Geekery

The yang to Legal Geekery. We’re geeks. These posts prove it.

Legal

This is Legal Geekery — surely you were expecting some law-related posts.

News

Not necessarily law-related, but see what’s going on in current events.

podcasts

Especially fun for people on-the-go who want to download our shenanigans to their portable audio devices.

The Lighter Side

Law school would destroy us if we didn’t have a sense of humor about it.

Home » Law School, Legal

1L Mock Trial Discussion Topic

Submitted by Joshua Auriemma on Saturday, 14 March 20094 Comments

psdslThis thread is for discussion about the 1L Mock Trial about to take place at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law.

By this point, you should have received a copy of Prof Gildin’s talk in your ANGEL account.  If that’s not the case and you’d like a copy, please let me know by email.

This thread is to clear up ambiguity in the trial rules, problems, or rules of evidence.  Please refrain from discussing trial strategy or asking whether we think that X tactic would be a good idea considering Y.  We can’t help with substantive matters.  With that said, we reserve the right to remove comments that we deem inappropriate.

If you’re thinking, “I don’t know whether my question is appropriate” just post it and it will be removed if it’s not appropriate.

Good luck!

[Edit: Now that trials have commenced, we are very limited in the types of questions that we can answer.  We can't answer any questions that would give later teams an advantage.]

If you liked this article, please share it:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Fark
  • feedmelinks
  • MySpace
  • Slashdot

Related posts:

  1. Suck it Up and Take Trial Advocacy
  2. Legeeke Discussion: #7 Unrealistic Expectations
  3. A Lot Can Change in a Year (Alternatively: It’s Never Too Late?)
  4. BarBri On The Go

4 Comments »

  • Joshua Auriemma (author) said:

    Questions sent to me via email:

    Q1. Can we ask questions such as what Toby Baron means when he says that Krista “initiated” sex? My presumption is that we would be unable to do so because the information is not provided in the depositions and would be, essentially, made up by the witness.

    A1. (note to readers: this question comes from the perspective of the prosecution). The key idea here is “reasonable inference.” Upon being crossed, witnesses are able to make reasonable inferences based on the facts within the packet. The rationale behind this rule is that we want to keep the trial going and it would break the mechanic if you asked a witness a simple question and he’d have to say, “sorry, I have no idea.” It’s not the case when you’re directing because you’re expected to work out the questions beforehand.

    With that said, if the actual question you ask Baron is “What do you mean that she initiated sex.” It would be within his discretion to start explicitly making something up — essentially he could say anything he wants ON CROSS so long as it doesn’t contradict the facts. If he started helping his case out during the direct examination, that’s when you impeach him by omission for “failing to mention” facts relevant to the case within his deposition.

    So the moral of the story: opposing counsel’s witness = reasonable inferences okay; your own witness = stick to the facts.

    With all that said, remember Gildin’s advice: “never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer.”

    Q2. There is a note that states that we can look up relevant case law regarding this material. Since this occurs in the state of Lone Star I was wondering what this means. My presumption with this was that it was simply a vestigial element. I was unsure of this however and felt that I should ask.

    A2. My interpretation of what this means is that any outside case law is merely persuasive authority. This makes sense since the neither the defense counsel nor the judge will have notice to adequately rebut your cases.

    Reply to comment

  • Andrew Schnitzel said:

    Question: Are you guys going to have exhibits printed out for us?
    Answer: No, please print them out and bring them. The ones in the packet are the only usable exhibits.

    Reply to comment

    Joshua Auriemma Reply:

    Additionally, not only should you have your own exhibits, but you might consider having 2 copies. Maybe the judge will want to see one while you examine on it. You never know.

    I’d also think twice about giving a judge a ruffled up three-hole-punched piece of paper as an “exhibit.” Remember those clear plastic covers from undergrad? I’m not saying they’re necessary but you’ll certainly look more professional.

    Reply to comment

  • Joshua Auriemma (author) said:

    Q. If we have already gone, can we go watch another person’s trial?
    A. Unfortunately, no. The reason is that if you are a top D or P team, you would have extra coaching for the final trial against Carlisle. Additionally, once you walk out of the courtroom following your trial, you are still precluded from seeking outside assistance.

    Reply to comment

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Improve the web with Nofollow Reciprocity.