The Mock Trial Script

And Script
Verdict Form
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF VALENZUELA,
VALENZUELA CITY PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff vs. CRIMINAL INDICTMENT

No.: 778

Rafael Sanchez and Edna Roldan

Defendants:

INTRODUCTION

There are two types of legal proceedings that make up the justice system in the
Philippines .One involves CRIMINAL CASES in which the State is the PLAINTIFF and in
which the DEFENDANT is a person charged with having committed a CRIME. The other type
of case is what is known as a CIVIL CASE in which private persons, corporations, other legal
entities or even government agencies can be either the PLAINTIFF or the DEFENDANT and
which is a legal proceeding to resolve private disputes among the parties. Criminal cases always
involve allegations of crime. Civil cases involve private disputes such as claims that someone
breached a “CONTRACT,” or committed a “TORT” which is a claim against a person,
company, or someone else for injury to the plaintiff’s person or property. The case we are here
today on is a CRIMINAL CASE, in which the State has accused both Rafael Sanchez and Edna
Roldan of two (2) Counts, with Count I being the unlawful possession, sale, or distribution of
prescription drugs; and Count II, involuntary manslaughter.

BAILIFF: All rise. This Court is now in session.

JUDGE: Please be seated. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is a criminal case alleging that
on May 10th, 2016, defendants Rafael Sanchez and Edna Roldan Illegally possessed, sold or
distributed a controlled substance, Ritalin, that is a central nervous system stimulant known as an
amphetamine; and that
they are also guilty of involuntary manslaughter as a result of giving some
of the medication to a friend who was then involved in an automobile
accident that caused her death. You will be instructed on the law at the
end of this case. You need to know from the outset, however, that it is up
to the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that each defendant is
guilty as charged in the INDICTMENT, based solely on the evidence you
will hear in this case, and not based on any preconceived notions of guilt
or innocence of the parties, or anything you may have read in the past
about Rafael Sanchez and Edna Roldan

JUDGE: The first part of the trial is what is called VOIR DIRE. Voir Dire means
“to speak the truth,” and it is the time of the trial when I must determine
whether or not each and every juror is free of prejudice and can render a
fair and impartial VERDICT based solely upon the evidence that they
hear in the case, not what they have heard or read in the media, or saw on
television, or may have heard by hearsay or gossip. Therefore, I first want
to know if any jurors have heard anything in the past, or read anything
about either Rafael Sanchez and Edna Roldan or this case?

JURORS: No, Judge. (If yes, raise your hand and tell the Judge what you
know.)

JUDGE: Is each and every juror here willing to take an oath, the highest form of
promise that a citizen can give, that they will render an impartial verdict
based solely on the evidence?

JURORS: Yes, Judge.

JUDGE: All right then, let me explain to the jury the different parts of a trial.
Because the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it is up to
the state to proceed first, so you will first hear the OPENING
STATEMENT of the State’s ATTORNEY; and then you will hear the
OPENING STATEMENT of the attorneys for Rafael Sanchez and Edna Roldan
After Opening Statements, you will then hear the state’s WITNESSES
and after that, either or both defendants may call any witnesses they
choose. Any witness called by any party may be cross-examined by any
other party. After you hear all of the evidence from the witnesses, you will
then hear the CLOSING ARGUMENTS ---first from the state’s attorney
and then from the attorneys for the defendants. After the CLOSING
ARGUMENTS are completed, I will give you INSTRUCTIONS ON
THE LAW to help guide you in your DELIBERATIONS.
Is the state ready to proceed?

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Yes, Your Honor.

JUDGE: Is the Defendant Rafael Sanchez ready to proceed?

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: Yes, you’re Honor.

JUDGE: Is the Defendant Rafael Sanchez ready to proceed?

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: Yes, you’re Honor.

JUDGE: The State may proceed with its opening statement.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, in the opening statement it is my duty to tell
you what the evidence will be. I’ll tell you what we will prove. We
will prove that Rafael Sanchez and Edna Roldan (often referred to as Wizards
in Training) were considered pretty “cool.” They graduated from high
school just last year, had a lot of friends, dressed well, and seemed to be
the kind of young people who had everything going for them—everything,
that is, until May 10th, 2016. That’s when they found some prescription
medication at their own home called Ritalin, that was prescribed for their
little brother, John Sangal, who has Attention Deficit Disorder with
Hyperactivity (ADDH), which is a drug you can only get with a
prescription, and which is a type of drug, which you will hear referred to
during this trial, as an “amphetamine,” which acts as a stimulant to the
central nervous system.
Rafael talked Edna and her friend Donna Rose Soriano (better known as Harper
Winkle) into trying some of the amphetamine pills with him. Both of them
liked how the drugs made them feel—wide awake, and alert, and in the
mood to party all night! But as you will learn from the witnesses we will
call in this case, the effects of this drug---that feeling of alertness, of being
wide awake, can change in a moment to make you feel sleepy, groggy, like
your mind has become lost in a fog. It can affect your ability to drive a car,
or operate any other equipment or machinery. The unfortunate truth in this
case is that Donna Rose Soriano took this drug, after it was given to her by either Rafael or Edna
Roldan or both, and when after a night of partying she was
driving home, it made her drowsy. She fell asleep at the wheel and drove
her car off Wheeling Hill. And, most tragically, ladies and gentlemen of
the jury, she died from the injuries she sustained in that accident—all
because she made that bad decision to take someone else’s prescription
drugs.

Just the taking of someone else’s prescription drugs is illegal possession of

a drug. And Donna Rose Soriano’s bad decision led to the loss of her life. But
she is not the only one who made a bad decision that night. Because if you
sell or distribute someone else’s prescription drugs to another, that
constitutes a separate offense of sale or distribution of a controlled
substance. And if that illegal act also causes someone else’s death, you can
also be found guilty of causing that person’s death. So the other people
who made a bad decision that night are the defendants, who are now on
trial. And at the end of this trial, you will be asked to decide if each of
them either possessed, sold, or distributed any of this controlled substance,
any of which can constitute a serious offense. But the offense is worse,
and the punishment increased, if not only possession is found, but the sale
or distribution of an illegal drug to another is also found.

But the most serious charge against the defendants in this case is that
either one of them or both of them distributed a quantity of this controlled
substance to Ms. Donna Rose Soriano, causing her death.
The Court will instruct you at the end of this case what constitutes the
charge of involuntary manslaughter. It is enough for you to know now that
if a person by negligent or unlawful conduct causes another person to die,
even if the person didn’t mean to cause harm to them, that person can be
found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. At the end of this trial, you will
agree that not only are Rafael and Edna guilty of possessing and
distributing this controlled substance to Jennifer Rock, they are both guilty
of involuntary manslaughter in causing the death of Jennifer Rock. Thank
you for your attention.
.
JUDGE: Counsel for Mr.Rafael Sanchez, you may proceed with your opening
statement.

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: Thank you Judge. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence will
be that the State cannot prove that Mr. Sanchez took these pills in the first place and can’t prove
that he sold any to anyone. They can’t even prove
that he gave any to Donna Rose Soriano or Edna Roldan, or that it was this
prescription medication that caused Ms. Soriano to have the car accident that
night. They also cannot prove that Ms. Soriano even fell asleep at the wheel. What the evidence
will show is that amphetamines are stimulants, not depressants, so you must find Mr. Sanchez
not guilty of everything, because the state just can’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGE: Defense counsel for Ms.Roldan, you may give your opening statement.

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: Now, ladies and gentlemen, Edna Roldan is not a drug dealer, she was just trying
to be one of the crowd by going along with her brother, Justin and trying one of the pills. She did
not give Donna Rose Soriano any of those pills—Rafael did. She loved Donna Rose who she
called Harper, like a sister. She
even tried to save her at the hospital with her wizard powers, but as you
will also sadly learn in this case, wizard powers are powerless against bad
decisions, or illegal drugs. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, Edna will
take the stand and admit in this case that she took one of the pills of her
brother’s medication; so she will essentially be admitting that she is guilty
of “possession” of an illegal drug. But she denies that she sold or
distributed any of this medication to her dear friend Donna Rose Soriano, and the evidence will
be that it was her brother, Rafael, who gave Donna Rose the
medication, and that the State will not be able to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Edna is guilty of anything except simple
“possession.”

JUDGE: The state may call its first witness.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: The State calls Dr. Robert the Ohio
County Coroner.

CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

DOCTOR 1: I do.
STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Please state your name.
DOCTOR 1: My name is Doctor Robert
STATE’S
ATTORNEY: You are the coroner for Ohio County?
DOCTOR 1: I am.
STATE’S
ATTORNEY: And you did the autopsy on the body of Ms. Donna Rose Soriano after her death?
DOCTOR 1: Yes, I did.
STATE’S
ATTORNEY: What was the cause of her death?
DOCTOR 1: Massive internal injuries of a traumatic nature as a result of her single car
accident when she lost control and plunged over Wheeling Hill.

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: Objection, it has not been established that she lost control.
JUDGE: Overruled.
STATE’S
ATTORNEY: What else did your examination disclose?
DOCTOR 1: We also found that at the time of her death, she had prescription
medication in her blood—Ritalin, an amphetamine for the treatment of
ADDH, the same drug that was in the pill bottle recovered from Ms. Edna Roldan
after the accident.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how do amphetamines affect the body?
DOCTOR 1: They generally are considered a stimulant, and they can help a person who
has been diagnosed with ADDH or certain other conditions focus their
attention better, but in some instances, especially when the effects of the
drug start to wear off, it can make users very sleepy, or groggy, and—
that’s why you usually see a warning on the label of the pill bottle that
says “do not drive or operate machinery while using this drug.” What
they say about amphetamines is that “What goes up must come down,”
and that the “up “feeling is not worth what they also call the “downer”—
the feeling of lethargy and mental fogginess that patients experience
afterward. And sadly, no amount of magic or wizardry is going to change
what science has taught us about the effects of this drug.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty as to whether
the amount of that drug in Donna Rose Soriano’s body would have affected her
driving?

DOCTOR 1: Most definitely I have an opinion, and my opinion is “Most definitely” it would
have.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: And do you have an opinion as to whether or not she became groggy or fell
asleep when she was driving?

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: Objection, the Doctor is not an expert in accident reconstruction, that
opinion would be highly speculative!

JUDGE: I’m going to sustain that objection.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Judge, we will be calling a reconstruction expert.

JUDGE: Very well, proceed.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: No further questions.

JUDGE: Any cross-examination, Mr. Sanchez or Ms. Roldan?

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: Doctor, isn’t it true that you can’t say for sure that amphetamines
caused her to drive her car over Wheeling Hill?

DOCTOR 1: Nothing is for sure, but it is the most likely thing, unless there would be some
evidence that she drove off the hillside on purpose, of which there is
no evidence.

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: Well, you can’t even rule out that she may have gotten tired and fallen
asleep even without having taken this drug?

DOCTOR 1: Again, that is a possibility, but unlikely when we found the drug in her
system. Most probably it did affect her; and most probably it was the
cause of her erratic driving, and death.

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: No further questions.

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: No questions, your honor.

JUDGE: You may step down now, next witness please.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: We call the family doctor. (DOCTOR #2).

CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

DOCTOR #2: I do.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Please state your name and occupation.

DOCTOR #2: My name is Doctor John Sangal and I am the

family doctor for the Wusso family.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Let me show you the vial of pills recovered from Ms. Alex Wusso on the
evening of May 10th, 2016, when she and Rafael went to the
hospital after they heard of the accident involving Jennifer Rock. Did you
prescribe those pills, Doctor?

DOCTOR # 2: Yes I did.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: For whom did you prescribe them?

DOCTOR #2: They were prescribed for the younger brother of Justin and Alex, Max
Wusso, who was taking them for ADDH. See it has his name on the
bottle.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: How many did you prescribe for him?

DOCTOR #2: 30 pills - - one for each day of the month.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: When was the prescription filled?

DOCTOR #2: It was filled on May 1st, 2010.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: That means as of May 10th, when this accident happened, there should
have only been ten pills missing from the original 30 if only Max Wusso
was taking them as prescribed.

DOCTOR: # 2: That is correct.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Can you tell us how many are in the container?

DOCTOR #2: There are only 5 left.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: So there are approximately 15 missing that should be there.

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: Objection, speculation!

JUDGE: Overruled.

DOCTOR #2: That’s correct.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Nothing further.

JUDGE: Attorneys for the Wussos, you may inquire.

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: No questions, your honor.

JUDGE: Any cross-examination by Alex Wusso?

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: No questions, your honor.

JUDGE: You may step down Doctor. Counsel, call your next witness.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: State would call Ace_________(last name of student playing role).

JUDGE: Bailiff, please get Ace______ (last name of student playing role) and
bring him/her up to be sworn in.

CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

ACE: I do

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Please state your name.

ACE: My name is Ace_____(name of student playing role), but you can call me
Ace.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: What’s your occupation, Ace?
ACE: Accident Reconstruction expert. Been doing it for 20 years. Pretty good at
it too! That’s why they call me Ace!

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Have you looked into the facts of this car accident?

ACE: Well of course I did. That’s why they call me Ace.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: And do you have an opinion as to how it happened?

ACE: Well of course I do. That’s why they call me Ace.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: What is your opinion, Ace?

ACE: No braking, no skid marks, car not going terribly fast, but enough to take
out the guard rail, no sign of trying to stop the car to avoid hitting the
guard rail at all—It would be my opinion that this person was not
consciously in control at the time of the accident—most likely fell asleep
at the wheel!

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: Objection - speculation!

JUDGE: Overruled.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: No further questions.
JUDGE: Do the defense attorneys have any questions?

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: No your honor.

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: No questions your honor.

JUDGE: You may be excused – next witness please.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: I’d like to call Officer_______(name of student playing role) to the stand.

CLERK: Officer, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth?

OFFICER: I do. STATE’S

ATTORNEY: Would you please state your name?

OFFICER: Officer__________, (name of student playing role).

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Your occupation?

OFFICER: Member of the Wheeling (or other city) Police Department.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: How long have you been on the force?

OFFICER: Ten years, and counting.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Did you have occasion to investigate the death of Jennifer Rock on May 10th,
2016.

OFFICER: I did.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Can you tell us what you did on that night, officer?

OFFICER: Got a 911 call that there was an accident, other patrol had already
responded to the accident scene, and I was sent to the hospital, to see the
condition of the injured driver. When I met with the Doctor at the
hospital, I was advised Ms. Rock had died of her injures, but that two
friends of hers were there who might be witnesses. So I spoke with them,
they are the defendants here---- Justin Wusso and Alex Wusso.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: What did they tell you?

OFFICER: Well, they were both pretty emotional, didn’t tell me much, but Alex
Wusso reached in her purse and took out this bottle of pills we have here,
and handed it to me. She was crying real hard, and kept saying she didn’t
give Ms. Rock any of the pills, just kept saying it; said she didn’t want her
to die, said she tried to save her with some wizard powers, but nothing
helped, and she just kept crying. Mr. Wusso didn’t say anything to me,
only that he wanted to speak with an attorney.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Ms. Wusso gave you the pills, not Mr. Justin Wusso?
OFFICER: No it was Ms. Alex Wusso. I’m sure of that. Kept saying though, “I didn’t
give her the pills”-- “I did not give her the pills.”

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Thank you officer. Your honor, we have no further questions for this
witness, and we have no further witnesses. So at this time, the state
“rests.”

JUDGE: First, do the defendants have any questions for this witness?

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: No, your honor.

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: No, your honor.

JUDGE: Alright, Officer, you may step down – Now has defense counsel decided
which defendant will be going first?

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: We will, your honor, and we will be brief. We call Alex Wusso to the stand.

CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
ALEX: I do.

JUDGE: Ms. Wusso, you know that as a person charged with a crime, you do not
have to take the stand and testify?

ALEX: I do.

JUDGE: And have you have discussed this with your attorney and want to
voluntarily take the stand?

ALEX: I have discussed it, and I do want to take the stand.

JUDGE: Well, then, proceed counsel.

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: Can you tell me about the night of May 10th, 2010?

ALEX: Justin and my good friend Jennifer and I were at a party and Justin came
up to us both and said he found some pills of our brothers that gave you a
nice high, and we were willing to try one. Well, at the time, I thought
Justin was being so cool, and I didn’t want to look afraid in front of him
you know – being my big brother and all, and so I said “sure, I’ll try one”,
and then Jennifer said “ O.K. me too”, so we both took one. I knew it was
wrong. I learned that in a WALS mock trial program back in grade school.
I learned that taking prescription drugs from someone else was illegal, and
giving them to another was also illegal--- but I wasn’t thinking clearly that
night. I was thinking like a child—that somehow my wizard powers would
save me from anything bad…..and I just wanted to fit in. So I went along.
I know better now. I have grown up a lot since then. I know I have to take
responsibility for my own actions. That’s why I decided to come into court
today and testify, and tell the jury exactly what happened that night., even
if it means that I’m admitting to being guilty of a crime myself—the
illegal possession of a controlled substance.

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: Did you tell the Officer on the night in question that you didn’t give her the
pills?

ALEX: Well, I said, “I didn’t give her any of the pills.” I only took one. I think
she only took one. At least that’s what I thought. I didn’t really see what
Justin handed her.

JUDGE: Counsel for the State, you may inquire.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Ms. Wusso, why are you the one who had the pill bottle in your purse when
the police arrived at the hospital that night?

ALEX: Justin is always so cool, but when we learned what had happened and
went to the hospital, we were both so upset, and Justin couldn’t even talk
to me about it. I hardly ever saw Justin cry, but he cried that night. And I
told him to give me the pills, that I was going to give them to the police.
He gave them to me, and I put them in my purse, and gave them to the
officer when he arrived at the hospital. And I don’t think Justin said
another word to me—or the Officer—that night.

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: No further questions your honor.

JUDGE: Counsel for Mr. Wusso?

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: If you and Jennifer only took one pill, why were there 15 missing?
ALEX: I have no idea.

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: Do you have any witnesses who saw Mr. Justin Wusso give you the bottle of pills
at the hospital?

ALEX: Not that I’m aware of.

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: So you expect us to believe that you are not the one who gave Jennifer
the pills?

ALEX: I did not give her any pills. I did not! Justin did! And I’m sorry to say it
because he is my brother, but that is the truth, and I gave an oath to tell the
truth. (Alex starts crying).

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: No further questions, your Honor.

JUDGE: You may step down Ms. Wusso. Now Mr. Wusso, will there be
any witnesses on your behalf?

EDNA’S ATTORNEY: We will not be presenting any further witnesses, your honor.

JUDGE: Very well. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will now hear
closing arguments - first on behalf of the state. Are you ready to proceed
counsel?

STATE’S
ATTORNEY: Yes, Judge. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, this is an open and shut case. It is
unlawful in the state of Philippines to possess or distribute a
controlled substance, and prescription amphetamines are a controlled
substance, unless they are possessed or distributed pursuant to a valid
prescription by a medical doctor. Illegal drugs are not just cocaine, or
crystal meth, or even marijuana, but prescriptions drugs themselves are
illegal if distributed or taken without a doctor’s prescription.

There is a good reason for this. Prescription drugs can be as powerful as

other drugs we always think of as illegal if they are abused by people who
do not have a prescription. In this case, Ms. Wusso has admitted to illegal
possession of this controlled substance. Mr. Wusso has argued the state
cannot prove any charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt. But the
fact of the matter, ladies and gentlemen, is that if you believe Ms. Wusso’s
testimony in this case, she is still guilty of possession, and Mr. Wusso is
also guilty of possessing this controlled substance, but according to her
testimony, Justin is also guilty of distributing this drug to Ms. Wusso and
Ms. Rock, and of involuntary manslaughter, for causing Ms. Rock’s death.
On the other hand, if you disbelieve Ms. Wusso, and believe she was the
one who distributed the controlled substance to Ms. Rock, then you may
find her guilty as well of distribution, and of involuntary manslaughter.
You may also find on this evidence that both of them possessed and
distributed this controlled substance, and so both are guilty of involuntary
manslaughter.

JUDGE: Now we shall hear from Ms. Wusso’s counsel.

RAFAEL’S
ATTORNEY: Thank you Judge. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the only thing the
state has proven, because Ms.Wusso admitted it on the stand, is that she
illegally possessed a controlled substance. She did not sell it. She did not
distribute it. She didn’t give any pills to Jennifer Rock. You saw her
testify. She had to testify against her own brother. You saw her cry. It was
difficult for her. But did you not consider her a most credible witness?
And yes, you may under these circumstances find her guilty in this case of
“possession,” but based on this evidence, you cannot find her guilty of any
of the other counts. She did not cause her friend’s death. She loved her
friend, and came into court and told you exactly what happened for only
two reasons—she had the responsibility to do so, and because what she
told you was the truth.

JUDGE: Counsel for Mr. Wusso you may proceed with your closing statement.
EDNA’S ATTORNEY: Thank you Judge. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the state has not
proved beyond a reasonable doubt any of the charges against Mr. Wusso. Alex Wusso is the one
who had the bottle of pills in her purse at the time
of the police investigation. Other than her testimony, who’s to say she
didn’t get Max’s pills at home herself, and was the one who gave one or
maybe more than one pill to Jennifer Rock. Remember the testimony that
there were about 15 pills missing from that bottle, not just a few?
Remember, it doesn’t matter if Alex Wusso loved Jennifer Rock and tried
or did not try to save Jennifer Rock with her wizard powers – we all know
how deadly prescription drugs can be. No magic wand is ever going to
change the reality of what happened that night. And remember: we have
only heard from Alex Wusso. She is the only one that says it was Justin
Wusso who distributed the pills; the only one who said it was Justin who
gave any pills to Ms. Rock—and says she thinks it was just one. Is that the
truth? She may just be trying to save herself! Because the State has not
proven its case against Justin Wusso beyond a reasonable doubt, you must
find my client, Justin Wusso, not guilty of all charges.

JUDGE: It is now time for me to INSTRUCT you on the law of this case, after
which you will be asked to deliberate and determine if the State has
proven its case against either or both defendants BEYOND A
REASONABLE DEGREE OF DOUBT.

The jury is further instructed that amphetamines are a controlled substance

and that unless distributed and taken pursuant to a valid prescription of a
medical doctor, it is unlawful to possess, sell, or distribute such a
controlled substance.

In addition, in West Virginia, involuntary manslaughter is causing the

death of a person by a negligent or unlawful act whether or not it is the
intention of the defendant to cause harm. So if either Mr. Justin Wusso or
Ms. Alex Wusso, or both, unlawfully distributed any of this controlled
substance to Ms. Rock, which caused her to lose control of her car and die
as a result of her injuries, then you may find either Mr. Wusso or Ms.
Wusso, or both guilty of involuntary manslaughter, if you find beyond a
reasonable doubt that both distributed this drug and caused Ms. Rock’s
death.

You are further instructed that when you enter the jury room, you shall
first pick a FOREPERSON and when you have reached a VERDICT
you may press the buzzer and return to the courtroom at which time the
FOREPERSON will read the verdict in open Court. Bailiff, please give
the jury five minutes to deliberate.
BAILIFF: Yes, Judge.

JURORS LEAVE ROOM TO DELIBERATE, and upon return:

JUDGE: Will the foreperson of the jury please stand.

Have you reached a verdict?

FOREPERSON: We have (have not), Your Honor.

JUDGE: Will the defendants please stand.

(Mr. Wusso and Ms. Wusso stand along with their lawyers)

You may read the verdict.

FOREPERSON: THEY READ VERDICT BELOW or FROM THEIR VERDICT
FORM:
*****************************************************
(As to each charge, check whether guilty or not guilty)
As to the charges against Mr. Wusso, you honor, we find as follows:
Possession:
Guilty_______ Not Guilty_________ .
Distribution:
Guilty_______ Not Guilty__________.
Involuntary Manslaughter:
Guilty_______ Not Guilty__________.
FOREPERSON: As to the charges against Ms. Wusso, we find as follows:
Possession:
Guilty______ Not Guilty__________.
Distribution:
Guilty______ Not Guilty__________.
Involuntary Manslaughter:
Guilty______ Not Guilty__________.
******************************************************
JUDGE: So say you all?
JURORS: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE: Thank you jurors for your service. (BANG THE GAVEL)
We hope you all have enjoyed learning about the criminal justice system,
and you may now ask questions! Script written by Patrick S. Cassidy, President
The WALS Foundation - 2010
The WALS Foundation Mock Trial Program©
VERDICT FORM – 5th GRADE
FOREPERSON: As to the charges against Mr. Justin Wusso, your honor, we find as
follows:
As to Count One: Possession, we find the defendant Wusso:
(Guilty) _______________________
OR
(Not Guilty) _______________________
As to Count One: Distribution of controlled substance, we find the defendant
Wusso:
(Guilty) _______________________
OR
(Not Guilty) _______________________
As to Count Two: Involuntary Manslaughter, we find the defendant Wusso:
(Guilty) ________________________
OR
(Not Guilty) ________________________
FOREPERSON: As to the charges against Ms. Alex Wusso, we find as follows:
As to Count One: Possession, we find the defendant Wusso:
(Guilty) _______________________
OR
(Not Guilty) _______________________
As to Count One: Distribution of controlled substance, we find the defendant
Wusso:
(Guilty) _______________________
OR
(Not Guilty) _______________________
As to Count Two: Involuntary Manslaughter, we find the defendant Wusso:
(Guilty) _______________________
OR
(Not Guilty) _______________________
____________________________________________ __________________