Students from Kenya, Miami (USA), and Mexico will collaboratively assess a case involving a police officer killing an unarmed 19-year-old, examining the roles and actions of criminal justice actors in each country. They will compare and contrast the procedures, challenges, and outcomes of handling the case across their jurisdictions.

Fact Pattern: A 19-year-old unarmed male, named David, is shot and killed by a police officer during a routine traffic stop. The incident occurs in a residential neighborhood in the evening. The police officer, a five-year veteran of the force, claims that he believed David was reaching for a weapon. However, multiple witnesses reported that David raised his hands and was complying with the officer's commands. Body camera footage from the officer is partially obstructed, capturing only audio and some visual cues. The community is outraged, leading to protests and demands for justice. The case gains national media attention, putting pressure on the criminal justice system to respond transparently and effectively.

1. Law Enforcement Agencies

2. Prosecutors

3. Judiciary (Judges and Courts)

4. Internal Affairs/Police Oversight Bodies

5. Defense Attorneys

6. Media

7. Civil Society Organizations

1. Introduction:

· Briefly introduce the case scenario and outline the objectives of the assignment.

· The assignment will be done in teams, with representation from Kenya, Miami, and Mexico in each team.

2. Role Identification and Analysis:

· Each student will detail the role of one key actor from their country’s perspective.

· Explain the typical process followed by the actor in a police-involved fatality case.

· Discuss any notable challenges faced by these actors in their country.

3. Country-Specific Analysis:

· Kenya:

· Role and challenges of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA).

· Procedures followed by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).

· Judicial process and notable cases involving police use of force.

· Miami (USA):

· Role of internal affairs divisions and external oversight bodies like the Civilian Investigative Panel.

· Federal and state prosecution processes.

· Function of the judiciary and notable cases involving police use of force.

· Mexico:

· Role of the Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH) and state-level oversight bodies.

· Investigative procedures by law enforcement.

· Judicial processes and the impact of recent judicial reforms on police accountability.

4. Comparative Analysis:

· Students will collaborate to compare and contrast how the police-involved fatality case would be handled in each country.

· Highlight differences in procedures, legal frameworks, and effectiveness.

· Discuss the influence of cultural, political, and social factors on the handling of police use of force cases.

5. Conclusion:

· Summarize key findings from the comparative analysis.

· Reflect on best practices and lessons learned from each country's approach.

· Propose recommendations for improving the handling of police use of force cases in their own countries based on insights gained.

6. Presentation:

· Each team will prepare a presentation summarizing their findings.

· Presentations should include visual aids (e.g., charts, graphs, comparative tables).

· A Q&A session will follow each presentation to engage the entire class in discussion.

1. Written Report:

· Detailed analysis of the role of each criminal justice actor.

· Comparative analysis section with insights and recommendations.

· Report should be well-structured, with clear headings and subheadings.

2. Presentation:

· A comprehensive video summarizing the key points of the written report.

· Videos are to be uploaded to YouTube and be no more than 15 minutes long.

· Engaging visuals and concise explanations.

3. Peer Review:

· Each student will review the contributions of their peers, providing constructive feedback on their analysis and collaboration.

· Emerging: 8-16

· Satisfactory: 17-32

· Proficient: 33-48

· Excellent: 49-64

· Emerging (8-16 points): Needs significant improvement; understanding and analysis are below expectations.

· Satisfactory (17-32 points): Meets basic expectations with some areas needing improvement.

· Proficient (33-48 points): Meets and sometimes exceeds expectations; shows good understanding and analysis.

· Excellent (49-64 points): Exceeds expectations with thorough, insightful, and well-organized analysis and presentation.