User:Voxhumana/DoverResources

I pulled this from the Wikipedia page which was deleted in 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents

=
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.

Trial Materials
Most of the trial materials are in PDF format.

Docket information from the Federal Court website

Decision

 * Judge Jones' memorandum and order
 * HTML transcript: (introduction), 2: context, 3: disclaimer, 4: whether ID is science, 5: promoting religion, 6: curriculum, conclusion.

Official complaint

 * Official complaint of the plaintiffs
 * Answer from the defendants
 * Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
 * Defendants' Statement of Material Fact
 * Answer to Defendants' Statement of Material Fact

Plaintiff

 * Kenneth Miller (March 30, 2005)
 * Kevin Padian (March 30, 2005)
 * Brian Alters (March 30, 2005)
 * Robert Pennock (March 31, 2005)
 * Barbara Forrest (April 1, 2005)
 * John Haught (April 1, 2005)

Withdrawn from Plaintiff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.

Defense

 * Michael Behe (March 24, 2005)
 * Steve Fuller (May 13, 2005)
 * Scott Minnich (March 31, 2005)

Withdrawn from Defense

 * Dick Carpenter (March 24, 2005)
 * William Dembski (March 29, 2005)
 * Warren Nord (March 29, 2005)

Depositions

 * William Buckingham
 * January 3, 2005
 * March 31, 2005
 * Allan Bonsell
 * January 2, 2005
 * April 13, 2005
 * Richard Nilsen
 * January 2, 2005
 * April 14, 2005

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. 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.". Others claim the brief makes false factual claims.

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).

Transcripts of the trial

 * Day 1 (September 26, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Opening statement - Plaintiff (pg. 4)
 * Opening statement - Defense (pg. 15)
 * Kenneth Miller - Direct examination (pg. 30)
 * Day 1 (September 26, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Kenneth Miller - Direct examination (pg. 2)
 * Explains his slide show regarding irreducible complexity. (pg. 8)
 * Kenneth Miller - Cross examination ( pg. 57)
 * Day 2 (September 27, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Kenneth Miller - Cross examination (continued) (pg. 3)
 * Kenneth Miller - Redirect examination (pg. 83)
 * Exhibits (pg. 105)
 * Tammy Kitzmiller - Direct examination (pg. 112)
 * Tammy Kitzmiller - Cross examination (pg. 119)
 * Aralene Callahan - Direct examination (pg. 122)
 * 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)
 * Day 3 (September 28, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Robert T. Pennock - Direct examination (p. 4)
 * Robert Pennock - Cross examination (p. 62)
 * Robert Pennock - Redirect examination (p. 105)
 * Robert Pennock - Recross examination (p. 108)
 * Day 3 (September 28, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Counsel in chambers with Judge Jones discussing reporters testimony (pg. 3)
 * Julie Smith - Direct examination (pg. 34)
 * Julie Smith - Cross examination (pg. 39)
 * Christy Rehm - Direct examination (pg. 58)
 * Christy Rehm - Cross examination (pg. 79)
 * Beth Eveland - Direct examination (pg. 92)
 * Beth Eveland - Cross examination (pg. 106)
 * Day 4 (September 29, 2005) AM
 * Carol Brown - Direct examination
 * Day 4 (September 29, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Carol Brown - Cross examination (pg. 3)
 * Carol Brown - Redirect examination (pg. 34)
 * Carol Brown - Recross examination (pg. 40)
 * Jeffrey Brown - Direct examination (pg. 47)
 * Jeffrey Brown - Cross examination (pg. 81)
 * Jeffrey Brown - Redirect examination (pg. 100)
 * Frederick Callahan - Direct examination (pg. 103)
 * Frederick Callahan - Cross examination (pg. 116)


 * (There was no morning session on Day 5)
 * Day 5 (September 30, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * John Haught - Direct examination (pg. 3)
 * John Haught - Cross examination (pg. 31)
 * John Haught - Redirect examination (pg. 97)
 * Exhibits (pg. 101)
 * Day 6 (October 5, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Barbara Forrest - Direct examination on qualifications (pg. 4)
 * Barbara Forrest - Cross examination on qualifications (pg. 22)
 * Barbara Forrest - Redirect examination on qualifications (pg. 70)
 * Barbara Forrest - Summary of argument against her qualifications (pg. 70)
 * Barbara Forrest - Admitted as expert (pg. 76)
 * Barbara Forrest - Direct examination (pg. 76)
 * Day 6 (October 5, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Barbara Forrest - Direct examination (pg. 3)
 * Barbara Forrest - Cross examination (pg. 56)
 * Day 7 (October 6, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Barbara Forrest - Cross examination (continued) (pg. 3)
 * Barbara Forrest - Redirect examination (pg. 86)
 * Barbara Forrest - Recross examination (pg. 92)
 * Jennifer Miller - Direct examination (pg. 93)
 * Day 7 (October 6, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Exhibits (pg. 3)
 * Jennifer Miller - Cross examination (pg. 12)
 * Jennifer Miller - Redirect examination (pg 58)
 * Jennifer Miller - Recross examination (pg 63)
 * Bertha Spahr - Direct examination (pg. 67)
 * Day 8 (October 12, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Bertha Spahr - Cross examination (pg 4)
 * Exhibits (pg 46)
 * Brian Alters - Direct examination (pg 50)
 * Day 8 (October 12, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Brian Alters - Cross examination (pg. 3)
 * Brian Alters - Redirect examination (pg. 60)
 * Brian Alters - Recross examination (pg. 65)
 * Exhibits (pg. 67)
 * Cynthia Sneath - Direct examination (pg. 75)
 * Cynthia Sneath - Cross examination (pg. 101)
 * Steven Stough - Direct examination (pg. 109)
 * Day 9 (October 14, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Steven Stough - Direct examination (continued) (pg. 3)
 * Steven Stough - Cross examination (pg. 34)
 * Kevin Padian - Direct examination (pg. 42)
 * Day 9 (October 14, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Kevin Padian - Direct examination (continued) (pg. 4)
 * Kevin Padian - Cross examination (pg. 52)
 * Kevin Padian - Redirect examination (pg. 128)
 * Joel Lieb - Direct examination (pg. 141)
 * Joel Lieb - Cross examination (pg. 148)


 * Day 10 (October 17, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Exhibits (pg. 3)
 * Start of Defense case (pg. 19)
 * Michael Behe - Direct examination on qualifications (pg. 20)
 * Michael Behe - Direct examination (pg. 85)
 * Day 10 (October 17, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Michael Behe - Direct examination (continued)
 * Day 11 (October 18, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Michael Behe - Direct examination (continued) (pg. 3)
 * Day 11 (October 18, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Michael Behe - Direct examination (continued) (pg. 4)
 * Michael Behe - Cross examination (pg. 22)
 * Day 12 (October 19, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Discussion in chambers of admissibility of extracts from draft new edition of Pandas (pg. 3)
 * Michael Behe - Cross examination (continued) (pg. 12)
 * Day 12 (October 19, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Michael Behe - Cross examination (continued) (pg. 4)
 * Michael Behe - Redirect examination (pg. 74)
 * Michael Behe - Recross examination (pg. 99)


 * (There was no morning session on Day 13)
 * Day 13 (October 20, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Richard Nilsen - Direct examination (pg. 3)
 * Day 14 (October 21, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Exhibits (pg. 3)
 * Richard Nilsen - Direct examination (continued) (pg. 13)
 * Richard Nilsen - Cross examination (pg. 67)
 * Day 14 (October 21, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Richard Nilsen - Cross examination (continued) (pg. 4)
 * Richard Nilsen - Redirect examination (pg. 39)
 * Richard Nilsen - Recross examination (pg. 49)
 * Michael Richard Baksa - Direct examination (pg. 59)
 * Day 15 (October 24, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Steve Fuller - Qualifications (pg. 3)
 * Steve Fuller - Direct examination (pg. 34)
 * Day 15 (October 24, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Steve Fuller - Cross examination (pg. 3)
 * Steve Fuller - Redirect examination (pg. 102)
 * Steve Fuller - Recross examination (pg. 112)
 * Day 16 (October 27, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * William Buckingham (Hostile witness for Plaintiffs) - Direct examination
 * 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 18 (October 31, 2005) AM, HTML version
 * Jane Cleaver - Direct examination (pg. 4)
 * Jane Cleaver - Cross examination (pg. 27)
 * Jane Cleaver - Redirect examination (pg. 50)
 * Alan Bonsell - Direct examination (pg. 52)
 * Day 18 (October 31, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Alan Bonsell - Direct examination (continued) (pg. 3)
 * Alan Bonsell - Cross examination (pg. 28)
 * Alan Bonsell - Examination by Court (pg. 127)
 * 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 19 (November 2, 2005) PM
 * Michael Baska - Direct examination (continued from Day 17)
 * Michael Baska - Cross 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)
 * Day 20 (November 3, 2005) PM, HTML version
 * Scott Minnich - Direct examination (pg. 5)
 * Scott Minnich - Cross examination (pg. 145)
 * Day 21 (November 4, 2005) AM HTML version Part 1 HTML version Part 2
 * Scott Minnich - Cross examination (continued)
 * Scott Minnich - Redirect examination
 * Exhibits and procedural discussion
 * Closing statement by Richard Thompson (Defense counsel)
 * Day 21 (November 4, 2005) PM HTML version Part 1 HTML version Part 2
 * Exhibits and procedural discussion
 * Plaintiff's closing argument
 * Defense closing argument
 * Judge's final comments

Transcript Sources

 * ACLU blog
 * List (sometimes there are more to be found in the blog itself)
 * National Center for Science Education list
 * Thomas More Law Center
 * Talk.Origins Archive list (HTML formatted transcripts based on PDFs posted to the above sources)