State v De La Porta/Cameron - Discussion

I think enough time has passed that everyone is now fairly comfortable with the case/has at least read it once.

Big question - does this case actually screw over the defense? I know that will be the feeling for the months to come especially once D attorneys have to start prepping multiple crosses, directs and statements but imo this is a pretty fun way to guarantee trial diversity and is a great change of pace from last year in terms of the defense actually being responsive to the trial and the prosecution (which is what happens in the real world) instead of being able to prep each and every aspect of their case perfectly before the trial itself by having a ton of affirmative defenses. Even the one affirmative defense here is much better imo, as it directly contests the charges brought up themselves rather than saying whoops ignore all that and listen to me - more responsive this way.

I guess we will wait for December to watch for any P biases but I don't think it'll be anything insane.

On other notes, I think the case is very fun and has the potential to be very funny/serious/fact heavy - whatever the trial wants it to be. Might be my fatigue from last year talking, but I definitely prefer it to last years case so far, mainly because I think the defense last year was so inherently un-defensy.

This years case is shaping up to be far less serious than last years, especially with one of the defendants being the owner of "Little Blue Bird" social media lol. De La Porta is going to be a great defendant, and whoever plays them is going to have a ton of fun crafting their character. Koller had the potential to be played in a similar way (rich, egotistical, blustering, funny, etc.) in last years case, but I didn't see anyone play them in a light-hearted way (my team included). Since this years case doesn't have any death involved, even if it is criminal, there's hopefully going to be less crying on the stand and more playing up the characters.

From what I've seen, the case isn't too biased towards defense, and it's going to be awesome to see how everyone plays it. I think we're going to get a lot more diversity in strategy from defense than we did last year, especially since De La Porta doesn't have any affirmative defenses laid out. Looking forward to seeing how this goes!

I think my biggest concern with this case is how much the defense has to do and how little help there seems to be. After having spent this much time with the case I just don’t think the case is weighted fairly. I think you can absolutely defend Poe Cameron, with duress or not, but when it comes to DLP I don’t think the same can be said. It is very clear AMTA wrote certain witnesses with the intention that the facts they provide would be more in line for one defendant or the other. For example when you’re prosecuting Poe Cameron it’s unlikely to see a Burke call (not impossible but just unlikely).

The issue arises with the swing witnesses Cosmos and Cage. Cage is very clearly geared towards a Poe Cameron case, having mentioned DLP sparingly and having no personal interactions with them. Cosmos on the other hand is made for DLP as they were both on the board and other than a brief run in and seeing Cameron on the news after attack can’t say much about Cameron. When it comes down to a team prosecuting DLP it is a substantial possibility for a team to call Cosmos. If not to support their own case then to mess with the other team. If P takes Cosmos the defense is left with Ebi, Orlov, Cage, or DLP.

To be completely honest the affidavit AMTA provided for DLP makes them uncallable. There is too many times DLP says something like  “I can’t say whether or not I know/met this person, but I guess it might be possible” DLP’s wishy-washy nature paired with witnesses (on both P&D) who can firmly say they did see DLP with certain people at certain places means the defense is left with calling Cage. And as previously mentioned Cage has bias against DLP and almost no first hand experience with DLP.

I think a DLP defense could really have a leg to stand on if P didn’t get first call. The fact of the matter is with just the amount of charges, not knowing the defendant until right before round, and the facts of the case the defense already had a hard road. But with AMTA giving first pick to P they’ve made it that much harder.  Maybe there’s something I’m missing though that evens this all out. Guess we’ll just have to see how tournaments go.