Mock Trial Part Fourteen; The Officer

“Opposing counsel is venturing into areas discussed during pre-trial motions,” Samantha said. “This is entirely unacceptable, Your Honour.”

Judge Mathews looked down at you with a raised eyebrow.

“Your Honour, I promise this will have nothing to do with the topic discussed in pre-trial,” you said.

“Objective overruled for now,” the Judge said, giving you a stern look. “If you’re trying to find a way to wiggle into that information, Counsel, you will not like my response at all.”

“Absolutely understood, Your Honour,” you said, and he nodded. “Thank you, Your Honour,” you followed up as per protocol and heard Samantha mutter it behind you. “Well,” you said, turning back to the ‘Officer.’ “Was the trunk of the vehicle open or closed, Officer Penholt?”

The ‘officer’ checked his role script for a moment. “It was standing open,” he replied.

“Would that be the expected position for the trunk of a vehicle of its type after being rear-ended?”

Another check of the script, flipping to another page. “No, it wouldn’t,” he finally answered.

“What would be the expected position, based on your experience as a Police Officer?”

“The trunk would be buckled inward along with the bumper,” he said.

“What conclusion would you draw from the fact that the door was standing open?”

“Since it wasn’t damaged, it must have been opened prior to the vehicle being rear-ended,” the ‘Officer’ said.

“You went to examine the vehicle in detail, correct?”

“Objection!” Samantha said, standing up again, but Judge Mathews held up a hand to stop her.

“I will deal with Mr Watkins if he crosses the line, Ms Van Der Groot,” the Judge said. “Unless you have another objection?”

“No, Your Honour,” she grunted.

“Thank you, Your Honour,” you said, not sure if an interrupted Objection was really a ruling you needed to thank him for, but the rule of thumb in court was to always be polite so you went with it. You turned back to the ‘Officer.’ “Did you give the vehicle a closer examination?”

“I did,” he said.

“Did you look in the trunk?”

“I did,” he said.

“When you looked inside the trunk, did you see any long pieces of wood, such as two-by-fours?”

“I did not,” he said.

Point, you thought to yourself.

“Did you see anything that looked like it might have been binding a pile of long pieces of wood together, but had broken?”

“I did not,” he said.

“Did you see anything that looked like it had been securing the trunk partially closed?”

He checked his script, knowing that you were putting the screws to his ‘home team’ interns, but shook his head. “I did not,” he said.

“Were you at the site of the accident until the cleanup of the vehicles?” you asked.

“I… was,” he said, flipping to the last page of his notes.

“Did you witness wooden two-by-fours scattered across the road?”

“We did,” he said.

“Would you be surprised to hear other witnesses have testified that the Jacobs’ vehicle was hauling long lengths of two-by-fours hanging out the back of their trunk?”

“I’m not,” he said. “It came up during the investigation and they were deemed not at fault for the accident.”

“I understand that Officer Penholt, and am not questioning the findings of the police report,” you said, biting the bullet there so you could get to where you needed to go. It was offering the plaintiffs a win for the ability to score a victory. “My question is whether you would consider the attested lack of proper secure bindings, lack of properly securing the trunk, and the fact that other witnesses have testified to the overhanging wooden load to not have been properly safety flagged, to be in or out of compliance with the State legal regulations on transporting a load that overhangs the back of the vehicle?”

The Associate checked his notes again, grimacing as he scanned the pages. Finally, he looked up. “I can’t say,” he said. “I don’t have the exact regulations on hand.”

“That’s more than fine,” you said. “Allow me to provide you with a copy of the regulation, which I note for the court has not been changed or modified since 1984.” You quickly went back to your table, and Sabrina already had the printouts ready. Having the ‘officer’ read from the State law was a weird place to be, but you couldn’t expect someone who wasn’t a traffic cop/highway cop to necessarily know it off-hand. You handed one copy over to Tucker at the plaintiff's table (quickly grabbed from him by Samantha), and passed one to Judge Mathews before setting the final copy in front of ‘Officer Penholt.’

“If you could read the flagged section, Officer Penholt?” you asked.

The officer quickly rattled off the fairly long traffic code regarding the allowance and limits of oversized loads and loads hanging off the back of a vehicle.

Properly loaded to prevent its contents from dropping, sifting, leaking or otherwise escaping. Check.

A red flag secured to the end of a load that extends more than four feet beyond the bed or body of the vehicle. Check.

“Thank you, Officer Penholt,” you said when he was finished. “Now that you are refreshed on the details of the Department of Transportation legal requirements, would you consider the wooden load being hauled by the Jacobs’ to be out of compliance with traffic laws?”

The Associate was frowning but nodded. “With the conditions I’ve described, I have to say yes.”

You turned to the Judge. “That is all the questions I have at this time,” you said and nodded.

Sabrina, Gemma and Eric were all grinning widely as you walked back to the table, your notes in hand. You may not have refuted anything that the ‘Officer’ had testified to for the Defence, but you hadn’t needed to. You just won the game, because it didn’t matter who was at fault for the accident. It didn’t matter whether the Jacobs were nice, or helpful, at the scene.

They’d broken the requirements of their policy contract not once, but three times.

Now all you had to do was fend off the last attack the Plaintiffs had on the contract itself.

Breakthebar erotica is powered by Patreon, where OFG chapters are now releasing 5+ chapters ahead. PM if interested in making a Commission.