Mock Trial Rules


The rules below are taken from the D.C. Mock Trial Program. We will apply only those rules which have relevance to our mock trial at Mission College, and not any specific rules established for the D. C. Mock Trial Program (eg. time to show up for trial, etc.)

The annual Mock Trial Program is governed by the rules set forth below. These rules are designed to ensure excellence in presentation and fairness in judging all trials.

TEAM PRESENTATIONS

1. The official mock trial materials, consisting of the Statement of Stipulated Facts, Applicable Law, Witness Statements, and Documents, comprise the sole source of information for testimony. The Stipulated Facts and any additional stipulations may not be disputed at trial.

2. Each witness is bound by the facts in the given witness statement. All participants agree that the witness statements are signed and sworn affidavits. Witness Statements may not be introduced as evidence, but may be used for impeachment. Fair additions which (a) are consistent with facts contained in the witness affidavits and (b) do not materially affect the witness's testimony are permitted. If a witness is asked a question on cross-examination which is not dealt with in the witness's statement, the witness may invent an answer favorable to that witness's position. Students may read other cases, materials, or articles in preparation for the mock trial. However, they may only cite the materials given, and they may only introduce into
evidence those documents given in the official mock trial packet.

3. If a witness testifies in contradiction of a fact in the witness statement, the opposition must show this on cross-examination through correct use of the affidavit for impeachment. This procedure is spelled out in the Rules of Evidence.

4. If on direct examination witness invents an answer which is likely to affect the outcome of the trial, the opposition should show this on cross-examination through correct use of the affidavit for impeachment. This procedure is spelled out in the Rules of Evidence. The scoring panel should consider such inventions of facts in scoring the witness' presentation.

5. Witnesses are not permitted to use notes in testifying during the trial.

6. All participants are expected to display proper courtroom decorum and collegial sportsmanlike conduct. The decisions of the judges with regard to rules, challenges, and all other decisions are final.

7. The trial proceedings are governed by the Mock Trial Simplified Rules of Evidence. Other more complex rules may not be raised in the trial.

8. During the actual trial, teachers, attorneys, other coaches, affiliated non-participating team members, parents and all other observers may not talk to, signal, or otherwise communicate with or coach their teams. Team members may communicate with each other during the trial. Instructors from opposing teams are advised to sit next to one another, if possible, and be reasonable. The purpose of this rule is to prevent last minute coaching; it is not intended as a device to disqualify an opposing team.

9. Neither team may introduce surprise witnesses nor call witnesses from the other side. All witnesses (three for each side) must take the stand, in whatever order or sequence determined by the party calling them.

10. Witnesses will not be excluded from the courtroom during the trial.

11. Tape recordings, photographing, or videotaping of trials is not permitted by the D.C. Superior Court.

12. All teams in the tournament must consist of from three to eight attorneys, and three witnesses. Exceptions may be made by the Street Law Clinic after consultation.

13. Only students registered in their high school for the Street Law class as of February 22, 2001 will be eligible to participate in the Mock Trial Tournament unless otherwise approved by the Program Director.

14. Teams are expected to be present at the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by 5:30 p.m. the days of the trials. Trials will begin at 6 p.m.

15. The starting time of any trial will not be delayed for longer than 15 minutes. Incomplete teams will have to begin without their other members, or with alternates.


JUDGING

1. Presiding judges for Mock Trials may include Judges and Commissioners of the District of Columbia, law school faculty, members of the D.C. Bar, other attorneys, or others approved by the Program Director.

2. All judges receive the Guidelines for Judges, Judge's Score Sheet, the Simplified Rules of Evidence and Procedure, and the Mock Trial Packet.

3. Presiding judges are asked to make a legal decision on the merits of the case, but this does not affect a team's score. The decision on team scores is made by a scoring panel consisting of two or more scorers selected by the Street Law Staff and, in some instances, the presiding judge. The
criteria for scoring are discussed in the Guidelines for Judges and Scoresheet. 4. All decisions of the judges are final.

Simplified Rules of Evidence

To assure each side a fair trial, certain rules have been developed to govern the types of evidence that may be introduced, as well as the manner in which evidence may be presented. These rules are called the "rules of evidence." The attorneys and the judge are responsible for enforcing these rules. Before the judge can apply a rule of evidence, an attorney must ask the judge to do so. Attorneys do this by making "objections" to the evidence or procedure employed by the opposing side. When an objection is raised, the attorney who asked the question that is being challenged will usually be asked by the judge why the question was not in violation of the rules of evidence. The rules of evidence used in real trials can be very complicated. A few of the most important rules of evidence have been adapted for mock trial purposes, and these are presented below.

Rule 1. Leading
Questions:
A "leading" question is one that suggests the answer desired by the questioner, usually by stating some facts not previously discussed and then asking
the witness to give a yes or no answer. Example: "So, Mr. Smith, you took Ms. Jones to a movie that night, didn't you?" Leading questions may not be asked on direct or redirect examination. Leading questions may be used on cross-examination. Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, counsel is
leading the witness." Possible Response: "Your Honor, leading is permissible on cross-examination," or "I'll rephrase the question." For example, the
question can be rephrased: "Mr. Smith, where did you go that night? Who did you go with?" (This would not suggest the answer the attorney desires.)

Rule 2. Narration:
Narration occurs when the witness provides more information than the question called for. Example: Question - "What did you do when you reached the front door of the house?" Witness - "I opened the door and walked into the kitchen. I was afraid that he was in the house -- you know, he had been acting quite strangely the day before." Witnesses' answers must respond to the questions. A narrative answer is objectionable. Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, the witness is narrating." Response: "Your Honor, the witness is telling us a complete sequence of events."

Rule 3. Relevance:
Questions and answers must relate to the subject matter of the case; this is called "relevance." Questions or answers that do not relate to the case are
"irrelevant." Example: (In a traffic accident case) "Mrs. Smith, how many times have you been married?" Irrelevant questions or answers are objectionable. Objection: "Your Honor, this question is irrelevant to this case." Response: "Your Honor, this series of questions will show that Mrs. Smith's first husband was killed in an auto accident, and this fact has increased her mental suffering in this case."

Rule 4. Hearsay:
"Hearsay" is something the witness has heard someone say outside the courtroom. Also, any written statement made outside the courtroom is hearsay.
Example: "Harry told me that he was going to visit Mr. Brown." Hearsay evidence is objectionable. However, there are two exceptions to the hearsay rule for purposes of the mock trial. If an exception applies, the court will allow hearsay evidence to be introduced. Exception: In a mock trial, hearsay evidence is allowed when the witness is repeating a statement made directly to the witness by one of the witnesses in the case. Hearsay is also allowed if one of the witnesses is repeating a statement made by an individual who is no longer alive. Note that this exception to the hearsay rule does
not extend to witness testimony about what another person heard a witness say. This is "double hearsay." Example: Mary, the plaintiff, told me that
Harry, the defendant was drunk the night of the accident. Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, this is double hearsay." Response: "Your Honor, since Harry is the defendant, the witness can testify to a statement he heard Harry make." For mock trials, other exceptions to the hearsay rule
are not used.

Rule 5. Firsthand Knowledge:
Witnesses must have directly seen, heard, or experienced whatever it is they are testifying about. Example: "I know Harry well enough to know that two beers usually make him drunk, so I'm sure he was drunk that night, too." A lack of firsthand knowledge is objectionable. Objection: "Your Honor, the witness has no firsthand knowledge of Harry's condition that night." Response: "The witness is just generally describing her usual experience with
Harry."

Rule 6. Opinions:
Unless a witness is qualified as an expert in the appropriate field, such as medicine or ballistics, the witness may not give an opinion about matters
relating to that field. Example: (Said by a witness who is not a doctor) "The doctor put my cast on wrong. That's why I have a limp now."
Opinions are objectionable unless given by an expert qualified in the appropriate field. As an exception to this rule, a lay witness may give
an opinion based on common experience. Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, the witness is giving an opinion." Response: "Your Honor, the witness may answer the question because ordinary persons can judge whether a cast was put on correctly."

Rule 7. Opinions on the Ultimate Issue:
Witnesses, including experts, cannot give opinions on the ultimate issue of the case: the guilt or innocence of the defendant or the liability of the parties. These are matters for the trier of fact to decide. Example: "I believe that Mr. Smith was negligent in driving too fast in this case." Opinions on the ultimate issue in a case are objectionable. Objection: "Your Honor, the witness is giving an an opinion on the ultimate issue -- the negligence of Mr. Smith."
Response: "The witness is commenting that the driver was speeding. This is not the ultimate issue in this case."

Rule 8. Additional Rules of Evidence:
1. Objections during the testimony of a witness must be made only by the direct examining and cross-examining attorneys for that witness.

2. Cross-examination is not limited to the scope of direct questioning.

3. A short redirect examination, limited to no more than two questions, will be allowed following cross-examination, if an attorney desires. Questions on redirection are limited to the scope of the cross-examination.

Rule 9. Special Procedures:
Procedure 1. Introduction of Documents or Physical Evidence:

Sometimes the parties wish to offer as evidence letters, affidavits, contracts, or other documents, or even physical evidence such as a murder weapon, broken consumer goods, etc. Special procedures must be followed before these items can be used in trial.

Step 1: Introducing the Item for Identification
a.. An attorney says to the judge, "Your Honor, I wish to have this (letter, document, item) marked for identification as (Plaintiff's Exhibit A, Defense Exhibit A, etc.)."

b. The attorney takes the item to the clerk, who marks it appropriately.

c. The attorney shows the item to the opposing counsel.

d. The attorney shows the item to the witness and says, "Do you recognize this item marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit A?" Witness: "Yes."
Attorney: "Can you please identify this item?" Witness: "This is a letter I wrote to John Doe on September 1." (Or witness gives
other appropriate identification.)

e. The attorney may then proceed to ask the witness questions about the document or item.

Step 2. Moving the Document or Item into Evidence.

If the attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the document or item itself as part of the evidence and not just as testimony about it, the attorney must ask to move the item into evidence at the end of the witness examination. The attorney proceeds as follows:

a. The attorney says, "Your Honor, I offer this (document/item) into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit A, and ask that the court so admit it."

b. Opposing counsel may look at the evidence and make objections at this time.

c. The judge rules on whether the item may be admitted into evidence.

Procedure 2. Impeachment

On cross-examination, an attorney wants to show that the witness should not be believed. This is best accomplished through a process called
"impeachment," which may use one of the following tactics: (1) asking questions about prior conduct of the witness that makes the witness' truthfulness doubtful (e.g., "Isn't it true that you once lost a job because you falsified expense reports?"); (2) asking about evidence of certain types of criminal convictions (e.g., "You were convicted of shoplifting, weren't you?"); or (3) showing that the witness has contradicted a prior statement, particularly one made by the witness in an affidavit. Witness statements in the Mock Trials Materials are considered to be affidavits.

In order to impeach the witness by comparing information in the affidavit to the witness' testimony, attorneys should use this procedure:

Step 1: Repeat the statement the witness made on direct or cross-examination that contradicts the affidavit.
Example: "Now, Mrs. Burke, on direct examination you testified that you were out of town on the night in question, didn't you?" (Witness responds, "Yes.")

Step 2: Introduce the affidavit for identification, using the procedure described in Procedure 1.

Step 3: Ask the witness to read from his or her affidavit the part that contradicts the statement made on direct examination. Example: "All right, Mrs. Burke,will you read paragraph three?" (Witness reads, "Harry and I decided to stay in town and go to the theater.")

Step 4: Dramatize the conflict in the statements. (Remember, the point of this line of questioning is to demonstrate the contradiction in the
statements, not to determine whether Mrs. Burke was in town or out of town.) Example: "So, Mrs. Burke, youtestified that you were
out of town on the night in question, didn't you?" "Yes." "Yet, in your affidavit you said you were in town, didn't you?" "Yes."

Procedure 3. Qualifying an Expert

Only a witness who is qualified as an expert may give an opinion as to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge in the area of his/her expertise. (Note: A lay witness may give an opinion about something related to one's common experience (see Rule 6).) Experts cannot give opinions on the ultimate issue of the case. Before an expert gives his/her expert opinion on a matter, the lawyer must first qualify the expert. There are two steps to qualify an expert. First, the lawyer must lay a foundation that shows the expert is qualified to testify on issues related to that expert's field of expertise. To lay a foundation, the lawyer asks the expert to describe factors such as schooling, professional training, work experience and books he/she has written that make a person an expert regarding a particular field. Second, once the witness has testified about his/her qualifications, the lawyer
asks the judge to qualify the witness as an expert in a particular field.

Example: The wife of Harold Hart is suing Dr. Smith and General Hospital for malpractice. She claims they did not treat Mr. Hart for an obvious heart attack when he was brought to the hospital. Mrs. Hart's lawyer is examining his expert witness, Dr. Jones: Q: Dr. Jones, what is your occupation? A: I am a heart surgeon. I am Chief of Staff at the Howard University Medical Center. Q: What medical school did you attend? A: I graduated from Georgetown Medical School in 1978. Q: Where did you do your internship? A: I did a two year internship in cardiology at John Hopkins University from 1978-1980. Q: Did you afterwards specialize in any particular field of medicine? A: Yes, I specialized in heart attack treatment and heart surgery. Q: Have you published any articles or books? A: I wrote a chapter in a medical text on heart surgery procedures after heart attacks. Q: Describe the chapter. A: I set out the steps for identifying heart attacks and doing open heart surgery. Q: What professional licenses do you have? A: I am certified by the D.C. Board of Medical Examiners to practice medicine in D.C.

Attorney #1: Your Honor, I ask that Dr. Jones be qualified as an expert in the field of medicine. Judge: Any objection? Attorney #2: We object. No foundation has been laid regarding Dr. Jones's ability to render an opinion as to all fields of medicine. Judge: Objection sustained. Dr. Jones's expertise
seems to be limited to certain areas of medicine. Attorney #1: Thank you, your Honor. We ask that Dr. Jones be qualified as an expert in the field
of heart surgery. Judge: Any objections?

ttorney #2: No, your Honor. Judge: Let the record reflect that Dr. Jones is qualified to testify as an expert in the field of heart surgery. Once qualified, an expert may give opinions relating only to the expert's area of expertise. That is, an expert cannot give an opinion in an area outside his/her expertise. Example: (Dr. Jones has been qualified as an expert on heart surgery.) Q: Dr. Jones, what is your opinion as to Mr. Hart's cause of death? A: The patient suffered a massive heart attack caused by clogged arteries. Q: Dr. Jones, in your opinion was the patient also suffering from a rare lung disease transmitted through contact with the North American mongoose as the defense contends? Objection: The witness is testifying outside her area of expertise. Judge: Sustained. Please confine your opinion to matters related to care and treatment of the heart.

Q: Dr. Jones, in your opinion, how should the patient's doctors have treated him? A: They should have recognized that the patient was having a heart attack based on his chest pains, purple face, difficulty breathing, and numbness in his left arm. They should have given him the proper medication and treated him in the emergency room right away. Q: Who was at fault in this matter? A: Dr. Smith and General Hospital were definitely negligent.
Objection: The witness is testifying to the ultimate issue of the case, which is whether Dr. Smith and General Hospital are liable for malpractice. That is a
question of fact for the judge (or jury, when the case is tried before a jury) to decide. Judge: Sustained.







Prof J.
date: