Mock trial
A mock trial is a contrived or imitation trial. It is similar to moot court, but mock trials deal with trials, while moot court deals with appellate court. Attorneys preparing for a real trial might use a mock trial consisting of volunteers to test theories or experiment with each other. In a mock trial the rules are often abbreviated in order to focus on particular parts of the trial.
Mock trial is also the name of an extracurricular program in which students participate in contrived or fake trials to learn new skills and compete with each other. At some law schools, the term trial advocacy is used for the program. Various organizations such as state bar associations sponsor mock trial/trial advocacy competitions for middle school students, high school students, college students, and law students.
Interscholastic mock trials takes place on three levels. High school competitive mock trial has an annual national competition governed by the National Mock Trial Association [1]. The competition on the college circuit is governed by the American Mock Trial Association [2]. The college circuit also has an unofficial online forum at Perjuries Mock Trial [3]. Finally, there is mock trial/trial advocacy at the Law School level such as the National Trial Competition hosted by the Texas Young Lawyers Association [4]. At this level, unlike the two previous levels, students compete not only for awards, but also for prestige that leads to high paying jobs.
High school mock trial
History
The National High School Mock Trial Competition was begun in 1984.[5] This first competition consisted of teams from Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. [6] The competition since has grown and now is considered to be an “All-State” tournament. Each year, various participating states around the country take turns hosting the tournament. In 2007, the National Competition was held in Dallas, Texas. Forty-four different states and/or US Territories participated in this event.
The mock trial program was started to allow high school students to experience the courtroom in a hands-on role. The mock trials are set up and structured just like a “real” court, bound by the same rules. [7] This can help the students to know exactly what role each of the different people in a court (judges, lawyers, witnesses, etc.) do in the judicial system. Preparation: Each state’s trial information is sent out in early fall to each of the competing teams.[8] This information consists of the charges and basis of the case, rules that must be followed, and affidavits of each of the testifying witnesses.[9] Additional information including maps and diagrams are often included to help teams understand the situation of the case. Teams have to study and analyze this information and form their case by the time of competition, typically held in early spring.[10] Each state has its own case every year that is different than the national case. This means that the winners of the state competitions, who move on to nationals, must study and prepare a completely different case in time for the National High School Mock Trial Competition in May.[11] Team Setup: The teams in high school mock trial consist of a maximum of eight official members.[12] These eight members must be organized into two teams of six for the Prosecution/Plaintiff and Defense/Defendant sides. Both of these six-member sub teams consist of three attorneys and three witnesses.[13] In addition to the eight official members, each team is allowed an unofficial timekeeper to apprise the team of their remaining time.[14] There are no substitutions allowed for teams after they have submitted an official roster at registration on the day of the competition.[15] New York State does not participate in the national competition, rather it has its own intrastate competition consisting of over 350 teams throughout the state. It follows similar rules to that of the national competition. New York has three levels of play, county competition, regional competition, and the finals, which is held in Albany, New York in May. [16]
Trial Procedure
The trial begins with the Prosecution/Plaintiff giving an opening statement followed by the opening statement of the Defense. After the opening statements, examination of the witnesses begins. The Prosecution/Plaintiff calls up their witnesses first. The attorney for the Prosecution/Plaintiff does a direct examination of the witness. Once the direct examination is complete, the opposing team may cross-examine the witness. After the cross-examination, if the first team chooses, they may redirect the witness and, likewise, the other team may do a re-cross after this. This process is repeated for the two remaining Prosecution/Plaintiff witnesses. Once the Prosecution/Plaintiff has finished with their witnesses, the process is repeated with the Defense witnesses, having the Defense attorneys direct and the Prosecution/Plaintiff attorneys cross-examine. [17] Once all of the witnesses have been examined, the trial moves to closing arguments. The Prosecution/Plaintiff again goes first. After the Defense/Defendant finishes their closing argument, the Prosecution/Plaintiff may give a rebuttal argument if they still have time remaining. This rebuttal, however, is limited to the scope of the Defense’s closing argument.[18]
Time Limits
To keep the trials from running too long, time limits are set. In the National High School Mock Trial Competition, time limits are set based on the different parts of the trial. Five minutes are allotted for opening statements; twenty-five for direct and redirect examinations; twenty for cross and re-cross examinations; and five for closing arguments (including rebuttals for the Prosecution/Plaintiff).[19]
Judging
There are several different ways that a mock trial can be judged. In one, the judges for scoring the mock trial consist of the presiding judge and two strictly scoring judges, all of whom score the teams. In a second method, there are three scoring judges and the presiding judge is not involved in the scoring of the teams. In the final method of judging, there are two scoring judges and the presiding judge, as in the first method, but the presiding judge does not score the teams, rather he simply votes or casts a ballot for one team or another.[20] The winning team is not the team that won the case in the traditional sense. Instead the winner is decided by which team scored better based on presentation, arguments, etc. Each judge makes the decision based on those factors as to who “won” and then whichever team “won” the majority of the judges is declared winner. So, it is possible for the Defense/Defendant to be found guilty or lose the case but still have the team playing the Defense/Defendant win the round.
Scoring
Scoring for all members is based on the structure of the statements (for witnesses) and questions (for attorneys), the understanding and interpretation of facts, persuasiveness, and general presence and presentation. These factors are used to determine a 1-10 score for each of the roles in the trial. These roles consist of the opening statements for the plaintiff and defense, each of the witnesses’ testimony, direct and cross-examination by attorneys, and the closing statements for both the plaintiff and defense. Each attorney gets two scores: one for his or her direct examination and one for his or her cross-examination. Points can be deducted from a team’s score for testifying with information outside the scope of the mock trial materials and for unsportsmanlike conduct or abuse of objections.[21] All the points are then totaled and the team with the higher number of points wins that judge’s ballot.
Power Matching
In the first round of the tournament, all of the teams are randomly matched to compete with each other. However, after the first round, the teams are “power matched” to go up against other teams with similar records (i.e. in the second round, a 1-0 team will be matched with another 1-0 team).[22] If there is a tie in record, the judges will use the number of ballots and total points earned to decide the matching.[23] This allows for teams to compete with other teams of similar skill. In later rounds, the power matching forces the first and second place teams to compete against each other, making it easier to determine a winner of the overall competition.
The following is the list of past five winners of the National High School Mock Trial Championships (2002-2007), as well as the runners-ups:
| Year | Winner | 1st Runner-Up | 2nd Runner-Up | 3rd Runner-Up |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | Jonesboro High School (Georgia) | Kalamazoo Central High School (Michigan) | John Adams High School (Indiana) | Saint Louis Priory School (Missouri) |
| 2006 | Valley High School (Iowa) | Kalamazoo Central High School (Michigan) | Saint Louis Priory School (Missouri) | Greensburg Salem High School (Pennsylvania) |
| 2005 | Tamalpais High School (California) | Kauai High School (Hawaii) | St. Louis Priory Junior Varsity (Missouri) | St. Louis Priory C Team (Missouri) |
| 2004 | Bob Jones Academy (South Carolina) | St. Louis Priory (Missouri) | Meadow Creek Christian School (Minnesota) | Community High School (Michigan) |
| 2003 | FCA Homeschoolers (Tennessee) | Glenwood Springs High School (Colorado) | John Adams High School (Indiana) | Riverside Polytechnic High School (California) |
| 2002 | FCA Homeschoolers (Tennessee) | Quigley Catholic High School (Pennsylvania) | Glenwood Springs High School (Colorado) | Abraham Lincoln High School (California) |
College mock trial
On the inter-collegiate circuit, a mock trial team consists of three attorneys and three witnesses on each side of the case (plaintiff/prosecution and defense). The attorneys are responsible for delivering an opening statement, conducting direct and cross examinations of witnesses and delivering closing arguments. Witnesses are selected in a sports draft format from a pool of approximately eight to 10 available witnesses prior to the round. Typical draft orders are PDPDPD or PPDDPD. Judges are usually attorneys or coaches, and in some occasions, practicing judges. A tournament consists of four rounds, two on each side of the case, scored by two judges in each round.
Tournament Competition
The season runs in two parts, the invitational season and the regular season. Invitational tournaments are held throughout the fall semester and into early spring across the country. Some of the premiere invitationals include the University of Virginia Great American Mock Trial Invitational, the University of Iowa Corn Shucker Tournament, the Rhodes College Blues City Challenge, the UCLA Invitational, and the Columbia University Big Apple Invitational Tournament.
The regular season begins in late January, starting with regional tournaments. Regionals are held across the country in various locations as qualifiers for the National Championship Tournament. Teams at each school may earn up to two bids to either the National Championship Tournament (gold flight) or a National Tournament (silver flight). The two National Tournaments, held in March, consist of 48 teams each, with the top 6 teams at each National earning a second-chance bid to the National Championship Tournament, held in April. The National Championship Tournament used to be held every year in Des Moines, Iowa. The 2007 championship tournament will be the first held outside of Des Moines in St. Petersburg, Florida. Beginning in 2007, the championship tournament will be held in Des Moines every other year and a different, changing location on the off years.
Past Championship Results
On April 9, 2006, the University of Virginia beat Harvard University to win the National Championship. In what was the closest final round in AMTA history, the University of Virginia won the championship by a single point using a tiebreaker, after a three judge panel split with one judge choosing Virginia as the winner, one choosing Harvard, and one calling the round a draw. The University of Virginia's victory ended the recent run by UCLA, who had won the two previous national championships.
On April 15, 2007, the University of Virginia again beat Harvard University to win the National Championship. This marked the first ever re-match of a previous year's final round. Virginia again won via a split decision, winning two of the three ballots in the final round. Virginia also became the 4th program to ever repeat as champions, joining UCLA, the University of Iowa, and Rhodes College, who accomplished this feat twice. Harvard University became the second program to lose in the final round in consecutive years, joining University of Maryland, College Park as the only other program to accomplish this feat. Maryland however, had the distinction of losing to themselves in one of thier two defeats.
The following is the list of winners of the National Championship Tournament, as well as the runners-up:
- Note that following 1992, the "Maryland Rule" was instituted, which places both teams from the same school in the same division in order to ensure there will never be another championship round between two teams from the same school.
National Championship Round Participants
| Team | Winners | Winning Years | Runners-Up | Runner-Up Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rhodes College | 4 | 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990 | 3 | 2001, 1999, 1997 |
| University of Maryland, College Park | 4 | 2000, 1998, 1996, 1992 | 2 | 1993, 1992 |
| University of Virginia | 2 | 2007, 2006 | 0 | N/A |
| University of California, Los Angeles | 2 | 2005, 2004 | 0 | N/A |
| University of Iowa | 2 | 2003, 2002 | 0 | N/A |
| Drake University | 2 | 1993, 1989 | 0 | N/A |
| Bellarmine University | 1 | 1999 | 4 | 1998, 1994, 1991, 1987 |
| Howard University | 1 | 1997 | 1 | 2003 |
| University of St. Thomas | 1 | 1987 | 1 | 1989 |
| Wright State University | 1 | 1986 | 1 | 1988 |
| Miami University (Ohio) | 1 | 2001 | 0 | N/A |
| University of South Dakota | 1 | 1988 | 0 | N/A |
| Eastern Illinois University | 1 | 1985 | 0 | N/A |
| Harvard University | 0 | N/A | 2 | 2006, 2007 |
| Georgia Institute of Technology | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2005 |
| Columbia University | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2004 |
| Georgetown University | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2002 |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | 0 | N/A | 1 | 2000 |
| Saint Louis University | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1996 |
| Loras College | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1995 |
| Toledo Community College | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1990 |
| Northwestern University | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1986 |
| Central College (Iowa) | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1985 |
Law school mock trial
In interscholastic mock trial/trial advocacy at a law school level, teams typically consist of several "attorneys" and several "witnesses" on each side. Every team in a tournament is given the same "problem" or "case" several months in advance, and they prepare to try the case from either side. The cases are carefully written in an attempt to create an equal chance of either side prevailing, since the main objective is not to identify the winner of the case, but rather the team with superior advocacy skills. Occasionally the winners of mock trial tournaments receive special awards such as money or invitations to special events, but the status of winning a tournament is significant in and of itself.
Other mock trials
Practicing litigators may use mock trials to assist with trial preparation and settlement negotiations. Unlike scholastic mock trials, these mock trials can take numerous forms depending on the information sought. For example, when faced with complex fact issues in a particular case, attorneys might convene a mini mock trial to try different methods of presenting their evidence, sometimes before a mock jury.
References
- ^ http://nationalmocktrial.org
- ^ http://collegemocktrial.org
- ^ http://perjuries.com
- ^ http://www.tyla.org/advocacy_ntc.html
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- ^ http://www.legalexplorer.com/education/education-mock.asp Mock Trial Education
- ^ http://www.crf-usa.org/law_government/mock_trial.html Mock Trial
- ^ http://www.crf-usa.org/law_government/mock_trial.html Mock Trial CRF
- ^ http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Law,_Youth_and_Citizenship/Mock_Trial_Tournament/Mock_Trial_Tournament.htm NYSBA Mock Trial
- ^ http://www.legalexplorer.com/education/education-mock.asp
- ^ http://www.flrea.org/programs/mock_trial.html FLREA Mock Trial
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- ^ http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Law,_Youth_and_Citizenship/Mock_Trial_Tournament/Mock_Trial_Tournament.htm
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- ^ http://www.tba.org/mocktrial/
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- ^ http://www.nationalmocktrial.org/fullrules.cfm
- "Florida High School Mock Trial." Florida Law Related Education. 2005. Florida Law Education Association, Inc. 4 Oct. 2006.
- "Mock Trial Competition." Constitutional Rights Foundation. 2006. Constitutional Rights Foundation. 4 Oct. 2006.
- "Mock Trials." Legal Explorer. 2006. State Bar of Wisconsin. 4 Oct. 2006.
- "Mock Trial Tournament." New York State Bar Association. 4 Oct. 2006. New York State Bar Association. 4 Oct. 2006.
- "Rules of the Competition." National High School Mock Trial Championship. 2006. National High School Mock Trial Championship, Inc. 4 Oct. 2006.
- "Tennessee State High School Mock Trial Competition." TBAlink. 2006. Tennessee Bar Association. 10 Oct. 2006.
- "Massachusetts High School Mock Trial" Massachusetts Bar Association. 2007. Massachusetts Bar Association. 20 Feb 2007.
- "Harvard Mock Trial" Harvard Mock Trial. 2007. 8 May 2007.