Step Into My Office 31/3 Chatteris...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Help in a Mock Trial
I am curently participating in a mock trial in my Democracy class, and i am asking for some helpful tips and hints. I am one of two D.A's in a criminal case against two deffence atorneys. The crime was an armed robery of a gas station / conveniance store. There are three deffindants, the two that did the actual robery and the driver. Could some one please give me some helpful tips and hints
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jerry90. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you're looking for legal help then you may be best posing on a US based website as it sounds as if you are at school over there.
This is mainly a UK based website.
As for general advocacy tips, preparation is the key. If you know the case back to front then you can react to anything.
So you're acting for the prosecution? Look at what the defence will bring up, can you discrefit it???
They will need a good defence to the crime - though remember that it's not all about guilty or innocent, there is a lot to do with mitigation involved. If they can't prove innocence, can they get a lesser sentence.
Look at the burden of proof and prepare your case accordingly. Over here you would be looking at beyond reasonable doubt so, in acting for the prosecution you would be looking to prove there isn't reasonable doubt against the defence's assertion there is.
Maybe watch some trials themselves, some of them are televised over there aren't they? We don't have that here but I've seen bits of a few US ones, OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson etc...
This is mainly a UK based website.
As for general advocacy tips, preparation is the key. If you know the case back to front then you can react to anything.
So you're acting for the prosecution? Look at what the defence will bring up, can you discrefit it???
They will need a good defence to the crime - though remember that it's not all about guilty or innocent, there is a lot to do with mitigation involved. If they can't prove innocence, can they get a lesser sentence.
Look at the burden of proof and prepare your case accordingly. Over here you would be looking at beyond reasonable doubt so, in acting for the prosecution you would be looking to prove there isn't reasonable doubt against the defence's assertion there is.
Maybe watch some trials themselves, some of them are televised over there aren't they? We don't have that here but I've seen bits of a few US ones, OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson etc...
Just another thought, the system is pretty different over there so make sure you read up on the relevant process and court etiquette, consider how you would address a judge and jury etc...
Over here we have different lawyers (solicitors and barristers and some other roles) who have different rights of audience in different courts and have quite different roles.
Solicitors do more office based work and some lower down court work whereas barristers do more court work and have more specialised knowledge and give opinions on legal issues.
The court process is a bit different as well. We don't have things like Jury selection over here.
Over here we have different lawyers (solicitors and barristers and some other roles) who have different rights of audience in different courts and have quite different roles.
Solicitors do more office based work and some lower down court work whereas barristers do more court work and have more specialised knowledge and give opinions on legal issues.
The court process is a bit different as well. We don't have things like Jury selection over here.
Can't add much to what the others have said. I do not know how examination in chief (for getting evidence of your own witnesses out) and cross examination (for challenging the evidence of your opponent) works in USA. Here, for exam in chief (XIC) you can only used open questions and must not "lead" the witness. Ie you must not ask questions that suggest a particular answer. A good guide is to start your questions with "Who, what, why, when, where, how".
In cross exam (xx) you should used closed questions and not give the witness any room for manoevre. If you can try and keep your questions to those that require a "yes/no" answer, that is sometimes a useful way of limiting the witness's impact. The point of xx is to put your case (you MUST put your case to the witness), you should also test the evidence by highlighting inconsistencies and impossibilities. If possible you should also attack their credibility. If you can get the witness to tell you a big fib (which you can prove to be a fib), his credibility usually goes straight down the pan with a jury.
But remember, you should never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.
In cross exam (xx) you should used closed questions and not give the witness any room for manoevre. If you can try and keep your questions to those that require a "yes/no" answer, that is sometimes a useful way of limiting the witness's impact. The point of xx is to put your case (you MUST put your case to the witness), you should also test the evidence by highlighting inconsistencies and impossibilities. If possible you should also attack their credibility. If you can get the witness to tell you a big fib (which you can prove to be a fib), his credibility usually goes straight down the pan with a jury.
But remember, you should never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.
Awful as it sounds, making whoever you are trying to dicredit look stupid without making it obvious that is what you are doing can be quite effective.
It was my forte in advocacy classes (I used to end up apologising to other students afterwards as I'd feel mean), you have to know the case backwards and pick up on anything which can be undermined or where the person is generalising not in your favour etc... if you pick up and question little things, unless they're as good at it as you are then they tend to get a bit confused or wrapped round in circles and don't seem so sure of things anymore or get arsey and show themselves up.
The "only answer yes or no" comes in handy here as most people want to explain properly and this limits them to a yes or no answer so they can't qualify things.
Like "is it possible fingerprints could have been picked up purely by xxx visiting the store on any recent occasion", if you specify yes or no then they can't qualify it it with their opinion. It may well be picked up by the other side though so works better if you have the last say.
It has to be done subtly so the jury don't see what you're doing and best to pick one main person (the best or easiest to discredit) to do it too so it's less obvious.
It was my forte in advocacy classes (I used to end up apologising to other students afterwards as I'd feel mean), you have to know the case backwards and pick up on anything which can be undermined or where the person is generalising not in your favour etc... if you pick up and question little things, unless they're as good at it as you are then they tend to get a bit confused or wrapped round in circles and don't seem so sure of things anymore or get arsey and show themselves up.
The "only answer yes or no" comes in handy here as most people want to explain properly and this limits them to a yes or no answer so they can't qualify things.
Like "is it possible fingerprints could have been picked up purely by xxx visiting the store on any recent occasion", if you specify yes or no then they can't qualify it it with their opinion. It may well be picked up by the other side though so works better if you have the last say.
It has to be done subtly so the jury don't see what you're doing and best to pick one main person (the best or easiest to discredit) to do it too so it's less obvious.
1 to 5 of 5
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.