1. STATE v. sam soto Nick Hydukovich Collin Tierney
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

2. Case Summary Criminal charge Murder in the third degree
The defendant is accused of giving a scheduled substance (illegal or prescription drug) to another person, who then died as a result of consuming the substance.
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

3. Summary of Facts
The police find a man, Brandon Webster, deceased at his house, the day after a 4th of July party, in 2018.
He died of an apparent opioid overdose, and there are opioids found in his house—oxycodone pills on his coffee table next to his body, and percocet pills found in his bathroom.
The defendant, Sam Soto, hosted the 4th of July party at Soto’s house. Witnesses report seeing Soto providing something to Webster that same night.
Soto is known to have provided drugs to others in the past.
Paraphernalia on the oxycodone bag on the coffee table matches the same items and drugs found in Soto’s home.
Webster left a Facebook message that suggests Soto provided the opioids that Webster used that night before his death.

4. 2019-2020 Case goals Explore important issue in the world
Stay true to legal / scientific realism
…and also:
Balanced fact pattern
Simple legal theory, but complex facts
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

5. Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

6. Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

7. Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

8. Simple Legal Theory
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

9. …But complicated facts
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

12. How your judges see all the expert evidence
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

13. Staying True Dr. Andrew Baker Hennepin County Medical Examiner
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.
Dr. Andrew Baker
Hennepin County Medical Examiner

14. Staying True
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

15. Staying True
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

17. State’s Legal Burden
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

18. State’s Legal Burden
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

19. Woops! we forgot these: PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
The law requires the State to prove the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It does not mean a fanciful or capricious doubt, nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt. You do not have reasonable doubt if your doubts are based upon speculation or irrelevant details.
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
A fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence, or by both. The law does not prefer one form of evidence over the other. A fact is proven by direct evidence when, for example, it is proven by witnesses who testify to what they saw, heard, or experienced, or by physical evidence of the fact itself. A fact is proven by circumstantial evidence when its existence can be reasonably inferred from other facts proven in the case.
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

20. The elements CRIMJIG 11.39 Murder in the Third Degree:
1. Brandon Webster died.
2. Soto “proximately caused” Webster’s death, by “unlawfully giving away” or “bartering” or “delivering” or “exchanging” or “distributing” or “administering” … oxycodone.”
“giving away” or “exchanging” are likely the options the State will go with.
3. Soto’s actions took place on July 4, 2018, in Ramsey County.
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

21. Definitions of Elements
Proximate Cause Definition:
Soto’s actions were a “substantial causal factor” in Webster’s death.
Soto is criminally liable for “all consequences” of Soto’s actions that occur “in the ordinary and natural course of events,” including “intervening causes.”
Plain English: If it’s ordinary for someone to take the oxycodone given to them, then the provider of the opioid that killed Webster is criminally liable.
The State is NOT required to prove Soto intended to cause death.
The State IS required to prove Soto “intended to give away” (or the other options, like barter / exchange) the opioid.
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

22. Simple legal theory To summarize: If: Then:
Soto gave an opioid to Webster; and
it was expected that Webster would consume the opioid; and
the opioid was a substantial factor in Webster’s death…
Then:
Guilty verdict.
Maybe point out the difference between civil and criminal cases.

23. Defense strategy
Only need to show that one element of the claim has not been proven
Spend the most time on the elements that have not been proved
Changed “offense” to “claim” in second main bullet point.
Affirmative defenses: the defendant does not need to meet a burden of proof for these defenses in this case. If the defendant had filed a counterclaim – not only did we not do this, but I’m suing YOU for something – then the defendant would have had its own burdens of proof to meet.

24. Defense Options Two issues are vulnerable to Defense attack: Others?
Did Soto intentionally give Webster the opioid baggie and pills found at Webster’s house?
(The “He stole my drugs!” defense.)
Did the opioid Soto allegedly gave Webster help cause death?
(The “Percocet” defense.)
Others?
We leave it to you!
Changed “offense” to “claim” in second main bullet point.
Affirmative defenses: the defendant does not need to meet a burden of proof for these defenses in this case. If the defendant had filed a counterclaim – not only did we not do this, but I’m suing YOU for something – then the defendant would have had its own burdens of proof to meet.

25. Pretrial issues Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

26. stipulations 1. Drug testing results are admissible
2. Parties agree on what the drugs are.
3. Soderberg gets to quote Quackenbush in Soderberg’s testimony.
4. Parties agree on what Exhibit 5 is and when it was posted and deleted.
5. The Facebook post, Exhibit 5, has two different admissibility options.
6. Parties agree on Oxycodone’s legal status as a Schedule II drug.
7. They tried, but they couldn’t find useable fingerprints on the baggies.
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

27. Pretrial orders Realistic motions Teams get a big advantage:
Motions like these are decided on the eve of criminal trials, often in the week before, or even the first day, of a criminal trial.
Teams get a big advantage:
You get to know the outcome of these motions in limine months before your trial starts.
Educational issues
A surprising amount of Minnesota evidentiary issues are resolved by case law, not just the plain text of the rule.
We provide a taste of that here.
Complicated motion results in the document
This is intentional.
Allows teams to argue back and forth and set themselves apart in skill level of objection arguments and preparation.
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

28. Def Motion to Exclude Photos
Okay, this one isn’t quite so realistic.
Rule 403 would not be interpreted quite so strictly in real life.
Some photos in homicide trials are excluded if they are especially graphic.
Photos in this case would probably be admitted at a real trial in order to help prove cause and manner of death.
Had to keep them out of a mock trial case.
Photos would be too graphic and inappropriate for a school activity.
Defense can’t just criticize the State for failing to introduce photos
Don’t do it—a scoring judge will likely punish your score.
It could be a mistrial for the Defense to argue that the State failed to introduce evidence that the Defense is responsible for excluding.
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

29. (1/2) Def Motion to exclude “Certain Medical Examiner Testimony”
Defense is objecting to things Dr. Kelly Fagin and Morgan Holloway relied on in their expert investigations / reports.
Namely, relying on things other witnesses told them
Ex. Officer Soderberg telling Dr. Fagin what was found inside Webster’s home next to the body and in the bathroom.
Court DENIES this motion.
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

30. (2/2) Def Motion to exclude “Certain Medical Examiner Testimony”
Rule 703 allows experts to rely on OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE evidence, in forming their conclusions.
QUOTE:
“As Rule 703 makes clear, if the facts or data at issue are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject field when forming opinions or making inferences, then such facts or data need not necessarily be admissible in evidence. In other words, if the proper foundation for the testimony is laid, the expert can testify as to the facts or data relied upon in rendering the opinion or in reaching an inference.” …
In this case, both Kelly Fagin and Morgan Holloway reasonably relied on such information as drug and toxicology analysis and police reports. Any information relied upon by Kelly Fagin and Morgan Holloway is admissible during the testimony of that witness, so long as the witness relied upon the information in reaching their opinion.
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

31. State Motion to Admit Spreigl Evidence (1/2)
State wants to have Alex Kirby testify that Defendant has supplied opioids to others on previous occasions.
Motion GRANTED.
How can this be admissible?
Don’t the rules against character evidence prohibit this?!
No.
See: State v. Spreigl, 278 Minn. 488 (1965); and Rule 404(b).
Rule 404(b):
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character of a person in order to show an action conforms to character. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

32. State Motion to Admit Spreigl Evidence (2/2)
From the list of options in 404(b):
the Court believes the Alex Kirby evidence shows proof of perpetrator’s identity, motive, intent, knowledge or lack of mistake / accident.
QUOTE:
“There is a marked similarity between the bad acts described in Alex Kirby’s statement and the crime with which Defendant has been charged. The time, place and modus operandi of the acts are close to each other and, even if not identical, are sufficiently similar. Moreover, the circumstances in this case suggest that Defendant was aware of Victim’s addiction…”
What does this mean during Alex Kirby’s testimony?
State can delve into past drug distribution stories about Soto.
Defense cannot object, as long as the testimony conforms to the parameters of the judicial order.
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

33. Def Motion to Admit “Reverse” Spreigl Evidence
Yep, this is a thing.
Defense wants to talk about WEBSTER’S prior bad acts:
that Webster is what we might call “drug seeking”
that Webster obtained drugs from “various sources and had used opioids in the past.”
What would this prove?
That Webster may have died from opioids he received elsewhere, either legally or possibly illicitly.
Court GRANTS this motion.
State opened the door:
“Where the state has introduced evidence of other crimes to establish identity, the defendant is entitled to rebut the inference that might be drawn therefrom by showing that the crimes have been committed by someone else.”
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

34. Cross Motions over Ex. 5 the Facebook message (1/4)
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

35. Cross Motions over Ex. 5 the Facebook message (2/4)
Parties stipulate to details of message re: dates and time and where it was posted (on Soto’s wall), who could see it, when it was deleted, and which account deleted it.
State wants the whole post in evidence; Defense wants it out as hearsay.
What is “for the truth of matter asserted” under Rule 801?
It means a party is offering a statement to prove that the statement is telling the truth about what it is saying.
Ex. Is the State literally trying to prove that someone is a “chiropractor” in this case? Of course not, so that part is not hearsay.
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

36. Cross Motions over Ex. 5 the Facebook message (3/4)
State argues the blacked out portion is not for the truth:
Rather, they want it in to prove Webster was intoxicated and appreciative to Soto for… something?
Def argues it is being offered to prove the truth of the contents of the statement:
They argue the blacked out portion could only be useful to the State if they are using it to show that Webster is calling Soto out for giving him drugs, the “gift.”
State has a backup argument that the statements come under exception 803(3) State of Mind / Sensation / Condition
“…Which I am happy to report works fantastic…”
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

37. Cross Motions over Ex. 5 the Facebook message (4/4)
Court is admitting the section of Ex 5 that is not blacked out in Ex 5a
State can either:
offer the redacted version of Ex 5a without objection; or
try their luck with the presiding judge and offer the complete Ex 5, and battle it out with opposing counsel to admit the blacked out portion.
Define ‘bifurcate’ here for the students.
NAH – Added “See third element in jury instructions” so students aren’t confused by terminology of “actual malice.”

38. Prosecution Witnesses
Dr. Kelly Fagin
Ramsey County Assistant Medical Examiner
Conducted autopsy of Brandon Webster
Determined cause and manner of death
Opines oxycodone specifically was cause of death, possibly with alcohol.
Pat Soderberg
City of Guthmann police officer
Found Webster’s body at his home
Investigated home, found physical evidence and followed up on leads
Alex Kirby
Friend of Webster’s
Small business owner
At the 4th of July party, and a witness to some things
Past issues with Soto
Added ‘defendant acted’ to last line

39. Prosecution brainstorming
Fagin:
Proves Webster is dead
Cause of death = oxycodone overdose
Manner of death = accident
Didn’t look at acetominophen
Extensive background knowledge
Alcohol could have played a role
Drug overdoses are extremely common – subconscious bias?
The affidavit includes the phrase “disruptor anti-environmentalist,” and a question was raised as to what that meant. Here, it is intended to be a negative statement, the opposite of a hippy-dippy tree hugger.

40. Prosecution, cont. Soderberg: Experienced patrol officer and EMT
Training in narcotics investigations
Pills near Webster – oxycodone
Oxycodone in Soto’s house – similar to bag in Webster’s house
Bags with same numbering system
Alcohol in the house
State and positioning of Webster’s body
Internet activity and deletion
Quackenbush’s statements – reflect on Webster’s prior acts
Percocet bottle in Webster’s cabinet but didn’t test for prints
Webster died in Ramsey County

41. Prosecution, cont. Kirby: Spreigl/404(b) evidence Bags labelled
Past instances of Soto giving pills and past parties
Interactions at party – hesitant at first, but then Soto hands baggie to Webster
Uncertain of contents of baggie
Kirby brought baggies with coffee to the party
Drinking – too drunk to drive home/buzzed
False information conviction
Saw Soto at Webster’s funeral
Does Kirby also use the drugs? Credibility?

42. Defense witnesses Taylor Jennissen Sam Soto (Defendant)
Dr. Morgan Holloway
Medical doctor, expertise in addiction treatment
Disagrees with some opinions of Dr. Fagin
Criticizes methods of analysis and consideration of certain evidence
Taylor Jennissen
Another friend of Webster’s
Also at the 4th of July party
Saw some things as well, like Kirby
Might indicate Webster took some pills without Soto’s approval
Sam Soto (Defendant)
Has some explaining to do
Totally did it
Will probably get away with it
Hired the best lawyers in Minnesota, and arguably the entire country
Added that Diggins worked on college newspaper with Baker

43. Defense brainstorming
Holloway:
Addiction specialist, degree of expertise in opioids
Factors of alcohol and acetaminophen
Fagin didn’t test for acetaminophen
Paid by defense
Past experience with people with drug problems

44. Defense, cont. Jennissen: Soto hesitant to give Webster anything
Knew Webster had a prior drug/alcohol problem
Close to Webster
Saw pills in bathroom after Webster went into bathroom

45. Defense, cont. Soto: History of buying alcohol for minors
Claims to be responsible party hosts – takes away keys
Friend of Webster’s, knows of Webster’s addictions
Pills in numbered baggies – lockbox
Talked to Webster then night of the incident
Webster asked Soto if Soto had oxycodone
Silence on Facebook post deletion
Soto gave oxycodone to Webster in the past, but not since rehab
Pills not in lockbox until after July 4

46. Case Clarifications We always communicate clarifications:
in writing
with a modified case file
Make sure to keep up to date on the updated files.

47. Answers to current open questions
Autopsy date discrepanc
We’ll update this fact
Exhibit 2 and 3, Wayfarer docs foundation
Mild modification of Officer Soderberg coming
Milligram dose measurements for each drug
Weight of the heart discrepancy
Holloway’s affidavit date
Will be pushed back a week
Random gender specifications
Soderberg timing of Facebook activity
Prescriptions allowed by “doctor” or medical professional