" into the oncoming lane on Jinja Road.

At this point, Totaller noticed the flashing lights of the police SUV and observed the Prado pull over to the side of the road.  Totaller watched as the officer approached the Prado and then watched as the officer and the driver walked back to the police cruiser.  Totaller will swear that the accused was walking unsteadily and it looked to Totaller that the driver could only maintain balance by leaning against the Prado when walking to the Police cruiser.

Totaller admits to having first been drawn to the Prado by the blaring of "that blasted car radio.  Totaller told the police offer at the seen “you know, I am getting sick and tired of these drunk hooligans racing up and down Jinja Road, with their radios shrieking out that awful rap music, having little regard for anybody but themselves. They should all be put into jail".

Totaller, who usually always wears eye glasses, was not wearing them while taking the walk to the trading centre.  Totaller could not find them and Totaller really needed some milk and mangos for his breakfast the the next morning.

WALLIE WARAGI            Defence Witness #1
Wallie Waragi is a 55 kilogram 18 year old secondary school student who, on 17 January 2014, was looking forward to going to a party with his/her best friend, Rabadaba, to celebrate Rabadaba's eighteenth birthday. It had been a long day at work for Wallie, having worked a double shift (14 hours) at the Coke Bottling Plant, when, at approximately 7:15 pm. that evening, Wallie picked up Rabadaba, in Waragi's older sister's white Toyota Prado.

Waragi had only eaten once that day, at approximately 2:30 pm., having devoured a large box of chicken and chips. Waragi had had no time for breakfast, and had had no time for supper because Rabadaba picked Waragi up at 7:15 p.m. 

Rabadaba and Waragi arrived at the party at approximately 7:30 pm carrying bottles of Club beer and a Jerrycan of the “local brew”.  Each of them cracked open "a cold one" as soon as they stepped into the party.  The friends separated until approximately 9:25 pm. when Rabadaba approached Waragi and stated that it was time to leave and go to another party.  Waragi recalls having one or two additional beers between 8:00 and 8:30 pm.  Waragi is unable to recall whether Waragi consumed any of the local brew, "although it is possible".  On the other hand, Waragi does recall that Rabadaba had had a considerable amount of alcohol to drink throughout the evening and was "thoroughly enjoying the celebrations".

At approximately 9:30 pm. they left the party in Waragi' sister's car to go to the party in a village near Seeta High School.  Waragi was driving.  Although Waragi did not know the way to the second party, Rabadaba knew the route and gave Waragi directions.  Rabadaba turned the volume of the car radio upto its maximum setting, was changing stations frequently, and was drinking from a can of Red Bull.

Waragi will state that, after travelling several blocks, the Prado came to a full stop at the corner of Kob’s Crossing and Jinja Road at which point Rabadaba blurted out "turn right this is Jinja Road ... now, look for the turn off across from Seeta High School".  Waragi turned right, drove slowly looking intently from side to side at the street signs since Waragi had no idea where the turn off was. 

While looking around for Seeta High School, Waragi noticed some mangos rolling in front of the Prado and swerved into the oncoming lane to avoid hitting them.   Waragi remembers yelling “Mangos” as the fruit rolled into the path of his vehicle.  After successfully avoiding the fruit, Waragi immediately noticed a flashing light in the car's rear view mirror and pulled over to the side of the road.

As the police officer approached the driver's side door, Waragi rolled the window down and turned to face Captain Sewali.  Waragi was extremely nervous.   Waragi had never been stopped by the police before.  Waragi nervously fumbled around trying to locate the documents. When asked to respond to the reason for swerving suddenly into the oncoming lane, Waragi remembers telling Captain Sewali that Waragi swerved to avoid some mangos that were rolling on the road.  Waragi followed the officer back to the cruiser and was informed of Waragi’s rights.  Sewali charged Waragi  with "driving while under the influence". 

They drove to the station where Waragi was formally booked.  Waragi asked for a  breathalyser test, but one was never administered.   Sewali advised Waragi that the breathalyser was broken. 

RAMA RABADABA            Defence Witness #2
Rama Rabadaba is an OAC secondary school student who, on 17 January 2014, was looking forward to celebrating the first long weekend of the summer, the end of the school year and Rabadaba’s 18th birthday.  At approximately 7:15 pm. that evening, Rabadaba was picked up by Rabadaba’s best friend, Wallie Waragi, in Wallie's sister's white Toyota Prado.  Their plan was to attend a house party at 12 Kobs Crossing, together with the rest of the graduating class of OAC Secondary School.

The friends arrived at the party at approximately 7:30 p.m. ready to celebrate Rabadaba's reaching the age of majority.  Between them, they had purchased a twelve pack of Rabadaba's favourite beer, Club and they had acquired a Jerrycan of the “Local Brew” from Rabadaba’s uncle.  As they entered the house on Kob’s Crossing, they each cracked open a beer and started to party.  The music was loud, all of their friends were there and it took almost no time for them to feel "good".

At 9:30, Rabadaba recalled that a teammate on the swim team was also having a party in a village near Seeta High School (which is just down Jinja Road a ways from Kob’s Crossing).  Rabadaba wanted to attend before the evening ended, so Rabadaba sought out the Wallie and they left together in Wallie’s sister’s Prado.

Rabadaba thinks Wallie had at least one beer prior to leaving the Kobs Crossing party and cannot recall seeing Wallie consume any other alcohol.  Rabadaba admits to having "several" beers over the course of the two or so hours they were at the party and some of the local brew that Rabadaba drank through a long straw.  It is true that the Jerrycan was much lighter than when they arrived so there is no way that Rabadaba was the only one drinking the local brew.  Rabadaba does not know who else consumed the local brew.

When leaving the Kob’s Crossing party, Rabadaba grabbed a can of Red Bull for the road, put the remaining beer and the Jerrycan of local brew into the Prado's boot, and sat in the passenger seat.  Meanwhile, Wallie took the wheel and proceeded to drive.                 

The Prado's radio was set to the maximum volume and bass levels, the windows were closed and the friends set off for the village party.  Rabadaba recalls seeing "a few" empty beer cans in the front seat of the car, but the cans were on the passenger’s side of the Prado.  Rabadaba denies consuming any alcohol during the drive to the other party.  Rabadaba does not know when, or how, the beer cans found their way into the car.

Rabadaba recalls, that while chugging the last of the Red Bull, Wallie suddenly swerved into the oncoming lane on Jinja Road while yelling “Mzungu!” out the window.   Prior to this, Rabadaba did not notice anything unusual about Wallie's driving other than the fact that Wallie was confused because Wallie did not know the way to the party.  

Rabadaba is unaware of exact speed of the car at the time of the swerve, having been absorbed by the music playing on the radio.  Rabadaba believes that Waragi was driving both carefully and safely at that time. 

Rabadaba has never known Wallie to drive while drunk.  Rabadaba  has great confidence Wallie' driving abilities.  Rabadaba has ridden with Wallie as the driver at least five or six other times.  All of those times Wallie drove without incident other than the time Wallie glanced a boda guy, but it was the boda guy’s fault.

THE INDICTMENT

The STATE OF UGANDA AGAINST WALLIE WARAGI
Wallie Waragi stands charged:
That in Uganda, Mukono County, on or about the 17th day of January 2014 Wallie Waragi did unlawfully operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle.

Dated this 27th day of January 2014.
Director of Public Prosecutions

APPLICABLE LAW

111. Driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.
Every person who, while under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle, trailer or engineering plant, drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle, trailer or engineering plant on any road commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than five currency points and not exceeding sixty currency points or imprisonment of not less than six months and not exceeding two years or both.

To assist the students in their preparation of the case, reference may be had to the following judicial comments: (Please note, however, that these comments are provided ONLY as a guide to the preparation of the case, and SHOULD NOT be cited or referred to during the trial.)

1.                  "There appears to be no single test or observation of impairment of control of faculties, standing alone, which is sufficiently conclusive. There should be consideration of a combination of several tests and observations of such as general conduct, smell of the breath, character of the speech, manner of walking, turning sharply, sitting down and rising, picking up objects, reaction of the pupils of the eyes, character of the breathing.
"If a combination of several test and observations shows a marked departure from what is usually considered as the normal, it seems a reasonable conclusion that the driver is intoxicated with consequent impairment of control of faculties and therefore that his ability to drive is impaired.
"I do not think such a finding should be made on a slight variation from the normal."

2.                  "In determining whether or not a person's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug, consideration may be given to such factors as his ability to drive in a mechanical sense and also in the field of judgment, his appearance, his manner of speech, the smell of his breath, his manner of walking, the reaction of the pupils of his eyes and the results of all physical test including the breathalyser test. If a consideration of such factors leads the court to the conclusion that the condition of the accused was consistent with the conclusion that he was driving while his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug and inconsistent with any other rational explanation, then the court is justified in convicting him."


"It should be noted that it is not the driving of the accused that is to be judged, although that is a factor to be considered.                  

Even if nothing abnormal about his driving was observed, that is not conclusive as to his guilt or innocence. One's ability to drive may be impaired even though there is no evidence of bad driving and, conversely, one may drive badly without being impaired. The question for determination is not whether he drove badly, but rather was his ability to drive impaired or was it not."

No comments:

Post a Comment