The 2021 Mock Trial Criminal Case - Mock Trial Competition - South Carolina Bar
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
High School
Mock Trial Competition
The 2021 Mock Trial
Criminal Case
IN THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF ROSS
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
State of South Carolina )
)
Prosecution, )
) Case No.
v. ) 2019-GS-17-1010
)
CJ Lannister )
)
Defendant. )
)
NOTE: All characters, names, events, places, and circumstances in
this Mock Trial case are fictitious.
1
Defense – Rio Tyrell, M.D.
Medical Expert
A PROJECT OF THE
SOUTH CAROLINA BAR
LAW RELATED EDUCATION (LRE) COMMITTEE
AND THE MOCK TRIAL SUB-COMMITTEE
2021/22 SC BAR PRESIDENT
Mary E. Sharp, Esquire
LRE COMMITTEE CHAIR
The Honorable John M. Rucker
MOCK TRIAL SUB-COMMITTEE CO-CHAIRS
Andrew N. Cole, Esquire
Thomas McRoy Shelley, III, Esquire
CASE CONTRIBUTORS
Donald N. Lanier, LRE Manager – Lead Writer
Cynthia H. Cothran, LRE Director
Marian J. Kirk, LRE Coordinator II
Susan Hackett, Esquire
Elizabeth Leverette, Esquire
Matthew Walker, Esquire
SC BAR LRE DIVISION STAFF
Cynthia H. Cothran, LRE Director
Marian J. Kirk, LRE Coordinator II
Donald N. Lanier, LRE Manager
Mock Trial is made possible with the support of the
South Carolina Bar Foundation’s IOLTA grant and the South Carolina Bar.
-1-
Defense – Rio Tyrell, M.D.
Medical Expert
HIGH SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL PAST STATE CHAMPIONS
1982 – Dreher High 2002 – Berkeley High
1983 – Conway High 2003 – Bob Jones Academy
1984 – Strom Thurmond High 2004 – Bob Jones Academy .............. (National Champions)
1985 – Strom Thurmond High 2005 – Berkeley High
1986 – Myrtle Beach High 2006 – Berkeley High
1987 – Strom Thurmond High 2007 – Fort Mill High
1988 – Socastee High ................ (National Champions) 2008 – Berkeley High
1989 – Berkeley High 2009 – Fort Mill High
1990 – Irmo High 2010 – Bob Jones Academy
1991 – Berkeley High 2011 – North Myrtle Beach High
1992 – Irmo High 2012 – Strom Thurmond High
1993 – Berkeley High 2013 – North Myrtle Beach High
1994 – Middleton High 2014 – North Myrtle Beach High...(Nationals – 1st Runner Up)
1995 – Bob Jones Academy 2015 – Strom Thurmond High
1996 – Socastee High 2016 – Fort Mill High
1997 – Socastee High 2017 – Strom Thurmond High
1998 – Socastee High 2018 – Heathwood Hall Episcopal School
1999 – Socastee High 2019 – Strom Thurmond High
2000 – Berkeley High 2020 – Strom Thurmond High
2001 – Bob Jones Academy 2021 – Bob Jones Academy
2021 State High School Mock Trial Champion / Bob Jones Academy
-1-
-- ii --
Defense – Rio Tyrell, M.D.
Medical Expert
PROFESSIONALISM AND CIVILITY AWARD WINNERS
The Professionalism and Civility Awards were presented to one high school per state and regional competition.
The competing state teams nominated a team that demonstrated the following qualities inside and outside the
courtroom:
• A professional demeanor
• Civility
• Integrity
• Honesty
• Fair play
• Respect for the competition
• Respect for fellow competitors
• Respect for volunteers and all associated
with the program inside and outside the courtroom
throughout the competition
• Respect for courthouse staff and their facilities
HIGH SCHOOL
2017 – Chapin ............................................... (State) 2020 – Dutch Fork .............................. (Regional)
2020 – Heathwood Hall Episcopal ..... (Regional)
2018 – Dorman ........................................ (Regional) 2020 – Kingstree ................................. (Regional)
2018 – Gov. Sch. for Science & Math ..... (Regional) 2020 – May River ................................ (Regional)
2018 – Indian Land .................................. (Regional) 2020 – Wade Hampton....................... (Regional)
2018 – Kingstree...................................... (Regional) 2020 – Carolina Forest ............................. (State)
2018 – Spring Hill..................................... (Regional)
2018 – Wilson ................................................ (State) 2021 – Fort Dorchester ....................... (Regional)
2021 – Lexington ................................ (Regional)
2019 – Charleston Sch. of Arts ............... (Regional) 2021 – W.J. Keenan ........................... (Regional)
2019 – Fort Mill ........................................ (Regional) 2021 – Charleston School of Arts ............. (State)
2019 – Indian Land .................................. (Regional)
2019 – Kingstree...................................... (Regional)
2019 – Socastee ...................................... (Regional)
2019 – Spring Hill..................................... (Regional)
2019 – Ft. Dorchester .................................... (State)
-- iii --
-1-
Defense – Rio Tyrell, M.D.
Medical Expert
INTRODUCTION TO THE
MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION
The Mock Trial program is sponsored by the South Carolina Bar Law Related Education (LRE)
Division. Public schools, private schools, and home-schooled students throughout the state are invited
to participate in this competitive High School Mock Trial program. Each participating school enters a
team ideally composed of 14 – 16+ or more students (with a minimum of at least 6 students) and
requires a teacher coach sponsor. The SC Bar LRE Division assists in locating attorney coaches to
help teams prepare the case and provides the team with the Case Materials, the Competition
Handbook, and other competition materials on the LRE Web site at www.scbar.org/lre.
The Mock Trial competitions are divided into regional competitions with a culminating state
competition. A total of twelve teams advance from the regional competitions to participate in the state
competition using the same case. A state competition takes place if 20 or more teams participate in
the regional competitions.
Teams are officially assigned to a region after the drop date assigned for each level. Once a team is
assigned to a region, the team cannot switch regions without the approval of the State Mock Trial
Coordinator.
High School Mock Trial Competition Schedule
• Regionals - VIRTUAL ........................................ Friday and Saturday, February 25 and 26, 2022
• State – IN PERSON OR VIRTUAL * ...................................................................................
In Person Dates .........................................................................................Friday, March 11 and 12, 2022
Virtual Dates ................................................................ Thursday – Saturday, March 10, 11 and 12, 2022
Only held if 20 or more teams competed in regionals
GOALS
The goals of this program are, first and foremost, to educate students about the basis of our American
judicial system and the mechanics of litigation. The program also serves to build bridges of mutual
cooperation, respect, and support between the community and the legal profession. Through
participation in the Mock Trial program; students increase important skills such as listening,
speaking, writing, reading, and analyzing. All participants are encouraged to keep in mind that the
goal of the Mock Trial program is not to win for the sake of winning, but to learn and understand the
meaning of good citizenship in a democratic republic through participation in our system of law and
justice. All who participate in the Mock Trial program are winners in this sense.
Students – Your participation in Mock Trial will allow you to experience what it is like to prepare
for and present a case before a presiding judge and scoring judges. Working with your team and
coaches, you will learn to evaluate information and to respond quickly. As you prepare, you will
sharpen public speaking and presentation skills. The greatest benefit is the opportunity to learn how
the legal system works. By studying and understanding courtroom procedure, you should become
more comfortable with federal and state laws as part of the legal system. Your interaction with
some of South Carolina’s finest attorneys and judges will give you a glimpse of the different
- 1---
-- iv
interpretations of trial procedure and the different litigation styles of individual members in the
legal arena.
Teacher Coaches, Attorney Coaches, and/or Judges – While preparing for the competitions,
we strongly encourage you to focus on the goal of student participation rather than placing an
emphasis on winning. The contribution of your time and talent make many experiential
educational opportunities available to South Carolina students each year. Your participation is a
key element to the success of this program. You can be proud of the impact you will make on
the lives of these students.
DISCUSSION FORUM
The Mock Trial discussion forum is a place to post questions concerning the content of the Case
Materials, the Competition Rules, and the competitions. The discussion forum is located on the LRE
website.
Discussion Forum Link
The links above take you to a registration page for the discussion forum. It can take up to 48 hours to
gain access to the discussion forum once registered. The discussion forum should be checked often
for postings. Responses to the posted questions could change Competition Rules, the Case Materials,
and/or competition specifics that apply on competition day. The discussion forum closes ten business
days prior to a competition.
HAVE MOCK TRIAL QUESTIONS?
Attorney Coach Needed .................................................................................................... Donald Lanier
Case ................................................................................................................. Ask on Forum Discussion
Competition ...................................................Ask on Forum Discussion or Contact Cynthia H. Cothran
Concerns .................................................................................................................... Cynthia H. Cothran
Downloading Materials ..................................................................................................... Donald Lanier
Forms .................................................................................................................................... Marian Kirk
Forum Registration ............................................................................................................ Donald Lanier
General Questions ..................................................................................................... Cynthia H. Cothran
Purchase Orders .................................................................................................................... Marian Kirk
Registration .......................................................................................................................... Marian Kirk
Training ................................................................................................................................ Marian Kirk
Webinar Registration ......................................................................................................... Donald Lanier
LAW RELATED EDUCATION DIVISION ................................................ (803) 252-5139
Cynthia H. Cothran, LRE Director ........................................................................... ccothran@scbar.org
Marian Kirk, LRE Coordinator II ................................................................................. mkirk@scbar.org
Donald N. Lanier, LRE Manager ................................................................................ dlanier@scbar.org
--- 2v ---
2021/22
Mock Trial Case
-3-
2021/22 High School Mock Trial Case:
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Pleadings .................................................................................................................. 2
Indictment (S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10) .......................................................................... 3
Demand for Jury Trial..................................................................................................... 5
Pre-Trial Order ............................................................................................................... 6
Statement of Case .................................................................................................. 6
Stipulations of the Parties ....................................................................................... 7
SC Criminal Statutes ...................................................................................................... 9
Preliminary Jury Instructions ........................................................................................ 10
Appendix A: Jury Verdict Form ..................................................................................... 15
Witnesses and Affidavits ...................................................................................... 16
Witnesses Listing ......................................................................................................... 17
Prosecution’s Witnesses
Affidavit, Jordan Snow – Sheriff’s Investigator ...................................................... 18
Affidavit, Stanton Reed – Technical Expert ........................................................... 26
Affidavit, Nat Gilly – SLED Investigator ................................................................. 33
Defense’s Witnesses
Affidavit, CJ Lannister – Defendant ...................................................................... 39
Affidavit, Rio Tyrell, M.D. – Medical Expert ........................................................... 45
Affidavit, Drew Bolton – Friend of Defendant ........................................................ 50
Exhibits ................................................................................................................... 55
Exhibits Listing ............................................................................................................. 56
Exhibit 1 ................. 911 Transcript, November 4, 2019 ............................................... 57
Exhibit 2 ................. Incident Report ............................................................................. 58
Exhibit 3 ................. Supplemental Police Report ......................................................... 59
Exhibit 4 ................. Coroner’s Report .......................................................................... 61
Exhibit 5 ................. Daniel Morgan State Park Map .................................................... 62
Exhibit 6 ................. Photo of Ravine............................................................................ 63
Exhibit 7 ................. Technical Report .......................................................................... 64
Exhibit 8 ................. Fitness Tracker Data, November 3, 2019 ..................................... 66
Exhibit 9 ................. Curriculum Vitae of Rio Tyrell, M.D. ............................................ 67
Exhibit 10 ............... Pathology Report on Kevin Frey ................................................... 68
Exhibit 11 ............... Photos of Kevin Frey’s Personal Affects ....................................... 69
Exhibit 12 ............... Kevin Frey’s Infiniti Convertible .................................................... 70
Exhibit 13 ............... Menchies Receipts, November 3, 2019 ........................................ 71
-4-
Defense – Rio Tyrell, M.D.
Medical Expert
INTRODUCTION
For more than seven years, Ross County South Carolina has suffered at the hands
of a careful and methodical arsonist. According to the fire investigators, the Ross
County arsonist meticulously set over 94 fires. The arsonist could have been miles
away or in the crowds to watch the firefighters rush to the scene. Nearly all the fires
were set as slow burns to allow ample time for the arsonist to flee the scene before
being identified. These fires destroyed empty structures, rundown abandoned
homes, fields, and some athletic facilities.
Kevin Frey was an avid runner in Ross County. He was nationally known for his
times in both ultra-marathons and Ironman competitions. Many of his training runs
included extensive trail running in the local state park. On the morning of November
4, 2019, Kevin was found dead at the bottom of a steep grade in the Daniel Morgan
State Park, near another running trail.
Following suspicions that his death was not an accident, an inventory was made of
Frey’s home. Sheriff’s investigators found ample evidence demonstrating Kevin Frey
had been conducting an amateur investigation of the Ross County Arsons. The
results of this amateur investigation provided enough evidence to arrest CJ
Lannister for the fires.
In addition to the arsons, CJ Lannister has been charged with the death of Kevin
Frey. Lannister admitted to the arsons, and pled Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI).
Lannister pled not guilty to the murder of Kevin Frey.
The introduction is background material for informational purposes only.
It is not to be considered part of the case materials.
Note to Coaches:
This case is very similar for middle school and high school this year, but different at
the same time. The difference is that each level has two different witnesses.
If working with both teams, please download each case separately.
-1-PLEADINGS -2-
WITNESSES DOCKET NO. 2019-GS-17-1010
Investigator Jordan Snow The State of South Carolina
County of Ross
COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS
ARREST WARRANT NUMBER
DIRECT INDICTMENT
ACTION OF GRAND JURY
TRUE BILL THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
vs.
Brynn Forsyth
Foreperson of Grand Jury
CJ Lannister
Date: November 15, 2019
VERDICT
INDICTMENT FOR
S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10
Foreperson of Grand Jury
Date:
-3-STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) INDICTMENT
)
COUNTY OF ROSS )
At a Court of General Sessions, convened on November 15, 2019, the Grand Jurors
of Ross County present upon their oath:
MURDER
S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10
That CJ Lannister did, in Ross County, on or about November 3, 2019, commit the
crime of Murder in that the Defendant, CJ Lannister, did with malice aforethought cause the
death of Kevin Frey at the Daniel Morgan State Park in Ross County, South Carolina,
contrary to the laws of the State of South Carolina.
David W. Miller
DAVID W. MILLER, SOLICITOR
-4-STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
)
COUNTY OF ROSS ) COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS
)
)
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ) 2019-GS-17-1010
)
Prosecution, )
vs. )
)
CJ Lannister )
)
Defendant. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
The State of South Carolina filed one indictment against Defendant CJ Lannister. The
indictment was true billed by the Grand Jury on December 16, 2019. Defendant pleads not
guilty.
I, the undersigned, do hereby demand a jury trial in the above matter.
Dated: December 16, 2019
Signed: CJ Lannister
CJ Lannister, Defendant
-5-STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
)
COUNTY OF ROSS ) COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS
)
)
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ) 2019-GS-17-1010
)
Prosecution, )
vs. )
)
CJ LANNISTER )
)
Defendant. ) PRE-TRIAL ORDER
)
Pre-Trial Order
st
On this the 31 day of August 2020, the above-captioned matter came before the
undersigned judge for pretrial conference. The parties, appearing through their counsel,
indicated their agreement to and approval of the terms of this Order and requested that it be
made the Order of this Court. The terms of this Order, accordingly, shall not be altered,
except upon a showing of good cause.
I. Statement of Case
The State of South Carolina charged the Defendant, CJ Lannister, with one count of
Murder in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10, alleging that on November 3, 2019, the
Defendant unlawfully caused the death of 34 year old Kevin Frey, to-wit: the death occurred
when the Defendant allegedly struck Frey with a blunt object, and then dropped his body
down a steep incline within the confines of Daniel Morgan State Park. Such being contrary
to the laws of the State of South Carolina, and the good order, peace and dignity thereof.
Upon arraignment, CJ Lannister pled not guilty to the charge of murder.
II. Pretrial Rulings
Because the parties have stipulated to the cause of the victim’s death, the judge
sustained the Defendant's objection to showing photos of the victim's body and injuries on
the grounds that those photos would be unnecessarily cumulative of Sheriff Investigator
Jordan Snow’s testimony and that, as a result, those photos would be substantially more
prejudicial than probative.
-6-III. Stipulations of the Parties
The parties have entered into the following stipulations, which shall not be
contradicted or challenged:
1. The signatures on the witness statements are authentic and signed under oath by
each witness.
2. The jury charges are accurate in all respects. No objections to jury charges may be
raised.
3. The indictment is valid. The Defendant may not challenge the indictment as deficient.
4. All exhibits listed are authentic and accurate in all respects, and no objections to the
authenticity of the exhibits shall be entertained.
5. The chain of custody for evidence is not in dispute.
6. Runner Monica Bens, who called 911 after seeing Frey at the bottom of the ravine,
has nothing further to offer and is unavailable as a witness.
7. The only witnesses that can be tendered as experts after proper foundation has been
laid are Stanton Reed and Dr. Rio Tyrell.
8. Witnesses Logan Stark and Amari Sands are middle school witnesses only.
References made by them in other affidavits are not in question.
9. Witnesses Nat Gilly and Drew Bolton are high school witnesses only. References
made by them in other affidavits are not in question.
10. Daylight savings time started on Sunday, November 3, 2019, and sunset was at
17:25 hours.
11. The text/call log from Kevin Frey’s phone is not an exhibit. Both parties agree that
the call/text log is not in dispute.
12. The fitness tracker data specific to the date of November 3, 2019, is the data being
reviewed for the purposes of this case and not any other dates recorded on the
fitness tracker.
13. The DNA found on Kevin Frey’s body is a match to CJ Lannister, and the DNA match
may not be objected to.
14. The weather conditions for the days surrounding the death of Kevin Frey are not in
dispute.
15. The map of the fires on record with the Ross County Sheriff’s Department is not
needed for this case and is not in dispute. The dates are also not in dispute.
-7-16. All searches of property and persons were done with lawful authority and within the
bounds of the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional validity of any search of any
property or person may not be challenged or called into question during the trial of
this case. The chain of custody of evidence collected during the investigation is not in
dispute.
17. The Defendant, CJ Lannister, was properly advised of Miranda rights upon arrest.
Miranda warnings were not legally required prior to any other interview of CJ
Lannister or any other witness. The validity of any interview based on Miranda may
not be challenged or called into question during the trial of the case.
18. The testimony of the park ranger, Randy Cummings, and the coroner, Chandler
Davis, concur with and are cumulative of testimony from Investigator Snow and are,
therefore, unnecessary. The failure of a party to call a witness other than those listed
in the Case Materials may not be raised or challenged.
19. Exhibit #5 (Daniel Morgan State Park Map), is a fair and accurate representation of
the park. All witnesses personally familiar with the park agree that the drawing is fair
and accurate.
20. The marks made on Exhibit #5 (Daniel Morgan State Park Map), include the “X”
made by Investigator Snow and the “A” and “B” made by Stanton Reed.
21. The parties stipulate Exhibit #1 (911 Report, November 4, 2019) is an accurate
transcription of the recorded 911 activity related to this case.
22. For purposes of Mock Trial, some pictures were combined into a single exhibit. A
witness may identify and acknowledge a picture within an exhibit without
acknowledging all components of the exhibit.
23. Exhibit #12 is an Infiniti Convertible. Witnesses will testify that Frey’s vehicle looks
like the one pictured in Exhibit #12, which is not in dispute.
24. For purposes of using a similar case for Middle and High School Mock Trial, the trial
year is 2021.
25. Frey is pronounced: F-rāy
26. Tyrell is pronounced: Ter-rell
-8-SOUTH CAROLINA
CRIMINAL STATUTES
S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10. "Murder" defined.
"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.
-9-STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
)
COUNTY OF ROSS ) COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS
)
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ) 2019-GS-17-1010
)
Prosecution, )
vs. )
)
CJ LANNISTER )
)
Defendant. )
)
Preliminary Jury Instructions
Note:
Jury instructions are NOT to be read to the jury on the
day of the Mock Trial Competition.
The Court hereby approves the following preliminary jury instructions in the above captioned
case. It notes the presentation of evidence at trial may warrant additional instruction, and it will
consider those instructions at a later date.
A. The Jury: Finders of the Facts
Under our Constitution and Code of Laws, only you – the jury – can make the findings of fact
in this case. I am not permitted to tell you how I feel about the evidence which has been
presented. And, throughout this trial, I have intended to be fair and impartial toward each of
the parties involved.
To determine the facts in this case, you will have to evaluate the credibility – or believability
of witnesses. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and, in passing
upon their credibility, you may take into consideration many things, such as:
(1) How would you describe the appearance and manner of the witness on the stand,
sometimes referred to as the demeanor of the witness?
(2) Was the witness forthright or hesitant?
(3) Was the witness's testimony consistent, or did it contain discrepancies?
(4) What was the ability of the witness to know the facts about which he or she testified?
(5) Did the witness have a cause or a reason to be biased and prejudiced in favor of the
testimony he or she gave?
(6) Was the testimony of the witness corroborated or made stronger by other testimony
and evidence, or was it made weaker or impeached by such other testimony and
evidence?
- 10 -You can believe as much or as little of each witness's testimony as you think proper. You
may believe the testimony of a single witness against that of many witnesses – or just the
opposite.
Of course, you do not determine the truth merely by counting the number of witnesses
presented by each side. Throughout this process you have but one objective – to seek the
truth, regardless of its source.
B. Circumstantial Evidence
There are two types of evidence generally presented during a trial – direct evidence and
circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of a person who asserts or claims
to have actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is proof
of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of a fact in issue. The law
makes absolutely no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or
circumstantial evidence. Nor is a greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial
evidence than of direct evidence.
You should weigh all the evidence in the case in arriving at a verdict.
C. The Judge: Instructor of the Law
The same Constitution and laws that designate and make you the finders of the facts also
make me the instructor of the law. You must accept the law as I give it to you. If I am wrong,
there is another place and time for that error to be corrected. But for now, you must accept
the law as I give it to you – and I caution you that it does not mean what you think the law
should be, but what I tell you it is.
D. Instruction:
You have been selected and sworn as the jury to try this case of the State of South Carolina
against the Defendant, CJ Lannister. The Defendant is charged with Murder in violation of
S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10. The Indictment in this case is the formal method of accusing the
Defendant of the crime. The Indictment is not evidence and you should not allow yourselves
to be influenced against the Defendant by reason of the filing of the Indictment. The
Defendant has pled not guilty to the charge. A plea of not guilty puts at issue each element
of the crime with which the Defendant is charged. A plea of not guilty requires the State to
prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant is presumed
innocent of the crime and this presumption continues unless and until, after consideration of
all the evidence, you are convinced of the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The
Defendant must be found not guilty unless the State produces evidence that convinces you
beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of each element of the crime. It is your
responsibility as jurors to determine the facts from the evidence, to follow the law as stated
in the instructions from the presiding judge, and to reach a verdict of not guilty or guilty
based upon the evidence.
We will now have opening statements of the counsel. Statements and arguments of counsel
are not evidence. The purpose of opening statements and closing arguments is to assist
you, the jury, in making a decision in this case; however, that decision must be based upon
the evidence in this case, which consists of the testimony delivered under oath in this trial,
any documents or other items introduced into evidence during this trial, and the stipulations
of the parties.
E. Closing Instructions:
(1) Introduction:
Now that all the evidence has been presented, it is my duty under the law to give you the
instructions that apply in this case. The instructions contain all rules of the law that are to be
- 11 -applied by you and all the rules by which you are to weigh the evidence and determine the
facts at issue in deciding this case and reaching a verdict. You must consider the
instructions as a whole. All the testimony and evidence that is proper for you to consider has
been introduced in this case. You should not consider any matter of fact or of law except
that which has been given to you during the trial of this case.
It is your responsibility as jurors to determine the facts from the evidence, to follow the rules
of law as stated in these instructions, and to reach a fair and impartial verdict of guilty or not
guilty based upon the evidence, as you have sworn you would do. You must not use any
method of chance in arriving at a verdict but must base your verdict on the judgment of each
juror.
(2) Elements of the Charge:
In this matter, the Defendant has been charged with:
(a) Murder, under S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10.
To this charge, the Defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. I will now define the elements
of the charge.
Murder – S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10:
The Defendant is charged with Murder. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the Defendant killed another person with malice aforethought.
Malice is hatred, ill-will, or hostility towards another person. It is the intentional doing of a
wrongful act without just cause or excuse and with an intent to inflict an injury or under
circumstances such that the law will infer an evil intent.
Malice aforethought does not require that the malice exists for any particular time before the
act is committed, but malice must exist in the mind of the Defendant just before and at the
time of the act is committed. Therefore, there must be a combination of the previous evil
intent and the act.
Malice aforethought may be express or inferred. These terms, “express” and “inferred” do
not mean different kinds of malice but merely the manner in which malice may be shown to
exist. That is, either by direct evidence or by inference from the facts and circumstances that
are proved. Express malice is shown when a person speaks words that express hatred or ill
will for another or when the person prepared beforehand to do the act that was later
accomplished; for example, lying in wait for a person or any other acts of preparation
showing that the deed was in the Defendant’s mind express malice.
Malice may be inferred from conduct showing a total disregard for human life.
In this case, the State has alleged that the murder involved the intentional killing of Kevin
Frey. Therefore, in order to prove the Defendant guilty of Murder, the State must prove the
following:
The Defendant took the life of Kevin Frey with malice aforethought.
If, after considering all of the evidence, you conclude that the State has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime of murder in violation of S.C.
Code Ann. § 16-3-10, you must return a verdict of guilty as to this charge on the jury verdict
form. If, on the other hand, you conclude that the State has failed to meet its burden of
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime of murder in
violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10, you must return a verdict of not guilty as to this
charge on the jury verdict form.
- 12 -(3) Presumption of Innocence and Reasonable Doubt:
The Defendant is presumed innocent, and the presumption continues unless, after
consideration of all the evidence, you are convinced of the Defendant’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. The State has the burden of presenting the evidence that establishes the
Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant must be found not guilty
unless the State produces evidence which convinces you, beyond a reasonable doubt, of
each and every element of the crime alleged.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is defined as “proof of such a convincing character that you
would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own
affairs.”
(4) Evidence – Definition:
Evidence is the testimony received from the witnesses under oath, stipulations made by the
parties, and the exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial.
(5) Evidence – Inferences:
You should consider only the evidence introduced while the court is in session. You are
permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel
are justified when considered with the aid of the knowledge that you each possess in
common with other persons. You may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason,
and common sense lead you to draw from the facts that you find to have been established
by the evidence in this case.
(6) Indictments Not Evidence:
Again, the Indictment in this case is the formal method of accusing the Defendant of a
crime. The Indictment is not evidence of guilt. You should not allow yourselves to be
influenced against the Defendant by reason of the filing of the Indictment.
(7) Judicial Rulings:
The Court has made rulings in the conduct of the trial and the admission of evidence. These
rulings should have no bearing on the weight or credit to be given any evidence or testimony
admitted during the trial, nor should they be considered by you in any manner to indicate the
conclusions to be reached by you in this case.
(8) Objections:
From time to time during this trial, the attorneys have made objections that I have ruled on.
You should not speculate upon the reasons why objections were made. If I approved or
sustained an objection, you should not speculate on what might have been said or what
might have occurred had the objection not been sustained by me.
(9) Credibility of Witnesses:
It is your responsibility to determine the credibility of each witness and the weight to be given
the testimony of each witness. In determining such weight or credibility, you may properly
consider: the interest, if any, that the witness may have in the result of the trial; the relation
of the witness to the parties; the bias or prejudice of the witness, if any has been apparent;
the candor, fairness, intelligence, and demeanor of the witness; the ability of the witness to
remember and relate past occurrences; and, the means of observation and the opportunity
of knowing the matters about which the witness has testified. From all the facts and
circumstances appearing in evidence and coming to your observation during the trial, aided
by the knowledge that you each possess in common with other persons, you will reach your
conclusions. You should not let sympathy, sentiment, or prejudice enter into your
deliberations, but should discharge your duties as jurors impartially, conscientiously, and
faithfully under your oaths and return a verdict as the evidence warrants when measured by
these instructions.
- 13 -(10) Punishment:
You are only concerned with the guilt or innocence of the Defendant. You are not to concern
yourselves with punishment.
F. Verdict Instructions:
After you have retired to consider your verdict, a member of the jury is selected as your
foreperson and then you begin your deliberations. The foreperson is to maintain orderly
deliberations but should have no greater influence on the deliberations than any other
member of the jury. Your verdict must be unanimous. When you have agreed on a verdict,
your foreperson will sign the verdict form, and you will, as a body, return the verdict form in
open court.
G. Verdict Form:
The verdict form approved by the Court is attached hereto.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this day of this round of the Mock Trial competition.
/s/ Presiding Judge
The Honorable Presiding Judge
- 14 -STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
)
COUNTY OF ROSS ) COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS
)
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ) 2019-GS-17-1010
)
Prosecution, )
vs. )
)
CJ LANNISTER )
)
Defendant. )
)
Appendix A
JURY VERDICT FORM
We, the jury, empaneled and sworn in the above-entitled cause, do, upon our oaths, find as
follows:
As to COUNT 1 – MURDER (S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10)
Defendant is:
Guilty
Not Guilty
Foreperson
- 15 -WITNESSES and AFFIDAVITS - 16 -
Prosecution - Jordan Snow
Sheriff’s Investigator
WITNESS LISTING
(High School)
PROSECUTION
Jordan Snow Sheriff’s Investigator
Stanton Reed Technical Expert
Nat Gilly SLED Investigator
DEFENSE
CJ Lannister Defendant
Rio Tyrell, M.D. Medical Expert
Drew Bolton Friend of Defendant
- 17 -Prosecution - Jordan Snow
Sheriff’s Investigator
Affidavit of
Investigator Jordan Snow
1 1. My name is Jordan Snow. I am an investigator with the Ross
2 County Sheriff’s Department. I am the primary investigator on the Kevin Frey
3 murder case. And, for the last seven years, I have been the primary investigator
4 on a series of arson cases known as the Ross County Arsons. I have more to
5 say on the arsons later.
6 2. I am 55 years old. I am single and live with my corgi. I grew up in
7 Fountain Inn, South Carolina. After graduating high school in 1984, I joined the
8 U.S. Marine Corps. I served 23 years in the Corps as a Military Police Officer at
9 several bases located in South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, California, and
10 Hawaii. During my time as a Marine, I saw every aspect of military policing. I
11 deployed to the Middle East four times in support of the War on Terror. Along the
12 way, I earned my Bachelor of Science degree online while in the military from the
13 University of Central Florida. After finishing my college degree and serving my
14 country for 23 years, it was time for a change. In the U.S. Military, service
15 members can retire with full benefits at 20 years of service, so I had well
16 exceeded my time. I retired in 2007, as an E-8 Master Sergeant to collect
17 retirement and start a second career.
18 3. Upon retirement, I wanted to move back to South Carolina. I had
19 seen and traveled the world, and it was time to be back home. The Ross County
20 Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) was the first agency back home with an opening. I
21 took a job here in Dodson and never looked back. I had a leg up starting out with
22 the Sheriff’s Department and did not have to be shown how to do things like
23 many other raw recruits. However, as a new recruit, I was required to take
24 training at the S.C. Criminal Justice Academy (SCCJA), which was a breeze. I
25 will admit it took some time to adapt from the Uniform Code of Military Justice to
26 the civilian world, particularly the concept of Miranda. In the military world, if a
27 soldier, sailor, airman, or marine was accused of a crime, I could begin
28 questioning right there on the spot. Furthermore, they did not have the ability to
- 18 -Prosecution - Jordan Snow
Sheriff’s Investigator
29 refuse questioning. In the civilian world; however, if someone is suspected of a
30 crime, the individual is taken into custody with the U.S. Supreme Court decision
31 of Miranda v Arizona applying. This is what most people commonly know as
32 “Miranda” rights, which is the warning police give after arresting someone but
33 before questioning about a crime. Everyone has heard it before – the whole “You
34 have the right to remain silent” routine.
35 4. I quickly moved through the ranks at the Sheriff’s Department. I
36 served as a deputy in the detention center, a road deputy, a School Resource
37 Officer (SRO), a shift supervisor, and was promoted to investigations where I am
38 an investigator today. I attended several specific skills trainings through the
39 SCCJA to include Specific Skills, SRO School, Basic Instructor Development,
40 Homicide Investigations, and Arson Investigator School to name a few.
41 5. I have been involved in RCSD investigations for over ten years.
42 Since Ross County is a smaller jurisdiction, there are only three investigators for
43 the entire department. We spend a good deal of time working in rotation, and all
44 three of us are well trained in multiple types of investigation work. Therefore, I
45 was the investigator on call when the original arsonist case came in more than
46 seven years ago and it has been hanging over my head ever since. At the time;
47 however, I did not know it was going to become the huge Ross County Arsons
48 case it is today. The arsons case evolved into a pattern of fires and took place in
49 unoccupied locations, all with the same ignition point where the fire started,
50 though the type of accelerant changed over time. I have responded to multiple
51 types of fires to include woods, fields, small structures, abandoned buildings, and
52 vehicles – all tied to the Ross County Arsonist. Catching the arsonist has been
53 high on my list of priorities for a while.
54 6. On the afternoon of Sunday, November 3, 2019, I received a
55 voicemail from Kevin Frey. Frey’s very brief voicemail was timestamped at 16:50
56 hours. He asked for a time to meet with me the following day. I called Frey back
57 and got his voicemail. I left him a message stating I could meet him on Monday. I
58 have known Frey for many years. Everyone knew Frey. He was constantly
- 19 -Prosecution - Jordan Snow
Sheriff’s Investigator
59 running through town and he volunteered as a track coach at the schools. I also
60 knew Frey from his impressive Ironman and ultramarathon wins and he was
61 forever turning up on a fire scene. Because of seeing him at so many fire scenes,
62 I wanted him questioned in connection with the Ross County Arsons. Since I
63 work with SLED agent Nat Gilly on the arsons, I had Gilly vet Frey several years
64 ago. Gilly determined Frey was an amateur investigator and was not the arsonist.
65 Once Frey was cleared from suspicion, it was not odd for Frey to call me from
66 time to time about the arsons. Frey always thought he was one fire away from
67 catching the arsonist.
68 7. I did see Frey the next day, but I did not have the opportunity to find
69 out what he wanted to speak with me about, because he was dead at the bottom
70 of a ravine. I went on shift at 07:30 hours on November 4, 2019. I was dispatched
71 at 08:27 hours about a male down inside Daniel Morgan State Park. A runner on
72 the trail earlier in the morning saw Frey’s body and called 911. The 911 Report
73 transcript is marked as Exhibit #1. I made my way to the park, and arrived at the
74 park entrance at 08:31 hours. I parked my patrol car at the park ranger’s office
75 and rode with park ranger, Randy Cummings, in an off-road vehicle to the
76 incident location arriving at 08:41 hours. Cummings had already taken the
77 Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) prior to my arrival to the scene. It was
78 clear the EMTs’ talents were wasted since Frey was dead. I briefly interviewed
79 the runner, Monica Bens, who called 911. She had nothing of investigative value
80 other than noticing the body at the bottom of the ravine as she was running the
81 Waterfall Trail. She did not see any runners on the trail, or in the parking area
82 where runners warm up and cool off from their runs. I noted this in my Incident
83 Report, marked as Exhibit #2.
84 8. Initially, it appeared as if Frey took a bad tumble down the mountain
85 from the Morgan Loop Trail, which is favored by many hardcore runners in the
86 area. Something did not look right to me as I assessed the situation, but there
87 was not enough information to suspect foul play. I could not imagine Frey falling
88 given his running experience. Additionally, I had no idea how long the body had
- 20 -Prosecution - Jordan Snow
Sheriff’s Investigator
89 been there, so there was no way to know how contaminated the scene or
90 anything relating to it might be. The EMTs carefully covered the body, and I
91 inspected the surroundings in the immediate area by Frey’s body while waiting
92 for the coroner to arrive. When the coroner, Chandler Davis, arrived, I asked
93 Randy Cummings to close down the park for the day. I asked Davis to take a
94 very close look at Frey because it was important to be thorough. Frey clearly had
95 a broken left femur, as well as many visible cuts, punctures, and scrapes. There
96 was a large gash on his face from the right side above the right eye all the way
97 back towards his ear. The gash did not have a great deal of blood around it. I
98 was surprised because head wounds tend to bleed a lot. Before Davis removed
99 Frey’s body, I made an “X” at GPS coordinates N32, W82 to show where Frey’s
100 body was located on the park map Cummings gave to me. The map and the
101 marked location of the body are noted on Exhibit #5. I took a picture of the ravine
102 where Frey’s body was found and removed, which is marked as Exhibit #6.
103 9. Davis’ coroner’s report, dated November 4, 2019 – the same day
104 Frey was found, revealed Frey died before he ever tumbled down into the ravine.
105 The head wound I noted as not very bloody was clearly post mortem (after
106 death), as were virtually all of his injuries. The actual cause of death was blunt
107 force trauma and is listed undetermined because Davis could not determine if the
108 trauma was accidental or intentional. The time of death was noted as 17:45
109 hours on November 3, 2019, which means Frey’s body was out in the cold
110 overnight. A coroner’s time estimation is usually accurate plus or minus two
111 hours. Davis also found trace amounts of skin cells on both of Frey’s hands that
112 did not belong to Frey, which was enough of a reason to conduct a DNA test. We
113 needed to run the DNA results in our RCSD system to see if we could find a
114 match with any prior arrests. A copy of Davis’ coroner’s report is marked as
115 Exhibit #4. As part of a coroner’s on scene procedures, inventory was taken of
116 Frey’s clothing and belongings. Davis confirmed in the report transferring chain of
117 custody of Kevin’s fitness tracker, key fob, and cell phone found on his person,
118 which I photographed separate from the body and are marked as Exhibit #11. Of
- 21 -Prosecution - Jordan Snow
Sheriff’s Investigator
119 course, by the time Kevin was found, the cell phone and fitness tracker batteries
120 were dead. And as part of my investigative procedures, I impounded Frey’s car,
121 which looks like the one pictured in Exhibit #12.
122 10. Back at the Sheriff’s Department, I immediately found chargers for
123 the devices. Once both devices were plugged in, I was able to turn them on after
124 a brief charge. The fitness tracker did not need a password, but the cell phone
125 did. The fitness tracker was connected to Kevin’s cell phone. Seeing the
126 connection, I contacted Stanton Reed from Reed Tech Research, Inc. to conduct
127 an investigation of the devices. Reed promptly came out and retrieved the
128 devices on November 4th. Reed will testify as to the technical side of things
129 reported in the technical report dated November 5, 2019, which was turned over
130 to me the same day and is marked as Exhibit #7. Reed gave me the fitness
131 tracker data, marked as Exhibit #8. The report included Frey’s movements via
132 GPS, along with his heart rate and other information such as elevation, time,
133 location, and distance. The information presented was alarming.
134 11. Upon receiving Davis’ and Reed’s reports on November 5th, the
135 investigation moved from an accidental death to homicide. I went back to the
136 park on the afternoon of November 5, and looked at the Morgan Loop Trail, at
137 the GPS coordinates identified in the fitness tracker data to see if any evidence
138 remained at either location since the park re-opened that morning. Finding none
139 since it had rained the night before as predicted, I obtained a warrant to search
140 Frey’s home located at 162 Nichols Road here in Dodson. I received the next
141 shock and twist in this case at Frey’s home.
142 12. Kevin Frey’s guest bedroom was set up as a home office. Normally
143 a home office space is no big deal, but not this time. The entire rear wall was
144 nothing but news articles, notations, maps, pictures, post-it notes, and various
145 arson sites all linked to the Ross County Arsonist. I knew he was an amateur
146 arson investigator, but to be honest, the amount of information gathered
147 exceeded my own investigation. But then again, I have anywhere from 30 to 55
148 open cases at any given time outside of the Ross County Arsons and Frey was
- 22 -Prosecution - Jordan Snow
Sheriff’s Investigator
149 only working the arsons. At a quick glance, it was easy to see the information
150 was well organized and systematic. And, Frey’s research pointed to CJ Lannister
151 as the Ross County Arsonist we had been searching for all these years. It was
152 then when I realized why the detailed fitness tracker logs had Frey at more than
153 60 of the 94 arson cases in the immediate aftermath. I knew he was showing up
154 at the scenes, but not that many. Knowing where Frey had been only confirmed
155 that his research wall on the arsons was accurate because he was there. Of
156 course, the fitness tracker data related to the arsons is not for this case as we
157 are only discussing the data on the date of Frey’s death. The surprise of the wall
158 was the amount of detail and CJ Lannister’s connection to the arsons. If Frey
159 was right, CJ Lannister was our arsonist.
160 13. Based upon the information contained within Frey’s research wall
161 matching some of my own investigation, I contacted SLED Investigator, Nat Gilly.
162 I asked Gilly to join me immediately at Frey’s home and reviewed the research
163 wall together. Ultimately, we decided this was more than enough information to
164 complete an arrest warrant for CJ Lannister on 94 counts of arson.
165 14. We wanted Lannister’s arrest to go as smoothly as possible.
166 Lannister was invited to RCSD on November 7th, under the guise of providing
167 information to help with Frey’s death. After all, Lannister was a runner and had to
168 have known Frey. Upon Lannister’s arrival, the Miranda rights were read to
169 Lannister. After our questioning, Lannister admitted to being the Ross County
170 Arsonist, so Lannister was arrested for the Ross County Arsons. Upon arrest,
171 Lannister consented to giving a DNA sample. I asked Lannister for an alibi for
172 November 3rd. Lannister admitted to running on the Waterfall Trail with Logan
173 Stark. After their run, Lannister decided to run again, but did the backside of the
174 Morgan Loop Trail. Lannister did see Frey briefly on the trail, they had a brief
175 conversation, and high fived. Although Lannister admitted seeing Frey
176 somewhere near mile four, Lannister repeatedly denied involvement in Frey’s
177 death stating he was alive and well when Lannister last saw him. I suggested to
178 Lannister that Kevin’s fall was not accidental, but intentional. And, that Frey could
- 23 -Prosecution - Jordan Snow
Sheriff’s Investigator
179 have been killed and pushed over the mountain. Lannister confirmed personal
180 weight and height, justifying Lannister’s inability to overcome Frey. Lannister
181 repeatedly mentioned having an alibi on November 3rd with friends, Logan Stark
182 and Drew Bolton. Lannister and Stark were on a run at the park and then
183 Lannister joined Bolton for dinner at 18:00 hours. Lannister was able to provide a
184 receipt from dinner on November 3rd, at a restaurant called Menchies, which is
185 one on of the receipts marked as Exhibit #13.
186 15. Once Lannister was in custody and the news was out that RCSD
187 found the Ross County Arsonist, I received a call from Logan Stark. What great
188 timing, since I was going to call Stark to confirm Lannister’s alibi. I interviewed
189 Logan Stark on November 8, 2019. Stark came in for two reasons. First, since
190 Lannister had been arrested for the arsons, Stark was making a possible
191 connection to some arsons back in Columbia during college. And second, as
192 Lannister’s friend, Stark offered additional information and context about
193 Lannister’s ties with Frey. I learned that Lannister was in the same running club
194 “Feet First SC” as Stark and Frey, and that Stark and Lannister were on the trail
195 the night in question. I was also informed about a confrontation between Frey
196 and Lannister at a running meet witnessed by Stark months earlier. My notes
197 from the interview are included in the Supplemental Incident Report, marked as
198 Exhibit #3.
199 16. To validate the rest of Lannister’s alibi, I interviewed Drew Bolton
200 on November 8, 2019. Bolton corroborated eating with Lannister. Bolton
201 described the details of the evening, which were added to my supplemental
202 incident report. And, other than them eating together at 18:45 hours, I cannot say
203 Bolton’s interview did Lannister any favors. My notes from Bolton’s interview are
204 included in the Supplemental Incident Report, marked as Exhibit #3. A copy of
205 Bolton’s receipt from the dinner at Menchies was added to what is marked as
206 Exhibit #13.
207 17. Once I connected Lannister to Frey’s death, it was no surprise
208 when the DNA found on Frey came back as matching CJ Lannister on November
- 24 -Prosecution - Jordan Snow
Sheriff’s Investigator
209 9th when we ran it through our RCSD system. Almost as bad as the DNA found
210 on Frey’s body, I was in looking at the totality of the circumstances. I met with the
211 solicitor’s office and they convened a grand jury to indict Lannister for the murder
212 of Kevin Frey. The arson charges were separate and apart from the murder
213 charge, although they are clearly linked through me as the investigator.
214 18. With the arrest of CJ Lannister for the Ross County Arson cases, I
215 closed the arson files. I heard Lannister had already entered a plea of Guilty But
216 Mentally Ill (GBMI) on the arson charges, and the judge accepted the plea. I think
217 it was a bad idea to accept the GBMI plea for the arsons. I suppose a plea of
218 guilty is one way to wrap up the arsons neatly, but the murder of Kevin Frey is a
219 different beast. Lannister had to know right from wrong in order to determine Frey
220 had to be killed to continue covering up the arsons, which is plenty proof to me
221 that CJ Lannister is sane and should be tried for the murder of Kevin Frey.
WITNESS ADDENDUM
I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add at this time. The material
facts are true and correct.
Signed,
Jordan Snow
Jordan Snow, Investigator
SIGNED AND SWORN to me before 8:00 a.m. on the day of this round of the 21/22 South
Carolina Mock Trial Competition.
C.M. McCormack
C.M. McCormack, Notary Public
State of South Carolina
My Commission Expires: 07/25/26
- 25 -You can also read
