Analysis of Mock Trial - Case Study Example

Opening ment The defendant stands here before you today accused of having entered into consensual sexual relationships with two women, of sound mind and of legal age. My client, a respected psychologist, is guilty - he is guilty of having exercised the right to engage in consensual sexual relationships with Miss Soudoski and Miss Adams, a right which all Canadians of legal age take for granted. What law did he break in exercising a civil right The Crown will have you believe that my client, Dr. Matheson, had transgressed the law upon entry into these two relationships, irrespective of their undeniably consensual nature. The Crown's only witness is Miss Soudoski, a woman with a history of reacting rather hysterically to her relationship breakups. When she broke up with her fiance just shortly before meeting my client, she suffered several depression and, by her own account, the breakup was very bad. Now, following her breakup with my client, she is seeking legal recourse - she is using the court as an instrument of revenge. The Crown has quite obviously allowed this perversion of the law and the court and is charging my client with entry into sexual relationships via the "exercise of authority." According to the Crown, consent was vitiated by the imbalance of authority in the relationship. Miss McAdams, on the other hand, has stated the opposite - there was never any undue exercise of authority, the was a balance of power in the relationship and she was never, at any point, overwhelmed by Dr. Matheson's authority. So, who are we to believe A woman with a history of less than reasoned reactions to the breakup of relationships or a successful professional who does not have such a history The affair between Miss Soudoski and Dr. Matheson was consensual; it occurred outside my client's office and lasted for four months. We should not be here today and my client should, most definitely, not be standing trial for the exercise of his civil rights; a right which he exercised within the confines of its legal limitations. Do not allow for this perversion of the law. Chief Examination Dr. Matheson Q1: Dr Matheson, are you aware of the severity of the charges brought against you by the Crown A1: Yes I am. If proven guilty, I could loose my license and, hence, my livelihood. Q2: Did you or did you not engage in an affair with Miss Soudoski A2: Yes I did. Our professional relationship had ended by that time, however. As soon as I realized that our interest in one another was more than professional, I proposed that Miss Soudoski seek treatment elsewhere Q3: Did she A3: No she didn't but, from a professional point of view, she really did not need to. Q4: Are you claiming that she was well, that you had cured her from her depression in a handful of sessions A4: No I am not. I am just saying that her depression was an exaggerated reaction to her fiance's having broken up their engagement and cancelling their wedding. It would take time to pass but she did not need a psychologist for that. As I told her in our first meeting, this was something she had to work out for herself - work out by accepting the reality. Q5: What was her response A5: She insisted that she need professional help to get through this period. Q6: When did the relationship move from the professional to the personal A6: Maybe within a month or six weeks. Miss Soudoski began to take a personal interest in me and began asking me personal questions. What type of women I liked Whether I was single or involved in a relationship Questions of that type. At first I tried to avoid answering but to tell you the truth, I found her quite attractive. Therefore, I suggested that we end our professional relationship. Q7: Who initiated the affair A7: Miss Soudoski did. She invited me to her home for drinks and matters escalated from there. Q8: Did you, at any time, meet with her in your office after that A8: Yes I did - several times in fact. But never in a professional capacity and I always told her that she shouldn't come to the office. Q9: Was there any inappropriate behaviour between the two of you in the office A9: There was a familiarity rather than inappropriateness. I believe that my secretary saw us once, standing too close to one another. It was after that that I insisted that she never come to the office. Q10: Where did you meet A10: Mostly in her house and only a couple of times or so in mine. Q11: Why is Miss Soudoski bringing these claims against you A11: her reaction to my informing her that I had met another woman was rather violent. She accused me of taking advantage of her and exploiting her. She would call me several times a day, pass by my house At first I was very diplomatic and gentle. I soon grew impatient, however, and told her not to call or try to see me again. At that point she told me that I would regret it. Q12: Do you regret it A12: I certainly do. Look at where I am today. I should have known better than to allow myself to be drawn in by her flattery and attention. I should have known that she would not react well to any relationship problems. This is her reaction. Q13: Did you abuse your authority over her A13: I had no authority over her and as I said, not only did I end our professional relationship when our personal one began but, we mainly met in her territory - in her home. I do not have any authority in her territory. Q14: Is there anything else you would like to tell the court A14: Yes. I should not have engaged in an affair with Miss Soudoski. I know that. However, I did not violate any laws or professional ethics principles in doing so. She was not my patient at the time and I never pressured her into anything - in fact, she initiated the relationship. I am not excusing anything here, just saying that I did not abuse my authority and did not exploit a patient. Sarah Marshall Q1: What is the nature of your association with my client, Dr. Matheson Q2: How would you describe your relationship with him now Q3: Most divorces are acrimonious, are you telling the court that yours was amicable Q4: If your relationship with my client is so good, then what were the reasons for your divorce Q5: Throughout your marriage, has Dr. Matheson ever engaged in a sexual relationship with a patient Q6: Have you ever known Dr. Matheson to engage in mind games or to use his mastery of psychology to induce others to do what he wants Thank you for your time Rachael McAdams Q1: Miss McAdams, can you please tell the court how you met Dr. Matheson Q2: If you were his patient, does that not mean he took advantage of your vulnerability at the time Q3: Are you saying that you initiated the affair, then Q4: Did the period of your liaison coincide with the time-period of treatment Q5: The Crown argues that Dr. Matheson preyed upon his patients' vulnerability and exercised his authority over them to urge them into a sexual relationship. What do you have to say to this claim Q6: You may have believed that the relationship was equal but was it really Let me rephrase: how can a relationship between a psychologist and his patient be equal Q7: Even if the professional relationship was terminated upon the commencement of the personal one, did you not still perceive of him as your psychologist and therefore, hold him in some awe Thank you for your time Cross Examination Marilyn Soudoski Q1: Miss Soudoski, are you of sound mind Q2: Did you need professional psychological help after your fiance left you Q3: Did you find my client attractive Q4: Were you happy during the four months of your relationship with my client Q5: Was the affair was conducted outside the office Q6: Did you meet in your own house; your own turf Q7: Did the affair continued beyond the termination of your professional relationship, t Q8: Did my client force you into a sexual relation Q9: Did you consent to a sexual relationship with Dr. Matheson Q10: Did you initiate the affair Ex-Secretary Q1: You have testified before the court that you had witnessed inappropriate behavior between Dr. Matheson and Miss Soudoski. In all the years of your employment as Dr. Matheson's secretary, have you ever witnessed a similar incident Q2: In what you witnessed, did Miss Soudoski look as if she was anything but happy and willing Q3: Can you describe Miss Soudoski's condition; was she, in any way, mentally incapacitated and incapable of making her own decisions Submissions by the Accused On the basis of the facts, as corroborated by the witnesses, the Accused submits that he was not in a position of trust or authority towards Miss Soudowski when they had relationships. In R. v. Audet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 171, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the case against the accused because, at the time of the alleged sexual relationship between him and the defendant, his student, they were at a nightclub and therefore, outside of the zone of his authority. The Accused submits that the case against him be similarly dismissed on the grounds that there was no "exercise of authority" as stated in s265 (3)(d) of the criminal code, since the affair occurred outside of the office and, often, relationships occurred in the plaintiff's own home. Read More