You are an experienced criminal defense attorney who has been contacted by the office of the Federal Defender, which provides services for indigent defendants charged with federal offenses. You have been asked if you would be willing to accept appointment in the instant case along with another staff attorney to represent the defendant. Believing in the Constitution of the United States and the rights of all individuals, regardless of how repugnant the acts of which they are accused might be, you have accepted the assignment. Armed with the above information, you gain access to your client who is still hospitalized. All he will say is that there ha<: been terrible mistake made, that he is innocent, that he insists on taking a polygraph test and refuses to discuss his case further. Your job is to come up with a theory of defense of and within that theory decide, within a budget discussed below, which experts you will call, and why, and which you will not call and why. The following forensic witnesses are available to be consulted and/or called to testify at trial. Below, you will find a chart listing some, but not all, possible witnesses, the minimum number of hours that they would require for in or out of court work, and the fees/per hour. Although you are free to use additional or different experts than those listed, if you chose different witnesses, the figures for those witnesses should approximate the listed witnesses. And as touching as it might be, pro bono experts are not allowed. That is, you must hire experts local within your budget. You have a total of $50,000 for your expert witness fund with which to hire the experts. Do NOT go over budget, or substantial credit will be deducted. Please note well: Although your creativity in figuring out a theory of your defense is important, and as wonderfully moving as my factual introduction is, this is not an exam in a “creative writing course.” That is, logic, common sense, thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law, possible legal and factual research, and consideration of and application of the applicable rules of evidence is required. Your choice of experts must be predicated on a thorough analysis of the case and an articulated theory of your defense. Your trial is subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, including the latest decisions of the United States Supreme Court, as discussed in class. Experts must be qualified to render expert opinions, and the opinions you seek to introduce into evidence must be relevant, reliable and otherwise admissible under the Rules and case law, and make sense in light of your theory of defense. You probably will be required lo do at least minimal research and reading (in addition to the required text) to understand either the subject t matter of possible testimony, or possible bars to or authority for admissibility of a particular expert’s opinion. You may, but are not required to include case law or learned treatises or other acceptable sources to support your theory, especially if dealing with questionable Frye or. Daubert issues. If you need to assume additional facts, feel free to do so as long as you let me know what the additional facts are, and as long as you don’t assume the problem out of existence. For example, do not tell me that you have hired an expert who because she is more qualified than the State’s experts, will negate all the State’s expert has to say, or that on the eve of trial, the “real killer” comes forward, confesses, and, low and behold, you don’t have to spend a penny for any experts (or time writing an exam) because the Government dismisses the case. Also, don’t spend time and space in analyzing the law of Daubert, Frye or other decisions unless discussed in the context of why and how they affect the use of or admissibility of particular experts or testimony. Please believe that I know what they hold. I am aware that not all of the expert areas listed in this examination were presented or even discussed in class. As we did discuss in class, the purpose of this course was not merely to expose you to particular areas of expertise, but to give you possible approaches to the use of all expert testimony. Because the class was designed to expose you to a wide range of experts in various disciplines, and to the applicable Federal and Illinois Rules of Evidence, and Illinois and Federal case law rather than to make you experts in any particular area, experts you may need to think about, do research on and “retain” for this examination might be in subject areas not covered in class. This examination is to be no longer than 6 typewritten pages, double-spaced, standard (12 point font) and 1 inch margins, plus 1 page for the chart of experts and expenses. You may consult anyone in the world, expe-r1 or otherwise, case law, treatises, or any other living or nonliving source, just as you would if you were preparing a case in the real world. HOWEVER, the final written product MUST be your own work-product The exam MUST include, in the order listed: 1) Your theory of your defense (no more than one or two sentences); 2) Which experts you will consult and/or call to testify, and how they support your theory; 3) Experts who arguably might give relevant testimony but you have chosen NOT to consult or call, and WHY; and 4) Your financial breakdown within the given budget of $50,000 similar to the chart contained in this examination ( that is , a list of the experts retained, the number of hours/each expert (broken down into in-court and out-of-court work) x their fees per hour =$total). While in the “real word” alternatives would be considered, in “exam world” you have to stick with one theory or you run the risk of going over budget and losing points. That is, do not tell me that ym1 will call ”expert X” at $x.00, but you might call “expert Y” instead. I cannot and will not pick the “best” theory. Approach the exam as if it a were real-life problem, that is a real client has retained you, a real lawyer. There is no one-and-culy “rig.ht :m~wer; ” only creative lawyering involving your theory, your budget, the applicable Rules of Evidence, and prevailing case law. Your grade will be based on your analysis and its support in light of the facts, prevailing law, and rules of evidence.