Source: https://www.nysba.org/CustomTemplates/SecondaryStandard.aspx?id=26576
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:09:41+00:00

Document:
These fact patterns are copyrighted by the Law, Youth & Citizenship Program of the New York State Bar Association. They are available for classroom use.
If the case is to be used for a tournament, please send a written request to kfrancis@nysba.org.
Please be advised that these materials CANNOT be used for any tournaments that charge a fee for participation.
Click here to download the most current version of the Rules of Evidence (dated 2/7/2017).
In this criminal case, Carson Conners, a high school student, was observed by his/her English teacher, Lauren Smith, repeatedly pushing another unidentified student in the hallway. The teacher approached Carson and tried to lead Carson away by the arm; a verbal exchange ensued. A School Resource Officer saw the incident on closed-circuit TV and rushed to the scene. Carson was arrested, taken to the local police precinct and charged with Disorderly Conduct. Due to the arrest, Carson was not able to attend school until after the due process hearing, which caused him/her to miss taking the district-wide assessment tests. Because removal from school is typically the result of an arrest and a criminal prosecution, Carson believes that the teacher, Lauren Smith, precipitated the encounter to get him/her out of the classroom in advance of the assessment test.
Carson and his/her defense team allege that the criminal charge was trumped up so that Carson would not be available to take the assessment test. The defense believes that the school has adopted a “school-to-prison pipeline” policy and practice, which results in “zero-tolerance” for even minor school infractions and in the prosecution of students in the juvenile and the adult criminal justice systems, rather than within the school disciplinary process. The school-to-prison pipeline policy primarily targets at-risk students charged with public order offenses, such as disorderly conduct, harassment, violation of school conduct codes or school-yard fighting, by preferring prosecution over in-school disciplinary measures. The Bigtown Civil Liberties Society alleges that the school cut funding to aid at-risk students, like Carson, and used the money to reimburse the city for the services of the two police officers.
In this civil case, a convenience store was robbed and the store clerk was shot. Witnesses identified the suspect by only the name “Robin.” The Detective who investigated the crime focused on Robin Berkman as the prime suspect. Robin was eventually arrested and charged with the robbery and attempted murder of the store clerk. After a trial by jury, Robin was found guilty and sent to State prison. Robin, who always denied committing the crime, contacted the Actual Innocence Association (AIA) while in prison. The AIA reviewed the case and, convinced that Robin was innocent, asked the District Attorney to reopen Robin’s case. The DA’s office did so and found that another person who was confined to another State prison had confessed to committing the robbery and attempted murder. Robin was exonerated and released from prison. Robin subsequently filed a lawsuit for malicious prosecution against the County and its agents, stating that Detective Smith, who had originally handled the investigation, did not pursue any other suspects and focused solely on Robin as the perpetrator of the crime. Robin is seeking monetary damages for the malicious prosecution.
In this criminal case, Kelly Roberts was observed by the police to be engaging in what appeared to be a drug transaction with a known addict. The police chased Kelly to an apartment building and upon entering the apartment, found an empty pill bottle with a label indicating that it had contained oxycodone. The police suspected that before they arrived, Kelly threw the pills out of the window into the back yard, which is next door to a daycare center. A rainstorm that would destroy the evidence was imminent, so the police retrieved the pills from the yard without a warrant. Kelly was charged with possessing the prescription-only pain medication, oxycodone, without a prescription (Penal Law § 220.06). Defense counsel moved to suppress the evidence (the twenty oxycodone tablets on the ground), stating that the warrantless search was improper. The prosecution will attempt to show that the warrantless search of the defendant’s premises was justified under the Emergency Doctrine to prevent the contraband from harming young daycare children. Alternatively, the People may argue that under the Exigent Circumstances Doctrine, the officers had to move quickly to prevent the destruction of the evidence by the inclement weather.
In this civil case, the Booster Club hosted a Fun Fair to raise money for funding some of the school’s extracurricular activities, which were being eliminated due to budget cuts. Casey Cheatham was assigned the responsibility of collecting the money raised from the ride tickets and games-of-chance at the Fun Fair. Casey Cheatham is accused of stealing from those specific funds in order to pay for expensive purchases and support his/her gambling habit.
In this criminal case, Penn HydraGas and Tomley are accused of polluting the drinking water supply of a small village in upstate New York as a result of the defendants’ “fracking” operation that is located near the village. The company and CEO are charged with violating section 71-4001 of the Environmental Conservation Law, a criminal offense.
In this civil case, the defendant is charged with deceptive business practices for giving misleading statements to the plaintiff during Martin’s tour of the college, which allegedly induced the plaintiff to apply for admission to the University.
In this criminal case, the defendant is charged with Assault in the Second Degree for allegedly striking the victim in the head with a lug wrench, aka tire iron, in the parking lot of a popular dance club.
This civil case involves a high school student bringing suit against the village and board for amending a parking law that the student believes is a violation of their right to due process.
This criminal case involves two lifelong friends and now business associates accused of securities fraud.
This is a libel case involving a news story, written by a high school student journalist, which allegedly defamed the school principal.
This is a civil case of negligence which involves a hit and run accident.
This is a criminal case in which the defendant, a college sophomore, is charged with stalking a fellow student through messages posted in a campus-sponsored internet chat room.
This is a criminal case centered on the prosecution of a defendant for the death of a passenger caused by the allegedly reckless or negligent operation of a motor vehicle by the defendant.
This case is a civil lawsuit brought in New York State Supreme Court under the New York Mock Trial Prudent Investor Act.
This civil case brings suit against a staff member and management of a TV news station under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
In this criminal case, The People have charged the defendant with Assault in the Third Degree under New York Penal Law§ 120.00(1), claiming that the defendant intentionally caused physical injury to the complainant. Assault in the Third Degree is a Class A Misdemeanor. The defendant, who has no prior criminal record, is an eligible youth within the meaning of the Youthful Offender Statute and is proceeding to a single judge trial.
In this civil case, the plaintiffs’ have two separate causes of action against a bank: First Claim: As customers of the bank, the bank had a duty to keep their personal financial information secure – as a result of the bank's staff, agents and employees’ negligence, the plaintiffs' personal financial information was disclosed to unauthorized third parties who ruined their credit, causing them to sustain damages in the amount of $250,000. Second Claim: The plaintiffs’ claim that the bank breached its statutory obligations under § 349 of the General Business Law and 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq., also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or GLB, in that they actively engaged in deceptive and unlawful practices in their banking business, both through their ads and personal representations to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs request an order of specific performance forcing the bank to take corrective measures to correct their credit history, an unspecified amount of damages, attorney fees and court costs.
In this criminal case, the State charges that a company is violating the Environmental Conservation Laws of the State of New York by improperly disposing of waste, and consequently have been indicted under Section 71-2712 and 71-2713 of the Environmental Conservation Law. The defendants maintain their innocence and waived the right to a jury trial, so the case will be heard and decided by a judge.
This criminal case involves a school who is accusing a student of committing three crimes: (1) unauthorized use of a computer, in violation of N.Y.P.L. § 156.05; (2) computer trespass, in violation of N.Y.P.L. § 156.10; and (3) computer tampering in the fourth degree, in violation of N.Y.P.L. § 156.20. The criminal information alleges that the student broke into the school's computer system, downloaded secure data on Internet usage, and then posted writings based on that information on a home website. The school principal further alleges that the student disabled the school's Internet proxy server, preventing it from recording individual usage and deleted existing usage records. The principal claims that these actions created a safety hazard for the district, were motivated by a desire to embarrass the principal and vice-principal, substantially disrupted the educational process and school discipline, and undermined a safe and effective learning environment. The student disputes the factual basis of these charges, arguing that the school district created the problem when it "secretly" installed a "buffer" computer to track all Internet usage, thereby acting in bad faith; that the district improperly failed to protect the reasonable privacy rights of Internet users within the school by not securing the usage data but in fact allowed easy access to it by many people; and that such arrest infringes upon a student's constitutionally protected right to free speech on a home-based website. The student further claims that the only actions taken with regard to school computers were authorized by and that the only changes to the school's computer settings were within the scope of the directives.
In this criminal case, The People charge a parent with a class A misdemeanor, Endangering the Welfare of a Child [N.Y. Penal Law § 260.10 (2)], in that as a parent of a child less than eighteen, the defendant failed or refused to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent the child from becoming a neglected child. The defendant is pleading not guilty.
In this criminal case, three individuals are charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree, a Class A Felony. Based on plea bargains, each trial has been severed from all others. The Defense made a Motion requesting a Hearing to Suppress some specific evidence, which was granted. The Prosecution has the burden to proceed in order to show the propriety of the search while the Defense will attempt to show that the search was improper.
In this civil case, a student is bringing suit against a public school district, alleging violations of rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The plaintiff specifically alleges that the district failed to provide adequate training for its staff and students; failed to take appropriate and adequate actions to protect plaintiff from sexual harassment once notified of the harassment. The school district denies any and all responsibility for the alleged incidents and claims that it enforced and followed its sexual harassment policy. The plaintiff’s parents are seeking damages in the amount of one million dollars; additional money to pay for counseling for the plaintiff; a court order to institute extensive staff and student training in regards to sexual harassment; attorney's fees; and a public apology to be printed in the local newspaper.
In this civil case, the parents, on behalf of their child who was the victim of a motor vehicle accident which resulted in the injury of their child, are suing the parents of the driver for negligence. The suit seeks damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00 for future medical care, the medical injuries sustained, and the pain and suffering of their child.
All materials property of NYSBA.

References: § 220
 § 349
 § 6801
 § 156
 § 156
 § 156
 § 260