«This trial may be used and duplicated for non-commercial academic use. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF NEW COLUMBIA -x : United States : : : ...»
U.S. v. Michael Davis
A college student is charged with felony rape after his girlfriend alleges that he forced her to have
sexual intercourse against her will. (This is an updated version of U.S. v. David Jones)
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic
at Georgetown University Law Center
Distributed by Street Law, Inc.
This trial may be used and duplicated for non-commercial academic use.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE DISTRICT OF NEW COLUMBIA
United States :
-v- : Civil Case No.: CV01-192009 :
Michael Davis :
STIPULATED FACTS 1Ashley Williams is a 21-year-old senior majoring in business at New Columbia University. Ashley lives with a roommate, Pat Daniels, at 110 Michigan Ave, N.E., apartment 410, in Metropolitan, New Columbia. Pat Daniels, also a student at New Columbia University, majors in communications. Michael Davis is a 22 year old senior also majoring in business.
Michael lives with a roommate, Terry Washington, at 3601 Connecticut Ave, N.W., apartment 2B, in New Columbia.
Ashley has been taking birth control pills since she was 16 years old. Her doctor prescribed this as a treatment to correct her medical problem of irregular menstrual cycles.
Ashley and Michael met and began dating in October 2005 during their freshman year (2005-06). They dated until May 2006. During this first relationship, Ashley and Michael had
The foregoing summary of the case is provided solely for the convenience of the participants in the Mock Trial Tournament. This overview itself does not constitute evidence and may not be introduced at trial or used as impeachment. All parties agree and stipulate to the accuracy of the stipulated facts.
Page 2 of 59
September 2007. This second relationship lasted from September 2007 until December 7, 2007.
On Thursday, December 6, 2007, Ashley and Michael attended an off-campus party.
Afterward, Ashley returned with Michael to his apartment. Sexual intercourse took place early on the morning of December, 7, 2007. No one else was present in the apartment that night.
Ashley made her first formal allegation that Michael raped her to Randy Miller, a counselor at the New Columbia University Health Clinic. She made this allegation on December 8, 2007. She filed a formal complaint with the Metropolitan Police Department on Monday, December 10, 2007.
On December 11, 2007, Detective Jessie Young obtained a legal warrant to search Michael’s Connecticut Avenue apartment. As a result of the search, the police found a torn shirt matching the description of the shirt Ashley said she was wearing at the time of the alleged rape.
Michael Davis was later arrested and charged with raping Ashley Williams.
The State of New Columbia charges that Michael Davis forcibly overpowered Ashley Williams on the morning of December 7, 2007, forcing her to have sexual intercourse against her will. This act amounts to first degree sexual abuse or one of the lesser included offenses of second degree sexual abuse or misdemeanor sexual abuse, pursuant to New Columbia Code section 22-3002, 22-3004, and 22-3006. The State of New Columbia urges the judge to find Michael Davis guilty of this offense and sentence him accordingly to a term of years in prison.
Michael Davis, defendant, claims that Ashley Williams was a voluntary participant in all activities that occurred on the morning of December 7, 2007. Therefore, Michael Davis requests
Prosecution Ashley Williams, alleged sexual assault survivor.
Randy Miller, rape counselor, New Columbia University Health Clinic.
Jessie Young, Detective, Sex Crimes Unit, Metropolitan Police Department.
Defense Michael Davis, Defendant.
Terry Washington, roommate of Michael Davis.
Lee Stream, Psychologist.
Police Report by Detective Jessie Young.
Pages taken from the personal journal of Ashley Williams.
Photographs of defendant’s apartment.
*All witness affidavits are sworn statements.
New Columbia Code section 22-3002. First degree sexual abuse.
A person shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and in addition, may be fined in an amount not to exceed $ 250,000, if that person engages in or causes another person to
engage in or submit to a sexual act in the following manner:
(1) By using force against that other person;
New Columbia Code section 22-3004. Third degree sexual abuse.
A person shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and may be fined in an amount not to exceed $100,000, if that person engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person
in the following manner:
(1) By using force against that other person;
New Columbia Code section 22-3006. Misdemeanor sexual abuse.
Whoever engages in a sexual act or sexual contact with another person and who should have knowledge or reason to know that the act was committed without that other person's permission, shall be imprisoned for not more than 180 days and, in addition, may be fined in an amount not to exceed $1,000.
New Columbia Code section 22-3007. Defense to sexual abuse.
Consent by the victim is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, to a prosecution under sections 22-3002 to 22-3006.
Masters v. United States, 810 A.2d. 966 (2006).* Summary of Facts: On appeal. John Masters was convicted of raping the complaining witness on the night of October 12, 2005, in the back seat of Masters’ car in a parking lot of a local shopping center. Masters met the complaining witness for the first time earlier that evening at a gathering at a friend’s (Jason White) house. The complaining witness was in need of a ride home, and Masters volunteered to drop her off. Relying on the knowledge that Masters was a trusted friend of White’s, the complaining witness accepted the offer.
On the way home, Masters pulled over into an empty parking lot and overpowered the complaining witness, forcing her to have sexual intercourse with him. Masters is a large man, 6’3” tall, weighing 205 pounds, and muscularly built; whereas the complaining witness is substantially smaller in size and stature, 5’4” tall and 132 pounds. Masters allegedly slapped the complaining witness across the face, resulting in multiple bruises that were shown in the pictures admitted as part of the District’s evidence. Meanwhile, he continually threatened the complaining witness with severe bodily harm if she did not comply with his demands to “give me what I want right now.” The complaining witness testified that she stopped putting up any sort of resistance for fear of further, more severe harm.
As soon as she was able, the complaining witness freed herself from Masters’ control, fled from the car, and immediately sought assistance. The police were summoned right away, and within five minutes of the call, they found Masters, just as he was described by the complaining witness, passed out in the back seat of the car with his pants and undergarments down. Masters was tried and convicted of felony rape.
complaining witness to warrant conviction. Masters contends that since the complaining witness admitted that she gave up her defensive efforts against him, she effectively consented to further acts. This court finds, however, that the cessation of resistance by the complaining witness was an act of submission to an overwhelming force. Submission cannot be considered “consent” because it was induced by putting the woman in fear of grave bodily harm or death, or by exercise of actual force against her person. Utmost resistance by the complaining witness is not required. Furthermore, specific intent to commit a rape is not required to warrant a conviction, as long as it can be proved that a rape occurred.
In this case, ample evidence existed to warrant a conviction of felony rape by the lower court. Based on (1) the testimony of the complaining witness, (2) the witnesses from the parking area who encountered the complaining witness as she fled from the car, (3) the police officers who found Masters shortly after receiving report of the attack, and (4) the medical examination evidence and pictures of the bruises. Judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
Campbell v. United States, 805 A.2d. 196 (2003).* Summary of Facts: On appeal. On the afternoon of March 21, 2002, Jane Smith was allegedly attacked and sexually assaulted by the defendant, Thomas Campbell, in Smith’s own home. Campbell and Smith were acquaintances via mutual friends. They saw each other intermittently at various social functions and parties, and they knew each other for about five years prior to the attack. Campbell owned a painting company, and when Smith decided to repaint her house, she contacted him for an estimate. He came over with his assistant and completed the estimate, after which, he and his assistant both left. Campbell, however, returned
take a bath. When the doorbell rang, she answered the door wearing only her bathrobe.
According to Smith’s testimony, Campbell entered the house, claiming to be looking for misplaced documents. Then, while she was helping him look for the papers, he grabbed her from behind and forced himself on her. Smith claimed that she never acted in any manner to provoke the attack.
Campbell’s testimony claimed that when he returned to the house and saw that he had interrupted Smith’s bath, he offered to come back at a time more convenient to Smith, but that she insisted he come in. Campbell further claimed that Smith then “moved around the house in a very provocative manner,” allowing her bathrobe to fall open, bearing her shoulders and legs to him. Campbell does not deny having sexual intercourse with Smith. He claims, however, that it was with her full consent and invitation.
After the incident, Smith apparently left her home and went to her sister’s apartment, where she spent the next few days. She did not call the police to report the incident for a week following the alleged attack, and she did not have a medical examination.
Police investigation of the Smith home did not reveal evidence that any struggle occurred, although the bed sheets appeared to be pulled partially off the bed. No one else was present in the home or witnessed Campbell’s coming or going.
At trial, Campbell was convicted of rape based solely upon the testimony of the complaining witness, Smith.
Holding: The case presented against Campbell is highly circumstantial. The complaining witness is the only one to provide direct testimony regarding the allegations. Smith delayed reporting the attack for seven days and did not have a medical examination. Furthermore, police
charges must be corroborated, and that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to corroborate rape charges as long as there is enough evidence in total to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, however, there is no corroborating evidence. Is it clear from reviewing the record of the trial court that jurors acted with their hearts, and not their heads. Although one of the qualities of our justice system is the judge’s and jury’s ability to consider human factors such as sympathy in the decision-making process, these human factors cannot be a basis for a decision. Judgment of the trial court is Reversed.
*These cases are fictitious. For the purpose of this mock trial, however, they are interpretations of the application of the New Columbia Code section 22-3002 thru 22-3007 and are to be treated as binding precedent.
My name is Ashley Williams. I am a 21-year-old senior at New Columbia University, and I am majoring in business. I currently live at 110 Michigan Ave, N.E., apartment 410, in Metropolitan, New Columbia. I have been at this address since the beginning of my sophomore year. I live with my roommate Pat Daniels.
I met Michael Davis during my freshman year. We were both business majors, so we took three or four of the same classes. He borrowed notes from me a few times, and we talked a little now and then. In the middle of October, we started dating.
I really liked Michael a lot from the very start. We saw each other almost every day from mid-October to May. It was a pretty serious relationship at the time. We were very close emotionally, and we were sexually active as well. I was very much in love with him.
We were separated from each other the summer between our freshman and sophomore years. He got a job in Chicago for the summer and wanted me to come with him. I was going to go at first, but then I was offered a great job here for the summer and decided to stay instead. He didn’t like that very much, and we argued about it a lot. He couldn’t understand that although I wanted to be with him, I couldn’t pass up this opportunity. He probably thought I would go out with other guys if he was not around. That’s funny, since I heard he was dating other girls while he was in Chicago. It really hurt me that he could date someone so soon after we were apart.
At first, I called him a lot, but he never seemed very happy to hear from me, and he didn’t even call me once – he said he couldn’t afford it. When I did call him, he talked about the people he was meeting and the parties he would go to. He’d also try to make me feel guilty about not coming. He complained about how much money he could’ve saved if I had worked in Chicago and lived with him for the summer.