RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P014

← Previous page

Next page →

Day 3 (28 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Direct of Julie Smith

Section 1 THE COURT: We return in session, and I want to apologize to the assembled spectators and, of course, to the media. We handled a matter in chambers that you'll become aware of in an effort to resolve a problem, and I think we did. These things arise during trials from time to time. That is the first time that we've had that type of matter in this trial. We may have others as the trial unfolds. But it was a necessary exercise. And we try to keep them at a minimum and we will keep them at a minimum during the trial. But with that, we will go back to the plaintiffs. You may call your next witness. MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, the plaintiffs would call Julie Smith. JULIE SMITH, called as a witness, having been duly sworn or affirmed, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Please tell us your name. A. Julie Ann Smith. Q. Where do you live, Ms. Smith? A. (Address in York PA supplied, redacted by RationalWiki) Q. And is that within the area covered by the Dover Area School District? A. Yes, it is. Q. And how long have you lived there? A. Fourteen years. Q. Do you have any children? A. Yes, I have two children. Q. How old are they? A. My daughter Child1 is 16, and my son Michael is 19. (Note: the names of all minors have been redacted by RationalWiki) Q. Your daughter Child1, what school does she attend? A. Dover High School. Q. What grade is she in? A. She's in eleventh grade. Q. Please tell us what you do for a living. A. I'm a medical technologist. Q. And please summarize for us your educational background. A. I graduated high school in 1979, and I graduated at York College with a degree in medical technology in 1984.	Section 1 notes
Section 2 Q. Now, did there come a time when you learned that the Dover Area School District Board of Directors was considering approval of a biology textbook? A. Yes. Q. And tell us, when did you learn that? A. I learned that in June of '04. Q. And what was the basis for your knowledge? A. I read it in the paper. Q. Do you remember what you read? A. Yeah, I read it in the York Daily Record, and, yes, I do remember. Q. Please tell us what you remember learning at that time. A. That the school district was very concerned about approving a biology text that did not include creationism. Q. And do you remember anything else that you learned at that time? A. Not right off the top of my head.	Section 2 notes
Section 3 Q. Okay. Did there come a time when you learned that the school district board of directors had approved a biology text? A. Yes, they did in August. Q. And what was the basis for you learning that at that time? A. I read about it in the paper. Q. And did there come a time when you learned that the school district board of directors was considering a supplemental textbook? A. Yes. Q. And what was the basis for your knowledge of that? A. I learned that from the paper, also. Q. And what did you learn? A. That they were going to have Of Pandas and People in the classroom as a supplemental text to the biology book. Q. And did you learn about where that book was going to come from? A. It was donated.	Section 3 notes
Section 4 Q. Now, did there come a time when you learned that the board had made a change to the biology curriculum? A. Yes. Q. And approximately when was that? A. In October, I believe it was, in '04. It was in the newspaper that they were going to be teaching their intelligent design from Of Pandas and People. Q. And did you attend that board meeting? A. No. Q. And did you learn anything else from reading the newspapers at that time? A. Well, that they were going to read the statement in the classroom, yes.	Section 4 notes
Section 5 Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to ask you to take a look in the notebook at what's been marked as P127. A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us what it is? A. It's the newsletter that came to the house in the mail that told -- that had the statement included that they were going to be teaching in the biology class. Q. Now, do you know approximately when you received this? A. Well, it says it was February, so I'm assuming it was February. Q. Did there come a time when -- let me withdraw that. Do you believe that the board's actions in this case, the change to the biology curriculum and its other actions, have caused you harm? A. Yes, I do.	Section 5 notes
Section 6 Q. And can you tell us what harm you believe that it has caused you? A. Late in '04 my daughter came home from school, and I was discussing kind of what was going on in the district with her. And she looked at me and she said, Well, Mom, evolution is a lie, what kind of Christian are you, anyway, which I found to be very upsetting. Q. Did you ask her why she said that? A. Yeah, I asked her why she said that, and she said in school what they had been talking about or amongst her friends and what's going on. She seemed to be under the impression that as a Christian, she could not believe that evolution was a science that, you know, was true. Q. And how did that harm you? A. Well, it goes against my beliefs. I have no problems with my faith and evolution. They're not mutually exclusive. MR. HARVEY: No further questions of this witness. THE COURT: All right. Cross-examine, Mr. Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor.	Section 6 notes

Day 3 (28 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Cross of Julie Smith

Section 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Mrs. Smith, my name is Richard Thompson. I represent the defendants in this case. And do you recall in April where your deposition was taken by another member of the Thomas More Law Center, Patrick Gillen? Do you remember being involved in that deposition? A. Yes, I do. Q. Were you present in court for all the testimony that has been given in this trial? A. No. Q. When did you get to court? A. Tuesday morning. Q. Now, whose testimony have you heard so far? A. I heard some of Ken Miller's. I heard Barrie Callahan, Bryan Rehm. I heard the gentleman this morning.	Section 7 notes
Section 8 Q. Okay. You were asked to become a plaintiff in this case by the ACLU, were you not? A. No. Q. Didn't someone from the ACLU call you? A. Yes, they called me. But I was actually asked by my friend at work, who said to me, would you be interested in having the ACLU contact you, and I said yes. Q. And so the ACLU contacted you, and you agreed to become a plaintiff in this case? A. Yes.	Section 8 notes
Section 9 Q. Now, will you agree with me that the policy which is the subject matter of this lawsuit, the curriculum change in the biology for ninth grade, took place on October 18th, 2004? A. Yes. Q. That's when the board passed the resolution that changed the biology curriculum? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And that policy was implemented for the first time in January of 2005. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. In January, 2005, where was your son? A. My son was in college. Q. So he had already graduated from Dover High School? A. Yes, that's correct.	Section 9 notes
Section 10 Q. And in January, 2005, where was your daughter? A. She was in school. Q. What grade? A. She was in grade ten. Q. So you will agree with me that this biology curriculum really only affected, as far as the statement was read, ninth-grade biology students? A. No, that's not true. Q. So the statement was read to other classes? A. No, but it would affect all the students at the school. Q. Well, listen to my question. This policy provided that the statement was read to ninth-grade biology students. Do you agree with that? A. I agree it was read to ninth-grade biology students. Q. Okay. And your daughter had already graduated from the ninth grade? A. That's correct. Q. So at the time that this policy was implemented, both of your children were out of the ninth grade? A. That's correct. Q. Neither one of them would be subject to the statement being read to them. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Now, you indicated to your lawyer that you got involved because of newspaper articles that you read? A. That's correct.	Section 10 notes
Section 11 Q. Okay. Now, is it an accurate statement that in the year 2004, prior to you becoming a plaintiff in this case, you had never attended a single board meeting -- A. That's not correct. Q. -- in 2004? A. In 2004, that's correct. Q. Okay. Just please answer my question and then your attorney can ask you to explain if he wants to. So in 2004, prior to this -- prior to you becoming a plaintiff, you never attended a board meeting in that year? A. In that year. Q. Okay. A. Before that, yes. Q. In 2003, you never attended a board meeting. Is that correct? A. No, I had attended board meetings previously. Q. I didn't ask you that question. I asked you, in 2003, did you attend a board meeting? A. I'm going to say I don't remember which board meetings I attended.	Section 11 notes
Section 12 Q. In 2002 -- MR. HARVEY: Objection. Arguing with the witness and beyond the scope -- MR. THOMPSON: I'm asking questions. MR. HARVEY: Excuse me, and beyond the scope of direct. THE COURT: Wait, wait. One at a time. Let him finish, Mr. Thompson. Finish the objection. MR. HARVEY: Objection, arguing with the witness and beyond the scope of direct. THE COURT: I don't find it beyond the scope of direct. It's appropriate cross-examination. It's overruled on that basis. We're getting argumentative only because I think the witness and counsel are talking over each other. Each of you let the other finish before you start talking. MR. THOMPSON: I apologize, Your Honor. THE COURT: There's a great temptation in cross-examination to talk over. That happens. So let's get a question on the floor. Why don't you restate your question, Mr. Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Is it true that you did not attend a board meeting in the year 2003? A. I'm not going to say that's not true. I don't remember which board meetings I attended. I did attend some before '04. Q. Is it true that you didn't attend a board meeting in 2002? A. I told you I don't remember which year I -- I attended board meetings during the construction project, so when that was, that's when I was there. Q. And that was the year 2000, was it not? A. I don't remember.	Section 12 notes
Section 13 Q. Mrs. Smith, I'm going to hand you -- MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, may I approach the witness? THE COURT: You may. BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Mrs. Smith, I'm going to hand you what purports to be your deposition that was taken by Patrick Gillen. I would like you to direct your attention to Page 13, and I would like you to read out loud the question that you are asked starting with Line 18 and all the way down through that page and then going on to the next page, Page 14, and reading from Line 1 through Line 4. And please read it out loud. A. You want me to read out loud starting on 18? Q. Line 18 that starts with Q, which represents the question that was asked by Mr. Gillen, and A represents your answer. Would you please read it out loud. A. "Let me just make sure I get you there and go on. You attended board meetings. Give me a sense of which ones you attended. They were not the board meetings" -- Q. Now give me your answer. So that the record will reflect, that was the question and now your answer, starting with Line 21. A. You want me to read it? Q. Yes. A. "They were not the board meetings, and we were not discussing intelligent design. When I went to some board meetings, it was several years ago. We were discussing the building project, and it has nothing to do with the intelligent design." Q. And then go on to the next page, and the question that Mr. Gillen asked you starting on Line 1? A. "That is all I am trying to get a sense for. I am not familiar with the dates for the building project. Was that '03 or '02?" Q. "Was that 2003 or 2002," is that right, the question? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And what was your answer? A. "I would say more like 2000."	Section 13 notes
Section 14 Q. So was that an accurate reflection of your memory at the time that the deposition was taken? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Does that seem right that the board meetings that you attended prior to being a plaintiff in a lawsuit was in the year 2000? A. If that's what I said, that's what I recalled at the time, yes. Q. So based upon the response that you gave to your attorney, is it a fair statement that you began as a plaintiff in this case in December, 2004, without ever having personally witnessed the actions of the Dover School Board as they debated and enacted the policy on which this lawsuit is based? MR. HARVEY: Objection. It's compound. BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Can you answer that question? THE COURT: Now, wait. She's not going to answer it until I rule on the objection. Elaborate on your objection. MR. HARVEY: I think there are several predicates to that question. He asked whether you were present at any of the board meetings while they debated and then enacted this resolution, and I'm not aware of any testimony that they debated the resolution. THE COURT: Well, I think it's a fair characterization that there was discussion about the policy. I'll overrule the objection. You can answer the question. Do you recall the question? THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: Let's have the question read back, please. (Previous question read back.) THE WITNESS: That's correct.	Section 14 notes
Section 15 BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. In fact, all of the information upon which you -- strike that. In fact, the information that you were getting about what the school board was doing in 2004 came from newspapers. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And I believe in your deposition you indicated that you looked at the morning newspapers almost on a daily basis? A. That's correct. Q. And when you were looking at the morning newspapers, that you got very upset about what you read regarding the Dover School Board and the policies that they were debating. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. What were the two -- what were the newspapers that you were looking at during this time? A. I read the Daily Record every morning. Q. What about the York Dispatch? A. Not regularly, no. Q. Okay. So that it would be a fair statement that even though what you were reading in the newspapers got you upset, that you never personally attended one of the board meetings in that year? A. That's correct. There were personal issues in my life at that time where I was not able to do that.	Section 15 notes
Section 16 Q. And it is true that you never spoke to any of the members of the Dover School Board about the issues that concerned you. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. You never called them. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. You never e-mailed them. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Did you write letters to the editor about what the school board was doing? A. No. Q. So that the first time that the school board would know that you were upset with their actions is when they learned of you being a plaintiff in this lawsuit. Is that correct? A. That's correct.	Section 16 notes
Section 17 Q. Okay. Now, did you ever speak to any of the teachers at Dover High School before you became a plaintiff in this case? A. No. Q. Did you ever speak to any of the reporters who had written the stories about what the Dover School Board was doing during this time? A. No. Q. Did you ever receive any minutes or notes about what the Dover School Board was doing during this time? A. No. Q. You never sent anyone e-mails or any other communication regarding this issue. Is that a fair statement? A. That's a fair statement.	Section 17 notes
Section 18 Q. In fact, one of the issues in this case is this book Of Pandas and People. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. You never looked at the book Of Pandas and People before you became a plaintiff in this lawsuit, did you? A. I didn't feel that I could look at it. It was in -- I guess it was in the library at the school, but I was not aware if we could go in the school library and take out books or not. Q. Well, did you make any effort to go and look at it? A. I really wasn't interested. Q. Now, your attorney referred to a newsletter that you received in February. Do you have a copy of that newsletter in front of you? A. Yes. Q. And I believe you indicated that you thought the newsletter was sent in February, 2002? A. No. Q. Excuse me, 2005. Excuse me. A. Correct.	Section 18 notes
Section 19 Q. Okay. Could we have that newsletter? I would like you to read from that newsletter on the top left-hand side in that box. Read it out loud, please. A. "This newsletter has been produced to help explain the changes in the biology curriculum. Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation has been spread regarding this policy. We hope this publication will help those interested better understand the substance of the policy while eliminating any misconceptions some may have about the curriculum change. We sincerely appreciate your understanding on this matter." Q. Thank you. It was through this policy that you first learned about the statement that was going to be read. Is that correct? A. No, I believe -- no, I heard about it before. Q. But did you actually see the statement before? A. I don't think so. Q. So this was the first time that you saw the statement that was going to be read to the students in the ninth-grade biology class. Is that correct? A. I believe so. Q. Okay. A. As far as I can tell. Q. And so this newsletter was actually providing information to the residents of Dover as to what the actual newsletter was -- excuse me, what the actual statement was going to say. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So you had no problem with the fact that the newsletter was being produced, even though you had a problem with the policy. Is that correct? A. No.	Section 19 notes
Section 20 Q. Now, there's a bit of street wisdom, and I don't know whether you agree with this or not, and that street wisdom is, don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. Have you ever heard that? A. Yeah, I've heard that before. Q. Okay. And so if you don't believe everything in the newspapers, don't you think before you became a plaintiff in a lawsuit that you should have taken some personal action to verify whether things that were produced in a newspaper were really accurate? A. I did talk to people in the district, other people in the district. Q. Who did you talk to? A. People that I work with, other people in the district. Q. But you never even saw the policy until that newsletter came out. Is that correct? A. I got my information from the newspaper, yes. Q. And the newspaper. Now, have you ever had involvement with newspapers before? Have you been interviewed? Have you been interviewed by news reporters before? A. No. Q. But would it be a fair statement to say in the normal experience that newspaper reporters might spend five, ten, or fifteen minutes interviewing a person and then only put one line of that interview in an article? MR. HARVEY: Objection. No foundation that she has any experience as referred to in the question. THE COURT: Do you want to respond to that Mr. Thompson? MR. THOMPSON: Well, I think it's common experience and it's knowledge, it's common sense. THE COURT: Now I think we're going afield. I'll sustain the objection. We're now clearly outside the scope of direct, the objection is sustained.	Section 20 notes
Section 21 BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Well, you said that you were upset by the policy because it conflicts with your religion? A. I said I was upset about it because I didn't find a problem with it with my religion. It does not -- I'm getting confused. I have a problem with it because my daughter came home from school and she says to me, What kind of Christian are you, anyway? So that's why I have a problem with it. Q. If you recall your deposition -- and I certainly will give you an opportunity to look at it if you don't recall it -- the incident that you're referring to, also you received information that your daughter was a member of a Bible club. Right? A. Yes. Q. And up to that point, you were not even aware she was a member of a Bible club. Isn't that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that it was -- she had a lot of friends who went to Protestant fundamental churches. Is that correct? A. Yes, she does. Q. And she received that information from her friends, her Protestant friends in school or in the Bible club. Isn't that correct? A. I would assume that's where she got her information, from the Bible club at school. Plus they talked about it.	Section 21 notes
Section 22 Q. And the fact that someone believes in intelligent design does not make that inconsistent with the Catholic faith, does it? A. I spoke to my deacon about this situation, and all I know is what he told me. Q. Is he a theologian? A. He's a deacon at St. Rose Catholic Church. Q. Do you know if he has any particular expertise in Catholic theology? MR. HARVEY: Objection again. Beyond the scope of direct, Your Honor. MR. THOMPSON: She brought the issue up of religion, Your Honor, and I'm exploring that. THE COURT: Well, I think it is beyond the scope, again, the colorable scope of direct, and I'll sustain the objection. This is not a deposition. This is testimony in the case-in-chief, and we're afield.	Section 22 notes
Section 23 BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Now, the book Of Pandas and People, you don't mind that book being in the library, do you? A. No, I don't have a problem with it being in the library. Q. You heard yesterday, if you attended the deposition of -- excuse me, the testimony of Mr. Rehm's, that the science teachers, in a compromised move, had agreed to put Of Pandas and People in the science class. Did you hear that? MR. HARVEY: Objection, Your Honor. Mischaracterizes the testimony. THE COURT: In what sense? MR. HARVEY: I believe Mr. Rehm testified that the teachers did not agree to put the materials in the science class. MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, my understanding in -- MR. HARVEY: And -- THE COURT: Now, wait, Mr. Harvey. Let Mr. Thompson speak. One at a time. MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, my memory, if it serves me correct, Mr. Rehm testified that they had reached a compromise with some of the board members that they were going to allow the book Of Pandas and People in the science classroom. THE COURT: My recollection is that he may not have used the word "compromise," he may have used the word "concession." I'm not sure that there's a distinction as it applies here. I'll overrule the objection. Did you hear Mr. Rehm's testimony yesterday? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Well, then go ahead. BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Whether it's "concession" or "compromise," did you hear that the teachers had agreed to put Of Pandas and People in the science classroom? A. I don't remember exactly what he said yesterday. MR. THOMPSON: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Any redirect? MR. HARVEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Then, ma'am, you may step down. That will complete your testimony. And I don't think we have any exhibits to enter, do we? MR. HARVEY: That's correct, Your Honor. P127 is already in evidence.	Section 23 notes

← Previous page

Next page →