ILNews

Characters, courtrooms and lots of arguing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After a day of practicing law, attorney Susan Roberts often returned home, sat down at her computer and created a legal world where the witnesses say exactly what she wants them to say.

Her characters are fascinating and often humorous individuals with names that match, such as Gail Storm, captain of a charter boat, and Dee D. Tee, a pest control expert. She puts them in the middle of courtroom battles that include expert witnesses, exhibits and legal precedent.

roberts-15col.jpg Susan Roberts prepares binders for the judges of the National High School Mock Trial Championship coming to Indiana. Roberts wrote the case to be used in the competition. (IL photo/Marilyn Odendahl)

For nearly 20 years, Roberts has sat in the glow of her computer not to create bestsellers but to write the cases that students argue in the Indiana Mock Trial competition. Her goal is to craft interesting works that let the students enjoy themselves while they learn about the American judicial system.

“It’s rewarding to me when I see what the students do with the words I write,” Roberts, of counsel at Stuart & Branigin in Lafayette, said. “They bring the characters to life and bring out the different angles.”

Her writing has been so successful that other states have used her cases in their mock trial competitions. And this year, her skills are in the national spotlight. She wrote the case that will be tried during the National High School Mock Trial Championship coming to Indianapolis in May.

Roberts never dreamed of becoming a writer. She studied accounting as an undergraduate and as an attorney her practice has focused on finance, bankruptcy and creditors rights.

However, when she became involved in mock trial, she realized she could write a better case than the ones typically offered. Over the years she has written cases that have drawn upon history – the trial of Dr. Samuel Mudd, a suspected conspirator in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln – as well as modern day happenings like sniper shootings and bed bug bites.

Students, parents, mock team coaches, attorneys and judges have all praised Roberts’ cases. But she is most thrilled watching the students display their knowledge of the law as well as their skills at public speaking and critical thinking.

“You know you’re making a difference,” Roberts said. “That’s what it’s all about.”

A case they can argue

Mock trial gives high school and middle school students the opportunity to learn by preparing and presenting a court case. Students read through caselaw, learn legal procedure and practice endlessly all in preparation to present their side of the facts before a judge just as any lawyer would do in a real litigation.

“The case is the competition,” said Scott Keller, attorney at Anderson Agostino & Keller P.C. in South Bend and member of the Indiana Mock Trial board of directors.

And balance is the key factor. Each side has to have equal amounts of strengths and weaknesses so the students have something to argue, because the competition is not about getting a favorable jury verdict but about the arguments they make.

“Her cases are always very well done,” Keller said. “We get very few complaints from lawyers reading the cases.”

Roberts pays particular attention to giving her cases depth and multiple angles which give the students plenty to work on as they prepare for competition. She does this not only so students will not get bored, but also so the more they study and the more they pay attention, the more they will find.

She is adept at hiding a contradiction or slipping in a twist that won’t be found until the students have thoroughly gotten to know the incident, the facts, the caselaw and the characters.

Every year, Roberts begins with research. Lots and lots of reading, studying and investigating every aspect of her case, every detail, every diversion because she wants everything in her case to be plausible and true to life.

When the writing starts, she will write multiple documents including six witness statements, three for each side; the complaint or indictment; and an answer to the complaint or counterclaim. In addition, she establishes the stipulations and she cites applicable law with references to precedent cases as well as Indiana and U.S. code.

Roberts does not shy away from complex legal concepts in her cases. For example, the 2012-2013 case, Dog Bite at a Dog Show, did not treat the matter as a typical television courtroom drama would with the issue being simplified to the question of whether the dog actually bit. But rather, Roberts had the students focusing on the true legal matter of whether the defendants knew or should have known their dog had violent propensities.

Negligence, murder versus manslaughter, First Amendment rights, wrongful death and product liability have all been spotlighted in her cases.

Studying and then arguing Roberts’ cases in mock trial competition helped Andrew Jones ace his trial practice class in law school. As a student at Adams High School in South Bend, he participated on the mock trial team for three years and is now at team coach at his alma mater.

Like Keller, Jones, an attorney at Sweeney Julian P.C. in South Bend, said mock trial cases must be balanced with no side having an unfair advantage. Another key element to a good case is fun characters. Interesting, multifaceted witnesses and experts allow the students to be creative.

“Having good characters written into the case is very important,” Jones said. “Susan nails it. She nails it every time.”

Jones remembered one of Roberts’ cases he tried as a student competitor involving a house fire and the insurance company accusing the homeowner of arson. The insurance inspector was the persnickety and obsessive Terry Part, who had wanted to be a police officer but failed the drug test.

“Now that I am a personal injury attorney, I really appreciate that character,” Jones said, chuckling.

Tragedy and a car race

For Indiana’s turn on the national mock trial stage, Roberts wanted a case that drew upon the history and culture of the state. She crafted a piece that combined Indiana’s worst tragedy, the 1963 Coliseum Explosion in Indianapolis, and its most famous event, the Indianapolis 500.

Roberts’ case revolves around an explosion of a propane tank on a popcorn warmer, similar to what happened 50 years ago. However, hers takes place before the crowds arrive in a theater where a play about the 500’s inaugural race is being staged. The play is called “The Wasp,” in reference to the winner Ray Harroun and his race car, the “Marmon Wasp.”

Following the blast which destroyed the building, the theater company files a lawsuit against the propane vendor, claiming the vendor was negligent in maintaining and inspecting the tanks and in failing to instruct the theater in the proper operation and of the safety risks of the tanks.

Still, this is Roberts’ case so there are plenty of suspicions. Maybe the theater employee, Joe Kerr, played a prank that got out of hand, or possibly the disgruntled former theater co-owner, Dee Part, engaged in sabotage. What about the theater owner, Mel Low? Did he ignore safety precautions in order to arrange the theater according to the principles of feng shui?

After the national competition, Roberts plans to return to writing cases for the state competition. She laughed and said her husband has been encouraging her to turn her skills into a novel, but that project may have to wait. She is already thinking about possibilities for next year’s case.•

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Volunteers needed for national competition
 

For the first time in high school mock trial history, Indiana is hosting the national competition. High school students, along with attorneys, teachers and judges from across the country, will come to Indianapolis to test their litigation skills.

The National High School Mock Trial Championship is May 9 through May 11. Marion County is providing 25 of its courtrooms for two rounds of the competition. The championship round will be held in Judge Sarah Evans Barker’s courtroom in the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse.

About 46 mock trial state championship teams are expected to travel to Indiana for the nationals. In addition to arguing and examining witnesses, the students will be treated to some Hoosier fun while they are here. Receptions are planned at the Indiana State Museum and the Eugene and Marilyn Glick Indiana History Center. Students will also be treated to a baseball game at Victory Field watching the Indianapolis Indians take on the Toledo Mud Hens.

Volunteers are still needed for the national competition. Competition organizers want to have 100 volunteers for each of the three rounds to preside over the mock trials, to score the students, and to act as the bailiff. Attorneys, paralegals, judges, and law students interested in donating their time are asked to visit the Indiana Mock Trial homepage at www.inmocktrial.org. Click on the 2013 National button and select the link for “Sign-up for Judging Panel Volunteers and Other Volunteers.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  2. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  3. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  4. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  5. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

ADVERTISEMENT