Trial Documents Archive

A nearly complete collection of public documents from Kitzmiller v. Dover are available here.

Amicus Briefs

Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) briefs of various groups that were not parties to the lawsuit, but had an interest in the outcome. Known responses to the amicus briefs are also included. Amicus briefs are typically not filed in district court cases because (a) district court judges will base their decisions primarily on the extensive record of sworn testimony heard at trial, and (b) cases do not set a binding precendent unless they reach the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.


Please note:

The depositions provide here are typically electronic version converted from an ASCII file provided by the court reporter. After the deposition, deponents are given several weeks to read and manually correct the deposition before signing it. This is done on a paper copy that is sent to the lawyers for the opposite side in the case.Electronic versions of the corrected depositions were not usually produced. Therefore the PDF files hosted here do not represent the final, official versions of the depositions.

Barbara Forrest's corrections to her deposition are included in the listing below. Jeffrey Shallit is known to have submitted corrections to his deposition, but the corrected deposition is not possessed by NCSE.

File attachments: 
PDF icon 2005-04-14_deposition_Nilsen.pdf335.44 KB
PDF icon 2005-05-19_deposition_Behe_Michael.pdf360.78 KB
PDF icon 2005-04-01_deposition_Sneath_Cynthia.pdf1.76 MB
PDF icon 2005-04-15_deposition_Charlotte_Buckingham.pdf1.23 MB
PDF icon 2005-05-19_deposition_Spahr_Bertha.pdf232.24 KB
PDF icon 2005-04-07_deposition_Julie_Smith.pdf1.5 MB
PDF icon 2005-04-13_deposition_Alan_Bonsell.pdf2.85 MB
PDF icon 2005-04-08_deposition_Rehm_Bryan.pdf372.92 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-28_deposition_Shallit.pdf2.87 MB
PDF icon 2005-04-13_deposition_Alan_Bonsell_exhibits.pdf535.1 KB
PDF icon 2005-04-27_deposition_Yingling_Angie.pdf3.22 MB
PDF icon 2005-01-03_deposition_Nilsen_Richard.pdf356.87 KB
PDF icon 2005-05-20_deposition_Eshbach_Robert.pdf214.98 KB
PDF icon 2005-01-03_deposition_Harkins.pdf110.87 KB
PDF icon 2005-05-10_deposition_Padian.pdf4.45 MB
PDF icon 2005-04-14_deposition_Nilsen_exhibits.pdf364.02 KB
PDF icon 2005-05-17_deposition_Brown_Jeff.pdf329.09 KB
PDF icon 2005-05-25_deposition_Miller_Kenneth.pdf305.72 KB
PDF icon 2005-03-30_deposition_Callahan_Aralene.pdf3.26 MB
PDF icon 2005-03-10_deposition_Geesey.pdf2.81 MB
PDF icon 2005-06-09_deposition_Cleaver.pdf1.66 MB
PDF icon 2005-04-07_deposition_Peterman.pdf2.8 MB
PDF icon 2005-04-12_deposition_Harkins.pdf1.39 MB
PDF icon 2005-06-21_deposition_Fuller.pdf208.64 KB
PDF icon 2005-05-26_deposition_Minnich.pdf183.07 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-22_deposition_Baksa_Michael.pdf65.82 KB
PDF icon 2005-05-16_deposition_Brown_Casey.pdf6.38 MB
PDF icon 2005-07-19_deposition_Thaxton_escript.pdf219.51 KB
PDF icon 2005-03-31_deposition_Buckingham.pdf2.12 MB
PDF icon 2005-03-18_deposition_Bonsell_Donald.pdf190.51 KB
PDF icon 2005-07-11_deposition_Miller_errata.pdf283.27 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-02_deposition_Alters_Brian.pdf275.85 KB
PDF icon 2005-04-06_deposition_Steve_Stough.pdf274.4 KB
PDF icon 2005-01-03_deposition_Bonsell_Alan.pdf119.53 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-07_deposition_Nord.pdf247.9 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-07_deposition_Forrest.pdf7.28 MB
PDF icon 2005-06-01_deposition_Haught.pdf261.97 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-22_deposition_Callahan_Aralene.pdf289.37 KB
PDF icon 2005-05-17_deposition_Carpenter.pdf239.66 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-07_deposition_Forrest_errata.pdf5.03 MB
PDF icon 2005-03-29_deposition_Fenimore_Deborah.pdf206.87 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-14_deposition_Pennock.pdf243.39 KB
PDF icon 2005-05-18_deposition_Miller_Jennifer.pdf188.87 KB
PDF icon 2005-07-08_deposition_Buell.pdf192.58 KB
PDF icon 2005-03-09_deposition_Baksa.pdf5.14 MB
PDF icon 2005-01-04_deposition_Kitzmiller.pdf159.45 KB
PDF icon 2005-01-03_deposition_Buckingham.pdf220.81 KB

Foundation for Thought and Ethics Documents

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) produced the ID textbook Of Pandas and People and was the originator of the "intelligent design" terminology. The FTE filed 3 separate motions in the course of the Kitzmiller case. The legal filings are attached to the pages below.

FTE Intervention

In the midst of litigation about drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, FTE (represented by lawyers from the Alliance Defense Fund) filed a motion to intervene in the case as co-defendants. This motion was opposed by both Plaintiffs and Defense. At an oral hearing on July 14, 2005, FTE argued that if it were allowed to intervene, it would reintroduce expert witnesses William Dembski and Stephen Meyer. This was a dubious argument as FTE's lawyers (working closely with the Discovery Institute) had played a role in the withdrawal of Dembski and Meyer in the first place. At the hearing, Buell was also cross-examined on his claims that "intelligent design" was not creationism, and Plaintiffs introduced a draft Summary Chapter of "Pandas" showing that it was. On July 27, 2005, the motion to intervene was denied on the grounds that the motion was not timely, intervention would extend and delay the case, and the FTE's interests were not substantially different from the current Defendants, who were already receiving vigorous representation from the Thomas More Law Center. FTE was given leave to file an amicus brief, which they later did.

Production of "Design of Life"

On page 10 of his Expert Witness Report, William Dembski cited the unpublished manuscript of The Design of Life, a "third edition" of Of Pandas and People, in support of his claim to expertise in the case. Any materials cited in an expert report must be produced to the other side if requested, and the Plaintiffs requested the manuscript. However, Dembski and the FTE refused, and the Defense filed a motion for a protective order on various grounds, including a claim that they did not want the book subjected to early critique from NCSE. This argument was weakened by the fact that Dembski had posted several chapters of "The Design of Life" on his public website in 2004. The Judge ordered that the book be produced but kept confidential. As Dembski later withdrew from the case, the book ceased to become important, but one chapter (chapter 6, on fossils) was introduced in court during the Behe-cross examination.

Subpoena to FTE for Drafts of "Of Pandas and People"

In April 2005, Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to Jon Buell and the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, located in Richardson, TX. An NCSE staffer, Nick Matzke, suspected (based on material in NCSE's archives) that a 1987 draft manuscript of "Pandas" known as "Biology and Origins" would use the term "creation" instead of "intelligent design." The Plaintiffs issued a subpoena for "Biology and Origins" and any other drafts or material relating to the publication of "Pandas." FTE filed a motion to quash the subpoena in the Northern District of Texas. The motion was denied and the subsequent FTE production included five drafts of "Pandas" that later became key evidence at trial: "Creation Biology" (1983), "Biology and Creation" (1986), "Biology and Origins" (1987), "Of Pandas and People" (a 1987 creationist version), and "Of Pandas and People" (a 1987 "intelligent design" version). Also produced was a draft of the "Pandas" Overview Chapter written by Nancy Pearcey; this was entered into evidence at a July 14, 2005 hearing where Jon Buell testified in support of FTE's motion to intervene. Judge Jones later wrote in his decision that these drafts were "astonishing" evidence showing that "intelligent design" was just "creationism re-labeled" after the Supreme Court's 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision against "creation-science."

Post-trial Findings of Fact

After the trial concludes, both sides write up extensive "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" that detail exactly how they think the Court should rule on each point in dispute. The Proposed Findings are written in the voice of the Court so that the judge can include them in his opinion if he agrees.

Pretrial Motions in limine

Just before the trial, the Defense filed a flurry of "in Limine" motions (preliminary motions dealing with the admissibility of evidence) seeking to exclude large parts of the Plaintiffs' case, including expert witness Barbara Forrest and any material on the history of "Of Pandas and People" or "intelligent design."
File attachments: 
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_brief_exclude_Shallit_ex1.pdf1.42 MB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_brief_exclude_Shallit.pdf672.92 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_index_exhibit_exclude_Shallit.pdf64.35 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motions_in_Limine_Ex_E_Harkins_declaration.pdf283.17 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motions_in_Limine_Ex_D_Geesey_declaration.pdf278.37 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-21_Ds_reply_on_Forrest_limine_motion_exhibits.pdf35.44 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motions_in_Limine_Ex_B_Bonsell_declaration.pdf281.31 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motions_in_Limine_Ex_A_Buckingham_declaration.pdf313.42 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motion_in_limine_exclude_Forrest.pdf214.71 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-21_Ds_reply_on_Forrest_limine_motion.pdf707.8 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_brief_supporting_motion_in_limine_exclude_Forrest.pdf1.24 MB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_in_limine_exclude_Forrest_list_exhibits.pdf103.44 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_brief_exclude_Shallit_ex2.pdf480.69 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motion_in_limine_exclude_FTE_evidence_exhibit_list.pdf245.26 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_brief_exclude_Shallit_ex4.pdf1.62 MB
PDF icon 2005-09-16_Ps_response_in_limine_motions.pdf1.06 MB
PDF icon 2005-09-19_Ps_in_limine_motion_exclude_deposition_testimony.pdf381.97 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_certification_Robert_Muise.pdf1.33 MB
PDF icon 2005-09-20_Ds_application_use_deposition_testimony.pdf276.93 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motion_in_limine_exclude_FTE_evidence.pdf272.5 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-14_order_in_limine_exceed_page_limits.pdf30.16 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_proposed_order_exclude_Shallit.pdf61.8 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-13_Ps_proposed_order_combine_briefs.pdf1.33 MB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_brief_exclude_Shallit_ex3.pdf850 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motion_exclude_Shallit.pdf207.68 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_in_limine_brief_on_news_materials.pdf409.49 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_Limine_motion_on_news_materials-Index_of_exhibits.pdf229.12 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-20_Ds_reply_brief_news_materials.pdf1.28 MB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_brief_exclude_evidence_DI_FTE_Buell_Thaxton_Johnson_Davis_Kenyon.pdf5.18 MB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motion_exclude_evidence_DI_FTE_Buell_Thaxton_Johnson_Davis_Kenyon.pdf438.23 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-22_order_on_Ds_in_limine_motions.pdf565.49 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motions_in_Limine_Ex_C_Cleaver_declaration.pdf1.43 MB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motions_in_Limine_Ex_F_Nilson_declaration.pdf1.09 MB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_brief_exclude_evidence_DI_FTE_Buell_Thaxton_Johnson_Davis_Kenyon_efiled.pdf542.83 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-06_Ds_motions_in_Limine_Ex_G_Baksa_declaration.pdf294.36 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-13_Ps_request_to_combine_briefs.pdf125.69 KB

Rutherford Intervention

In January 2005, several pro-ID parents backed by the Rutherford Institute attempted to intervene in the case as co-defendants.

Subpoena of Reporters

A subplot in the case was whether or not local newspaper reporters could be called to testify in the trial as fact witnesses. Newspapers opposed this on First Amendment grounds. Eventually an agreement was struck whereby the reporters would testify, but with strict limits on direct and cross-examination questions.
File attachments: 
PDF icon 2005-08-24_Ds_response_reporters_motion_to_reconsider_ExA.pdf348.32 KB
PDF icon 2005-08-31_reporters_reply_brief.pdf393.6 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-08_order_USCA_reporters.pdf348.27 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-12_order_reporters_reconsideration_motion.pdf258.96 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-15_subpoenas_Maldonado_Bernhard-Bubb.pdf239.9 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-19_Ps_filing_reporters_3rd_circuit_appeal.pdf340.84 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-21_proposed_joint_stip_reporters_contempt.pdf276.39 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-22_order_denying_contempt.pdf29.64 KB
PDF icon 2005-09-28_order_reporters_motion_to_reconsider.pdf317.39 KB
PDF icon 2005-08-24_Ds_response_reporters_motion_to_reconsider_Ex_list.pdf238.46 KB
PDF icon 2005-08-24_Ds_response_reporters_motion_to_reconsider.pdf3.72 MB
PDF icon 2005-08-17_order_hearing_on_reporters_motion.pdf243.87 KB
PDF icon 2005-08-02_order_decision_on_reporters.pdf129.22 KB
PDF icon 2005-07-14_transcript_pretrial_hearing_on_reporters_and_FTE-Buell.pdf555.04 KB
PDF icon 2005-07-01_stipulation_notice_reporters.pdf207.76 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-30_Reporters_reply_to_Ds_response.pdf68.18 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-30_Ps-reporters_stipulation_ExA_affidavits.pdf270.83 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-30_Ps-reporters_stipulation.pdf311.04 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-27_reporters_brief_opp_def_motion_to_compel.pdf401.46 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-27_Ps_response_reporters.pdf564.68 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-23_Ds_opposition_reporters_motion_to_quash_subpoenas.pdf259.9 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-22_order_hearing_2005-07-14.pdf58.53 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-20_order_hearing_on_reporters.pdf53.78 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-15_Ds_proposed_motion_to_compel_reporters.pdf291.49 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-14_reporters_motion_to_quash_refiled.pdf360.12 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-14_memo_supporting_reporters.pdf105.3 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-13_notice_of_deposition_reporters_pub.pdf336.64 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-10_reporters_memo_mot_to_quash.pdf291.49 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-10_Ps_response_reporters_motion_to_quash.pdf34.4 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-10_deposition_subpoenas_reporters.pdf1.14 MB
PDF icon 2005-06-07_reporters_proposed_order.pdf256.03 KB
PDF icon 2005-06-07_reporters_motion_to_quash.pdf415.07 KB
PDF icon 2005-05-24_subpoenas_to_newspapers.pdf1.47 MB
PDF icon 2005-05-04_subpoena_Maldonado.pdf123.16 KB
PDF icon 2005-10-25_reporters_appeal_dismissed.pdf39.42 KB

Summary Judgment Motion

The Defense filed a motion for Summary Judgement (decision with no trial) in July 2005. The responses constitute an excellent survey of the state of the case before the trial. Summary judgement is granted only if it can be demonstrated that there are no "material issues of fact" in dispute that need to be resolved at trial. The judge is required to view all facts and inferences in a manner most favorable to the nonmoving party, in this case the Plaintiffs.

All relevant files are listed below, except for the appendices to the Plaintiffs' brief in opposition to the motion, which are available here.

Appendices to Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment

In the brief opposing the motion of summary judgment, the Plaintiffs included several appendices which contained a large number of exhibits. These files are listed below.
File attachments: 
PDF icon Appendix V Tab A.pdf230.35 KB
PDF icon Index For Appendix V.pdf25.62 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab EE.pdf303.62 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab DD.pdf312.36 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab CC.pdf229.87 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab BB.pdf297.03 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab AA.pdf277.98 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab Z.pdf315.84 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab Y.pdf215.09 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab X.pdf315.99 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab W.pdf237.52 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab V.pdf324.39 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab U.pdf304.84 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab T.pdf390.36 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab S.pdf226.98 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab R.pdf181.08 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab Q.pdf327.11 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab P.pdf316.11 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab O.pdf222.43 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab N.pdf259.75 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab M.pdf326.05 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab L.pdf232.76 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab K.pdf212.94 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab J.pdf340.36 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab I.pdf265.25 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab H.pdf281.94 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab G.pdf208.04 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab F.pdf284.34 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab E.pdf315.37 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab D.pdf225.35 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab C.pdf175.31 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab B.pdf300.61 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV Tab A.pdf267.98 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV - Volume II.pdf354 KB
PDF icon Appendix IV - Volume I.pdf304.84 KB
PDF icon Index For Appendix IV - Volume I.pdf113.72 KB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab O.pdf218.27 KB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab N.pdf291.78 KB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab M.pdf298.91 KB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab L.pdf128.44 KB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab K.pdf310.56 KB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab J.pdf1.46 MB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab I.pdf10.17 MB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab H.pdf1.76 MB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab G.pdf9.27 MB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab F.pdf464.25 KB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab E.pdf10.83 KB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab D.pdf7.28 MB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab C.pdf2.92 MB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab B.pdf7.79 MB
PDF icon Appendix III Tab A.pdf358.44 KB
PDF icon Index For Appendix III - Volume II.pdf135.83 KB
PDF icon Index For Appendix III - Volume I.pdf274.36 KB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab M.pdf7.56 MB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab L.pdf3.71 MB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab K.pdf3.51 MB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab J.pdf871.26 KB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab I.pdf6.2 MB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab H.pdf958.73 KB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab G.pdf338.16 KB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab F.pdf5.02 MB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab E.pdf928.9 KB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab D.pdf813.75 KB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab C.pdf1.15 MB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab B.pdf8.04 MB
PDF icon Appendix II Tab A.pdf9.6 MB
PDF icon Index For Appendix II - Volume II.pdf257.8 KB
PDF icon Index For Appendix II - Volume I.pdf308.12 KB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab S.pdf2.03 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab R.pdf5.64 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab Q.pdf2.52 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab P.pdf2.71 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab O.pdf2.73 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab N.pdf4.85 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab M.pdf1.61 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab L.pdf2.77 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab K.pdf2.81 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab J.pdf4.6 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab I.pdf1.66 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab H.pdf2.12 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab G.pdf3.41 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab F.pdf5.78 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab E.pdf6.38 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab D.pdf1.37 MB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab C.pdf196.04 KB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab B.pdf149.84 KB
PDF icon Appendix I Tab A.pdf236.99 KB
PDF icon Index For Appendix I - Volume II.pdf277.95 KB
PDF icon Index For Appendix I - Volume I.pdf294.68 KB
PDF icon Index For Appendix I.pdf135.46 KB

Court TV

Just before the trial, Court TV attempted to get permission to televise the trial. While state courts sometimes allow trials to be televised, cameras are typically forbidden in federal court.