San Diego County High School - Mock Trial - UPDATE: …sdmocktrial.org/2017 Mock Trial Competition-...

Presented by: Hon. Yvonne E. Campos Michelle Chavez (SDCBA)

Hon. David H. Bartick Julie Myres (Superior Court)

Hon. Linda B. Quinn (Retired)

San Diego County High School

San Diego County Office of Education

September 19, 2016, 4:00-5:00 p.m.

September 22, 2016, 4:00-5:00 p.m.

Presented By

San Diego County Bar Association (SDCBA)

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

United States District Court, Southern District of

California

San Diego County Office of Education

Constitutional Rights Foundation (CRF)

Website and Email Address

sdmocktrial.org

sdmocktrial@gmail.com

The mission of the San Diego County High School Mock Trial

Program is to foster understanding and respect for the

American legal system and for the rule of law. The Program

seeks to develop high school students into better citizens by

familiarizing them with our Constitution and Bill of Rights

through academic competition enhancing students’ ability to

think critically, communicate effectively and work as a team

as well as with other members of society.

The San Diego County High School Mock

Trial Competition was created…

to help students acquire a working

knowledge of our judicial system

develop analytical abilities and

communication skills

gain an understanding of their

obligations and responsibilities as

participating members of our society

In 1980, Constitutional Rights

Foundation (CRF) introduced the

Mock Trial program, which

already had a strong following in

Los Angeles County, to all the

counties in California.

Currently involves 36 counties

The National High School Mock

Trial Championship started in

1984.

Involves 48 states, territories,

and countries

A rehearsed trial for the purpose of teaching about the legal

system in an academic and competitive manner.

Mock Trial materials include: a hypothetical criminal case

and competition rules and guidelines.

The trials take place in courthouses throughout the state to provide students with a real courtroom experience.

Teams present both sides of the pretrial argument and trial (Prosecution/Defense).

Real judges preside over the trials and attorneys score the competition.

High School

Students

Judges, Magistrates and

Commissioners

(State and Federal)

Attorney CoachesLawyers

Teacher Sponsors

8-25 students

Trial Attorneys and

Pretrial Attorneys

Witnesses

Clerk and Bailiff

Maximum number of students per round

(as Prosecution or as Defense)

9 1 pretrial motion attorney

3 trial attorneys maximum (per the team rule book)

4 witnesses (all 4 must be called in one trial)

1 clerk - participates with the prosecution team

1 bailiff - participates with the defense team

The 2017 National Competition will

take place on

May 11 - 13 in Hartford, Connecticut

1st Round: Thursday, February 16

@ 5:00 p.m.

2nd Round: Tuesday, February 21

@ 5:00 p.m.

3rd Round: Thursday, February 23

@ 5:00 p.m.

4th Round: Saturday, February 25

@ 8:30 a.m.

2017 Competition Dates

Championship: Saturday, February 25

@ 2:00 p.m.

The 2017 State Competition will

take place on

March 24 - 26, in Riverside

Trials will take place at:

County Courthouse

Superior Court of California,

County of San Diego

220 West Broadway

San Diego, CA 92101

[Enter through the Hall of Justice, 330 West Broadway]

The Mock Trial program allows students…

To develop the skills necessary for the

mastery of state content standards for

history and social science.

To understand both the content and

processes of our legal system.

To increase basic skills, analytical ability,

and self-confidence.

To cooperate with students of various

cultures and interests.

For the school, the program will…

Promote cooperation and healthy academic competition among students of varying abilities and interests.

Demonstrate the achievements of young people to the community.

Provide a hands-on experience outside the classroom from which students can learn about law, society, and themselves.

Provide a challenging and rewarding experience for teachers.

Academy of Our Lady of Peace

Bonita Vista High School

Carlsbad High School

Cathedral Catholic

Christian High School

Coronado High School

Crawford High School

Dehesa Charter School

Del Norte High School

Escondido Charter

Francis Parker School

Grossmont High School

King Chavez High School

La Jolla Country Day School

La Jolla High School

Lincoln High School

Maj. Gen. Raymond Murray

Otay Ranch High School

Patrick Henry High School

San Diego High International Studies

Scripps Ranch High School

St. Augustine High School

Steele Canyon High School

The Bishop’s School

Torrey Pines High School

Vista High School

Westview High School

CRF creates and produces a new set of Mock Trial materials

annually based on a hypothetical criminal case.

With the assistance of a Teacher Sponsor and Attorney

Coach, students working in teams study the case and

prepare strategies and arguments for trial.

Teams prepare and present the trial from the perspective of

both the prosecution and the defense.

8-25 students on a team

Students portray each of the

principals in the cast of

courtroom characters, including

attorneys, witnesses, court clerks

and bailiffs

Teacher Sponsor

Attorney Coach(es)

(SDCBA provides attorneys)

Members from the bar and bench

participate in the program each

year as: Attorney Coaches

Courtroom Monitors(College/Law Students)

Scoring Attorneys

Presiders (State, Federal and Magistrate

Judges & Commissioners)

At least one coach is assigned to work with each team

Role is to advise the students on general trial techniques and procedures, as well as specific strategies for presenting the case

Usually requires meeting with a team at least once per week during the season

Scoring attorneys rate each student’s performance while the student teams present their case to a judge or commissioner.

Attorneys are given a set of criteria by which the teams are rated numerically and judge the quality of the students’ presentations, their grasp of the law and court procedures, and their understanding of the case itself.

The San Diego County High School Mock Trial Competition will consist of four trial rounds and a Championship Round at the San Diego County Courthouse.

After teams compete in four rounds, an Awards Ceremony is held and the two teams with the highest scores are announced and will compete the championship round.

The championship round is held immediately following the Awards Ceremony.

The Constructional Rights Foundation has adopted

a new rule for the State Finals regarding timing

devices. The clerk (official timer) and unofficial

timer may only use a stop watch to keep time. Cell

phones, tablets and other electronic devices will not

be allowed.

The San Diego competition will not be adopting this

new rule. The use of cell phones or other electronic

devices to keep time will continue to be allowed.

Each year with the help of Justices, judges and attorneys throughout the state, CRF creates a fictional criminal case involving serious issues facing young people today.

This year’s trial is a human trafficking and false imprisonment case featuring a pre-trial argument on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

People V. Awbrey

If you would like an attorney coach

or coaches assigned to your team

please contact Michelle Chavez at

mchavez@sdcba.org

no later than:

October 28, 2016

To help streamline the team registration process

and collecting the required forms a new on-line

registration system has been created and can be

found at sdmocktrial.org in the 2017 Competition

Forms section.

The registration form can now be completed and

submitted on line as well as uploading the team

roster, permission slips and photo releases and

guest lists.

Registration Fee $375

This fee must be paid in full and received by the San

Diego County Bar Association no later than

December 1, 2016, or the team will not be ineligible to compete.

Please mail fee to:

San Diego County Bar AssociationAttn: Michelle Chavez/Mock Trial Competition401 West A Street, Suite 1100San Diego, CA 92101

A team roster (in an Excel spreadsheet) listing all

participating students, signed permission slips and

photo release forms must be submitted to Michelle

Chavez by December 1, 2016 via the new on-line

registration system at sdmocktrial.org in the 2017

Competition Forms section. Failure to do so may

lead to disqualification of the team.

A team guest list (in an Excel spreadsheet) must be

submitted to Michelle Chavez via the new on-line

registration system at sdmocktrial.org in the 2017

Competition Forms section no later than February

3, 2017. Failure to submit a guest list will result in

guests not being admitted into the courthouse.

Guests may be added after that date by emailing the

names to Julie Myres at julie.myres@sdcourt.ca.gov

1. Case Brief

2. Case Packet – password 2116mock2097

3. Errata

4. Exhibits

5. Team Rulebook

6. Judge/Attorney Handbook

7. Mock Trial Simplified Rules of Evidence “NEW”

8. Trial Exhibits

9. Forms• Student Permission Slip and Photo Release• Clerk & Bailiff Notes• Time Sheet• Prosecution Team Photo Roster• Defense Team Photo Roster• Student Award Nomination Form

MUST DOWNLOAD All COMPETITION CASE MATERIALS AND FORMS ONLINE FROM THE WEBSITE BELOW

sdmocktrial.org

The Constitution Rights Foundation has created the

Mock Trial Simplified Rules of Evidence which are

based on the California Evidence Code and will help

prepare students to make timely objections, avoid

pitfalls in their presentations and understand some

of the difficulties that arise in actual court trials. The

purpose of using the rules of evidence in the

competition is to structure the presentation of

testimony to resemble a real trial.

All Teams must provide a roster for each round with a photo of student playing each role. Bring 5 copies for

the Judicial Presider and Attorney Scorers. The fillable form can be found at sdmocktrial.org.

Pretrial Motion (X2)

Clear and concise presentation of issues and appropriate use of case materials.

Well-developed, reasoned, and organized arguments.

Solid understanding of legal reasoning behind the arguments.

Responded well to presider’s questions and maintained continuity in argument.

Effective rebuttal countered opponent’s argument.

Opening Statement

Provide a case overview

Theme/Theory of the case was identified

Mention the key witnesses

Discuss burden of proof

State the relief requested

Direct/Re-Direct Examination

Questions required straightforward answers and brought out key information for her/his side of the case.

Attorney effectively responded to the objections made.

Attorney properly introduced exhibits and, where appropriate, properly introduced evidence as a matter of record.

Attorney properly phrased and rephrased questions and demonstrated a clear understanding of trial procedures.

Attorney made effective objections to cross-examination questions of her/his witness when appropriate.

Attorney did not make unnecessary objections.

Throughout questioning, attorney made appropriate use of time.

Attorney used only those objections listed in the Summary of Evidentiary Objections.

Cross-Examination

Attorney made effective objections to direct examination (of the witness she/he cross-examined) when appropriate.

Attorney did not make unnecessary objections.

Attorney properly phrased and rephrased questions and demonstrated a clear understanding of trial procedures.

Attorney exposed contradictions in testimony and weakened the other side’s case.

Witnesses

Witness was believable in her/his characterizations and presented convincing testimony.

Witness was well prepared for answering the questions posed to her/him under direct examination and responded well to them.

Witness responded well to questions posed under cross-examination without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying court proceedings

Witness testified to key facts in a consistent manner and avoided irrelevant comments.

Witness did not disrupt the trial with unreasonable inferences.

Closing Arguments (x2)

Attorney’s performance contained elements of spontaneity and was not based entirely on a prepared text.

Attorney incorporated examples from the actual trial, while also being careful not to introduce statements and evidence that were not brought out during the trial.

Attorney made an organized and well-reasoned presentation summarizing the most important points for her/his team’s side of the case.

Effective rebuttal countered opponent’s arguments.

Clerk

Present and punctual for trial.

Performed her/his role so that there were no disruptions or delays in the presentation of the trial.

Conducted her/himself professionally without attracting any unnecessary attention.

Properly used verbal and visual time warnings.

Bailiff

Present and punctual for trial.

Performed her/his role so that there were no disruptions or delays in the presentation of the trial.

Conducted herself/himself professionally without attracting any unnecessary attention.

Knowledgeable about their role in the trial

Followed script

Team Performance

Team members were courteous, observed general courtroom decorum, and spoke clearly and distinctly and displayed good sportsmanship to all competitors, regardless of trial results.

All team members were involved in the presentation of the case and actively participated in fulfilling their respective roles.

Witnesses performed in synchronization with attorneys in presenting their side of the case.

As much as possible, each trial attorney displayed examination and argumentation skills, and when appropriate, displayed knowledge of California Simplified Rules of Evidence in making objections Team members demonstrated cooperation and teamwork.

The teachers and attorney coaches displayed good sportsmanship.

· Failure to cross-examine a witness · ONLY applies to rule violations that specify a zero score

· Failure to conduct direct examination of a witness

· Disorganized · Inadequate legal knowledge or understanding of role

· Communication is minimally clear and disorganized and ineffective. · Weak or inaudible voice

· Inadequate preparation and poor understanding of case and legal procedure · Disruptive or disrespectful during trial

· Poor presentation

· Some organization · Stronger voice needed

· Some preparation and some understanding of case and legal procedure · Invents material facts and repeatedly stumbles over responses

· Awkward presentation · Needs more work on poise and delivery

· Demonstrates some legal knowledge or some understanding of role

· Communication is clear and organized but could be stronger in fluency and persuasiveness. · Audible voice

· Adequate preparation and demonstrated a basic understanding of case and legal procedure · Needs more spontaneity and persuasiveness

· Acceptable but uninspired presentation · Can think on their feet but exhibits less confidence than with the script.

· Demonstrated basic legal knowledge and mostly understood role

· Well-organized and good preparation · Able to be spontaneous some of the time

· Demonstrated good understanding of case and legal procedure · Clear mastery of case materials

· Good smooth presentation · Communication is clear, organized and persuasive.

· Clearly demonstrated legal knowledge and understood role · Mostly believable performance

· Questions/answers mostly advance case theory · Easily audible voice

· Superior in qualities listed in above average presentation. · Resourceful, original & innovative approaches

· Excellent preparation and well organized · Portrayal w as both extraordinary and realistic, not overly rehearsed or memorized

· Demonstrated superior ability to think on her/his feet · Clear understanding of rules and procedures

· Demonstrated outstanding knowledge of case and legal procedure · Strong voice

· Questions and answers almost always advanced case theory · Polished

5 — EXCELLENT (EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE)

The following are general guidelines to be applied to each category on the score sheet. It is strongly recommended that scorers use “3” as an

indication of an average performance, and adjust higher or lower for stronger or weaker performances.

0 — PENALTY (NONPERFORMANCE OF REQUIRED PRESENTATION)

1 — FAR BELOW AVERAGE (UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE)

3 — AVERAGE (MEETS REQUIRED STANDARDS)

2 — BELOW AVERAGE (FAIR, WEAK PERFORMANCE)

4 — ABOVE AVERAGE (GOOD, SOLID PERFORMANCE)

The Constructional Rights Foundation

has adopted a new 1 to 10 point scale for

rating performance for the State Finals.

The San Diego Competition will continue

to use a 1 to 5 point scale.

1st & 2nd Place TeamsOutstanding Pretrial Attorney (4)

Outstanding Attorney (6)Outstanding Witness (8)

Outstanding Clerk and Bailiff (2)All students receive a Certificate of Participation

“Mock Trial exposed me to

the opportunities that a

higher education can provide

and allowed me to meet

mentors who would change

the course of my life.”

~ Hon. Raquel Márquez-Britsch

Judge, Riverside Superior Court

The “real life” aspect of the

program is one of its many

highlights.

Some alumni have chosen to

pursue a career in law and cite

mock trial as having an

influence in that decision.

Beyond just the competition,

Mock Trial has a lasting effect

on participants.

For complete stories please visit: http://www.crf-

usa.org/alumni/crf-alum-information

“That competition was the ultimate

stretch of my high school

career…After that [my dreams]

started to evolve and became bolder

and more daring.”

~ Fesia Davenport

Chief Deputy Director and Chief Attorney of the County of Los

Angeles Child Support Services Department. “I am not afraid to think on my feet.”

~ Natalie Robinson

High School Teacher, Arizona

For complete stories please

visit: http://www.crf-

usa.org/alumni/crf-alum-

information

“[Mock Trial was] life changing.”

~ Dora Duru

Stanford University, B.A. International relations, 2012

If you would like to know where

your team placed in the 2016

competition please email us at:

sdmocktrial@gmail.com

The San Diego County High School Mock Trial Committee is

comprised of members from the following agencies:

San Diego County Bar Association (SDCBA)

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

United States District Court, Southern District of California

Constitutional Rights Foundation (CRF)

County of San Diego, Office of the District Attorney

County of San Diego, Office of the Public Defender

Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc.

United States Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California

San Diego County Paralegal Association

Contact Person for any questions:

Michelle Chavez, County Coordinator (School Liaison)

San Diego County Bar Association

401 West A, Suite 1100

San Diego, CA 92101

P 619-321-4150

F 619-696-3987

mchavez@sdcba.org

We hope you participate in the 2017 San Diego County High School

Mock Trial Competition!