Case Changes Discussion

Case Changes are out, let's start the discussion!

They definitely changed less than I had expected. The bolstering yo Quincy and Chesney paired with the hits to Lopez means that more teams will go murder. Prosecution crosses are about to be very high scoring if done well

Weird because you'd think they'd want more teams to go manslaughter, but they ended up just making murder seem like a much more plausible charge

I feel as though the changes aren't really that significant in the long run. The only witnesses that really changed were the experts, with Lopez obviously becoming a much worse call. But I still feel as though Lopez directs will be fine, it's just that the Lopez cross will be tougher for witnesses to get through. The Quincy cross will also be more difficult with the temperature points, but I don't believe points about the bruising on the clavicle is much worse or much better either way. Not much else changed about the swings themselves. However, the biggest change that will likely make a difference is that to Kai. The new case law will make calling Kai more viable, since now you can actually get in a lot of the anger disorders as expert testimony rather than as character, which most judges previously kept out. This is pretty huge for Pros, possibly making a Kai on Pros more viable and shifting defense teams away from Kai. It's a little sad that Manslaughter as a charge didn't get stronger overall since most teams already pursue murder. I suspect most teams will stick with the charge they've been running up until this point since switching charges would require a more dramatic shift in case theory.

i might be blind but what kai changes? it seemed like they were all just typos...

@adamsel Kai didn't change, but case law State V Dawson was added. Basically, psychological disorders don't count as character evidence, which means evidence of Ryder's anger issues are theoretically easier to get in. I've seen a lot of teams try and fail to use Kai early on. The biggest barrier was judges seeing the anger disorder as character evidence, meaning it was kept out almost entirely. Although I imagine some judges will still keep some of Kai's testimony out as character, the case law gives a lot of ammunition for prosecution teams who want to use Ryder's anger disorder as the reason for killing or abandoning Parker.

tbh i don't see call orders changing too much based off case changes. Murder was already at almost 2/3 and chesney was at 75% and he got better. Lee's the only one that I could see affected, but everyone else didn't change significantly

In terms of overall case balance, these changes did just enough in my opinion to counteract the natural defense bias that grows throughout the year. I predict it'll remain close to 50/50 by February. So if balance is your goal these case changes did their job.

I will say though, I'm disappointed in the lack of changes to several of the other witnesses. Corbin and Remy in particular, despite being two of the least called witnesses, were barely changed at all. Instead it seemed AMTA made the already most popular witnesses like Chesney and Quincy even more powerful.

The change to limiting Prosecution Manslaughter to just abandonment on the trail was expected, but I'm disappointed that there wasn't any more clear evidence of abandonment added (aside from Cameron seeing Jordan with the staff now) It seems like there's more evidence towards Jordan pushing Parker off the trail then evidence of leaving her behind. I just really see no reason for Prosecution teams to not do Murder now, especially with how great of an Expert Quincy is and the nerfs to Lopez making any cross of his an almost guaranteed 10.

Because of this, I feel that although it will retain its balance through Regionals, this case will become incredibly predictable, with most Prosecutions doing a Murder Chesney-Doos-Quincy call order, as nothing else really compares in terms of sheer viability right now. Which kind of sucks, as predictability is exactly what I disliked most about Kosack last year and what I thought this case was excelling at avoiding so far.

II don't think the case changes will be as bad for the defense as people think. Most Lopez directs will still score just as well as they did before. The cross becomes tougher, but a good Lopez can still score well. I do think the concerns about the case becoming more predictable are well-founded, although that does tend to happen every year as teams all naturally gravitate towards similar theories as the case progresses.

In terms of overall side balance for Regionals, I think the case changes were in the right ballpark. It's surprising though that the significant changes are so heavily concentrated in Quincy/Lopez, and change the manslaughter case very little. If anything, manslaughter defense was buffed by forcing teams to actually pursue abandonment, which the majority of manslaughter prosecutions I've seen have ignored.

I don't see any reason to expect the typical defense improvement won't occur for manslaughter, so this seems to make murder much better than manslaughter when teams already preferred it 2 to 1. Maybe AMTA saw that the overall case was balanced, but that murder was defense biased and manslaughter was prosecution biased? If so, these changes would be a good remedy, but if they had balance stats by charge I hope they would have released that info.

can i make one thing clear.... they didn't change the manslaughter case. It was very clear that you HAD to argue Parker was abandoned between 4-6 on the Leckrone loop. If teams chose to ignore it, then that's their fault. But there's no change, just an emphasis of what already should have been happening

adamsel wrote:can i make one thing clear.... they didn't change the manslaughter case. It was very clear that you HAD to argue Parker was abandoned between 4-6 on the Leckrone loop. If teams chose to ignore it, then that's their fault. But there's no change, just an emphasis of what already should have been happening

Sure it may have been their fault, but without the recourse that has now been added, many judges who aren't experienced with criminal procedure failed to adequately penalize teams who ignored the language of the indictment and tried to prove the elements of manslaughter for different conduct. Whether or not we call it a change, it has the effect of making manslaughter defense stronger because teams can more effectively pigeonhole prosecution teams into doing what they've been supposed to.

If you did manslaughter, it is correct that one had to argue Jordan Ryder abandoned Parker Paige on the Leckrone Loop hiking trail pursuant to the indictment. One was not, however, by any means forced to prove that it happened between 4:00-6:00PM. It was just easier to do it that way because anyone could enter the autopsy report at any time during trial, and it also happens to be the best possible timeline to counter defense narratives of the two still being together when they got back to the campsite at around 6:30PM!!

GameCockMock wrote:

adamsel wrote:can i make one thing clear.... they didn't change the manslaughter case. It was very clear that you HAD to argue Parker was abandoned between 4-6 on the Leckrone loop. If teams chose to ignore it, then that's their fault. But there's no change, just an emphasis of what already should have been happening

Sure it may have been their fault, but without the recourse that has now been added, many judges who aren't experienced with criminal procedure failed to adequately penalize teams who ignored the language of the indictment and tried to prove the elements of manslaughter for different conduct. Whether or not we call it a change, it has the effect of making manslaughter defense stronger because teams can more effectively pigeonhole prosecution teams into doing what they've been supposed to.

100% agreed here. Lots of teams were arguing that just taking a sick daughter like Parker to the campsite was an act that created a substantial risk, and teams would argue that the statute does not require them to stay within the boundaries of the indictment, resulting in lots of judges failing to penalize teams for clearly manipulating what they have to argue in trial. I think everyone here agrees that we were always supposed to stick to the indictment like in a real case but, unfortunately, many teams decided to blatantly ignore the indictment in favor of a competitive advantage (including traditionally higher calibre teams like Furman A).