Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Below are summaries of key documents from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts against a public school district that required a statement to be read to 9th grade science students endorsing intelligent design as an explanation of the origin of life. The plaintiffs claimed that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The defense claimed that the statement mentioning intelligent design as a challenge to evolution does not violate the Establishment clause because it does not mention or promote religion in any way, that intelligent design is based on inferences from empirical observation, and that the mention of it can only enhance a child's science education by teaching critical thinking. On 20 December 2005, Judge John E. Jones III found in favor of the plaintiff and ruled that the teaching of intelligent design was unconstitutional.

Contents

[edit] Trial Materials

Most of the trial materials are in PDF format.

[edit] Decision

[edit] Official complaint

[edit] Expert Witness Pre-Trial Statements

[edit] Plaintiff

[edit] Withdrawn from Plaintiff

  • Jeffrey Shallit (May 16, 2005)
    • Shallit was originally to be a rebuttal witness for defense witness William Dembski. After Dembski withdrew from the trial, the defense had filed a motion to exclude Shallit on grounds that it was unfair to allow Shallit to testify since Dembski would not testify and they were not allowed to introduce a replacement witness. The opposing sides came to an agreement that the plaintiffs would not call Shallit but reserved the right to call him in rebuttal if Dembski's materials were used by the defense and the defense could make a challenge to any such use of Shallit. See the judge's September 22 order. William Dembski wrote in his blog that Shallit was withdrawn because "his obsessiveness against me and ID made him a liability to the ACLU." This brought angry responses from critics of intelligent design [1] [2].

[edit] Defense

[edit] Withdrawn from Defense

[edit] Depositions

[edit] Amicus curiae filings

On October 3, the Discovery Institute filed an amicus curiae brief in which 85 scientists asked the judge not to rule on the question of what is and is not science [3]. The brief was written by institute fellow David DeWolf. The brief argues that the court should not address the scientific validity or invalidity of ID; "intelligent design should not be stigmatized by the courts as less scientific than competing theories", and that if the court rules on the validity of ID it could destroy careers and have other far-reaching effects.

Critics of the brief characterize the brief as employing dishonest rhetoric, that though the brief claims that ID is a "theory based upon a scientific evaluation of the empirical evidence." (p. 6), that there are no testable ID theories and cites that the brief admits there are none: "the current formulation of intelligent design theory," "...is still in its youth.... For that very reason it is premature to conclude that one side has triumphed and the other has lost." They argue: "The brief makes no scientific argument at all, and gives no indication of where the court might look to find a scientific argument." [4]. Others claim the brief makes false factual claims [5].

The Discovery Institute also filed its own amicus curiae (brief, appendix A, and appendix B) on October 17.

An additional amicus curiae (JSPAN Brief) was filed on behalf of the Jewish Social Policy Action Network, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action.

On October 24, Judge Jones ruled that the amicus curiae of the Discovery Institute be struck since it would allow a "backdoor" for William A. Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer, who previously withdrew from the case, to testify as expert witnesses without being subject to cross-examination. Judge Jones allowed the amicus curiae of the scientists to remain on the record though the plaintiffs had requested that it too be struck. (Judge Jones' Order).

[edit] Transcripts of the trial

  • Day 2 (September 27, 2005) PM, HTML version
    • Aralene Callahan - Direct examination (continued) (pg. 2)
    • Aralene Callahan - Cross examination (pg. 15)
    • Exhibits (pg. 27)
    • Bryan Rehm - Direct examination (pg. 35)
    • Counsel in chambers with Judge Jones discussing reporters testimony (pg. 71)
    • Bryan Rehm - Direct examination resumes (pg. 82)
    • Bryan Rehm - Cross examination (pg. 96)
    • Bryan Rehm - Redirect examination (pg. 117)
  • (There was no morning session on Day 5)
  • (There was no morning session on Day 13)
  • Day 16 (October 27, 2005) PM
    • William Buckingham - Direct examination (continued)
    • William Buckingham - Cross examination
    • Heidi Bernhard-Bubb (for Plaintiffs) - Direct examination
  • Day 17 (October 28, 2005), HTML version
    • Heidi Bernhard-Bubb - Cross examination (pg. 7)
    • Heidi Bernhard-Bubb - Redirect examination (pg. 50)
    • Joseph Maldonado (for Plaintiffs) - Direct examination (pg. 52)
    • Joseph Maldonado - Cross examination (pg. 91)
    • Exhibits (pg. 123)
    • Heather Geesey - Direct examination (pg. 145)
    • Heather Geesey - Cross examination (pg. 174)
    • Heather Geesey - Redirect examination (pg. 196)
    • Heather Geesey - Recross examination (pg. 200)
    • Heather Geesey - Examination by Court (pg. 200)
    • Heather Geesey - Redirect examination (pg. 203)
    • Heather Geesey - Recross examination (pg. 204)
    • Michael Baksa - Direct examination (continued from Day 14) (pg. 207)
  • Day 19 (November 2, 2005) AM
    • Alan Bonsell - Redirect examination
    • Alan Bonsell - Recross examination
    • Exhibits
    • Sheila Harkins - Direct examination
    • Sheila Harkins - Cross examination
    • Sheila Harkins - Redirect examination
    • Sheila Harkins - Recross examination
  • Day 20 (November 3, 2005) AM, HTML version
    • Michael Baska - Cross examination (continued) (pg. 4)
    • Michael Baska - Redirect examination (pg. 34)
    • Michael Baska - Recross examination (pg. 49)
    • Michael Baska - Examination by Court (pg. 55)
    • Michael Baska - Redirect examination (pg. 60)
    • Robert Linker (Hostile witness for Defense) - Direct examination (pg. 65)
    • Robert Linker - Cross examination (pg. 74)
    • Robert Linker - Redirect examination (pg. 99)
    • Robert Linker - Recross examination (pg. 102)

[edit] Transcript Sources