Instructions:
Working independently, provide brief (1-2 page) answers to each of the following questions. When you are finished, submit your answers to your mentor for review. There are no right or wrong answers; your mentor will look to see if you’ve thought the questions through and presented logical, meaningful responses. Then, your mentor will select a few of the questions from the list to bring to a group discussion, so be prepared to offer your thoughts and opinions if you want to share themwith the rest of the group.

Death Investigation Process

1. In your investigation, you chose to organize your facts in a certain way (e.g. by source, by theory).
   
   
   • What did you like and/or dislike about your organization?
     
     
   • What aspects of your investigation did you find easier or harder when referring back to your facts? In particular, consider how your tracked evidence helped you prepare for court. When you finalized your Progress Report and later prepared your court testimony, how did your organization help you and not help you?
     
     
2. If you were investigating a new case, how would you choose to organize your facts based on your experience in the Lawson case?

Evidence

3. Consider the different types of demonstrative evidence that you used to support your court testimony (e.g., crime scene diagram, photos, drawings).
   
   
   • If you were to testify in another court case- - such as one related to a car accident you had witnessed- - what kinds of demonstrative evidence would you choose to communicate your testimony and why?

4. There are many different kinds of evidence that can be used to build a criminal case, such as science-based test results (e.g., the Greiss test); expert interpretation of test results (e.g., a ballistics expert who interprets the results of the Greiss test on the witness stand); eyewitness testimony (e.g., a witness who identifies the defendant as having been present at the crime scene), etc.
   
   
   • What kinds of evidence did you find to be most reliable and convincing in the Lawson case and why?
     
     
   • What kinds of evidence did you find to be less reliable and convincing and why?
     
     
   • Imagine that you are a member of a jury asked to determine if someone caused a car accident. Based on your answers to the previous questions, what specific evidence about the accident would you want to see to convince you of who caused the accident? What evidence would you not find convincing?”

Truth

5. To convict a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The system is designed to minimize the chances that an innocent person is convicted; however, it also means that, in some cases, a guilty person may go free.
   
   
   • What are the positive and negative consequences of this system?
     
     
   • In your opinion, is proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” the best standard to use when determining guilt in a criminal case? Why or why not?
     
     
6. Compare the outcome of real life case upon which the Lawson case was modeled with the verdict of your own jury on the Lawson trial. Think about whether the outcome in the real case was the same as the outcome in your experience with the Lawson trial.
   
   
   • Describe your initial reaction when you found out the outcome of the “real” case. How did it make you feel?
     
     
   • Given what you know about the details of the Lawson case, how does knowing the outcome of the “real” case make you feel about the criminal justice system? Confident? Concerned? Discuss your feelings and why you ended up feeling that way.