Mock Trial Notes

● Definition of trial: formal examination of evidence before a judge and usually jury
to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings

● Two different types of cases

○ Civil:
■ Asking for money or for a court order against other party
■ Can’t go to jail
■ Examples:
● Car Accidents
● Medical Malpractice
● Negligence
● Divorce
● Child Custody
○ Criminal:
■ Government prosecutes for someone breaking law
■ Can go to jail
■ Examples:
● Murder
● Assault/battery
● Domestic abuse
● Kidnapping
● Manslaughter
● Embezzlement

● Trial roles
○ Plaintiff: person who brings a case against another in a court of law, normally
who suffered harm
■ Must file a complaint (document that details the events of the action)
○ Prosecutor: a lawyer who works for a state or government organization that starts
the legal proceedings and proves in court that the suspect committed the crime
they’re accused of
■ Ex: “State v. Duke University” or “State v. Daniels”
○ Defendant: the person being sued/accused of committing a crime
○ Defense Counsel: lawyer who helps the defendant, works to protect the rights of
who they’re representing, also called defense attorneys or defense lawyers
○ Court reporter: person who documents live testimony during court proceedings,
then prepares a written transcript from the court proceedings which the judge and
attorneys can view and use for trial or to appeal
○ Bailiff: provide courtrooms and those in them with security and stability
■ Ensures people aren’t armed
■ Declares judge’s entry into courtroom
■ Keeps order during trial
 ■ Announces and enforces courtroom rules
■ Escorts prisoners to and from court
■ Handles evidence
■ Ensures judges have all necessary files and supplies
○ Witnesses: person who saw or heard the crime take place or may have important
info about the crime, both defense and prosecutor can call witnesses to testify
○ Judge: the person in charge of the trial, decides what evidence can be shown to
jury, basically a court referee
○ Jury: decides whether the defendant is guilty or not, consists of 6-12 people, jury
deliberations are private, can look at all evidence while deliberating

● What to note during a case briefing:

○ Plaintiff (left side in title)
○ Defendant (right side in title)
○ Facts (brief)
○ Question of Law/Issue (what offense the court is deciding on)
○ Conclusion/Decision (include why they came to that conclusion)

● Miranda v. Arizona case briefing:

○ Plaintiff: Miranda
○ Defendant: State of Arizona
○ Facts: Miranda was arrested and charged for kidnapping and rape, he was not
told his rights when being arrested, he confessed to the crime without knowing
his rights, he was previously charged so jury argued that he knew
○ Issue: Was Miranda’s case fair since he wasn’t told his 5th amendment rights by
the police?
○ Conclusion: The jury decided that all people need to be told their Miranda rights
when being arrested

● Brown v. Board case briefing

○ Plaintiff: Brown
○ Defendant: Board of Education (Kansas)
○ Facts: segregation was everywhere, Lynda Brown had to go a long way to her
black school even though the white school was closer, her school’s education
quality was poor, she wasn’t allowed in the white school so her parents sued for
violation of the 14th amendment
○ Issue: Does separation of schools on the basis of race deprive children of equal
opportunity?
○ Conclusion: The court ruled that segregation in schools is a violation of the 14th
amendment because segregated children were given less protection and
opportunities

● Difference between assault and battery

○ Assault makes someone fear violence
 ○ Battery is the violence

● Divorce
○ Must address child custody
○ Must establish ownership for pets

● Steps in a trial
○ Opening statements: attorneys from both sides present their perspectives to the
judge and/or jury, an opportunity to start right off with their version of the story
■ Prosecutor/Plaintiff goes first and introduces themself (“Your honor,
members of the jury, I am ___ and I represent ___) and then presents
their side and tries to make the judge and jury feel bad/get them to side
with the plaintiff
■ Defense attorney goes second (“Your honor, members of the jury, I am
___ and I represent ___) and shares their side, make sure to ask for a
verdict of not guilty/verdict for the defense
○ Opening statement guide: Your Honor, members of the jury, my name is
Hannah McSwain and I represent _________ in this case. We intend to
prove that _______________. When you have heard all the facts, please
decide a verdict of ________.
○ Oath: All witnesses should be sworn in before they begin answering questions to
remind them they MUST tell the truth.
■ Bailiff says: “Please raise your right hand. Do you promise to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
■ Witness must say “yes” or “i do” before they can be questioned
○ Direct examination
■ Prosecution/plaintiff calls their first witness
■ Ask clear and simple questions that allow the witness to tell their story in
their own words
■ Witnesses should not try to make up facts that aren’t in the witness
statements
■ Witnesses can answer idk
■ Some suggested questions for direct examination:
● How do you know the defendant?
● In your own words, what happened on the day of this event?
● What do you remember?
○ Cross examination
■ Defense attorney questions each witness from the other side to try to
prove that they lying/not telling the whole story
■ Ex. “isn’t it true that it was very stormy that day and hard to see?”
■ Ask yes or no questions to limit what the witness may say, you can cut
them off after their answer
○ Defense cases: After all the prosecution witnesses have had their examinations,
the process restarts with the defense withnesses
 ○ Brief closing statement guide
■ Your Honor, members of the jury, today you have heard testimony
about __________________. I would like to remind you of the
important information about this case that you should think about
when you make your decision.
______________________________________________________.
When you decide your verdict, please find
______________________. Thank you.
○ Judge/jury deliberation: after hearing the arguments and closing statements, the
judge and/or jury will meet to decide on the verdict, will then make announcement
to courtroom and the trial will be adjourned

● Objections
○ Called by attorneys if they feel that attorneys on the other side have broken a rule
or are being unfair with their questions
○ Judge either sustains or overrules the objection
■ Sustain- agrees that the objection is fair and the question is NOT allowed
■ Overrule- the question IS allowed and the objection is overridden
○ Reasons for objection:
■ Leading questions: attorneys must allow the witnesses to tell their own
stories, they cannot lead the witness through the story or describe the
story themselves (this objection is only allowed on CROSS
EXAMINATION)
■ Immaterial: this means that the question is not actually related to the story
■ Opinions and conclusions: the witness or attorneys can not say their
opinion about facts, just the facts as they know them
■ Nonresponsive answer: when the witness doesn’t actually answer the
question asked
● Affidavit is a sworn statement a person makes before a notary or officer of the court
outside of the court asserting that certain facts are true to the best of that person’s
knowledge. Affidavits by both sides are usually collected before a trial
○ If a witness’s testimony contradicts what they said in their affidavit, the affidavit
can be introduced as evidence to impeach that witness

● Exhibits: a document, photograph, object, animation, or other device formally introduced

as evidence in a legal proceeding
● Indictment: a grand jury has found enough evidence to formally charge them with the
said crime
● Pretrial Order: an order setting forth the substantive and procedural framework of a case
to be tried, specifying the parties’ claims and defenses, stipulations, and procedural rules

● Rebuttals: evidence or arguments introduced to counter, disprove, or contradict

opposing party’s evidence or argument, either at a trial or in a reply brief
○ Only plaintiff/prosecution can do this
 ○ At the end of the defendant’s case, the plaintiff/prosecution side can present
rebuttal witnesses or evidence

● Negligence occurs when:

○ The defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from harm
○ The defendant fails to fufill that duty, even if unintentionally
○ The defendant’s failure causes mental or physical trauma to the plaintiff’s person
● Contributory Negligence
○ If the plaintiff’s acts contribute to the injury, such acts may reduce but not
necessarily eliminate the responsibility of the defendant
● Comparative Negligence
○ When both sides have a part in the damage (in percentages)
● Burden of Proof
○ By preponderance of the evidence. In a civil case, the burden of proof rests on
the plaintiff. It must be established that the claim the plaintiff is making is true.
Preponderance means the greater part of such evidence. That does not mean
the greater number of witnesses, but refers to the quality of the evidence. In
order for the plaintiff to recover, the evidence that supports his or her claim must
seem to more nearly represent what place than the evidence against the claim

Defense of Jayden Jackson

----------------------------------------------
● State v Jackson (defendant counsel)

● Voir Dire Questions:

○ Do you work in insurance? (Purge-1)
○
○ Do you have a sibling?(Purge-2)
○ Do you work in car manufacturing? (Keep- 3)
○ Do you have a child? (Purge-3)

Opening statement:
Your Honor, members of the jury, my name is Nash Quella and my fellow defense
counselors are Hannah McSwain and Luke Kertzner. Throughout the course of this trial,
We intend to prove the innocence of Jayden Jackson from the charge of homicidal
negligence. We will prove that Ms. Jayden Jackson was not responsible for the death of
Taylor Anderson, and that he did all he could to avoid a fatality in this tragic accident. We
will prove that there were multiple factors contributing to this accident that were beyond
Ms. Jayden Jackson’s control. We will prove that the manufacturer of the vehicle placed
an unusually high center of gravity on the vehicle, which contributed to the mishap and
unfortunate passing of Taylor Anderson.

We intend to thoroughly show the lack of proof given to the jury by the state’s
prosecutor. We will show the members of the jury that the laws my client is accused of
breaking directly contradict the prosecution’s case. When the jury fully ponders the
evidence, they will see the lack of comprehensive evidence provided by the state to
prove our client guilty. They will attempt to convince you of many things that are either
untrue or can be easily explained away by our case. Overall, the state’s case will fall
apart under scrutiny.

We will prove that Ms. Jayden Jackson attempted to ensure everyone within the
vehicle was safe and wearing a seatbelt. We will prove that Ms. Jayden Jackson was not
negligent nor at fault for the accident. We will show that Ms. Jayden Jackson’s actions do
not meet the definition of negligent homicide due to the risk being entirely and provably
justifiable as is shown in State V. Parker. We believe that the prosecution will not be able
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Jayden Jackson has violated the laws he is
charged with. Using the testimonies of Ms. Jayden Jackson, Ms. Reece Anderson, and
Ms. Tracy Roller, we will prove the innocence of Ms. Jayden Jackson. We ask that when
you have heard all the evidence, you will render a verdict of not guilty.

Their Argument:
○ Jackson wasn’t paying attention to the road (radio).
○ ^Refutation: He was simply changing the radio station, and did not expect Ms.
Martin to appear in front of him.
○ Jackson should have ensured everyone was wearing seatbelts.
○ ^Refutation: He did all he could to ensure they were wearing seatbelts by asking
everyone to put on their seatbelts.
○ Jackson should have read the manual and the warning on sun-visor
○ ^Refutation: Jackson was advised by his car salesman to only read the manual if
he had a question
○ Jackson has a history of speeding
○ ^Refutation: This was once, two years ago. People can become better drivers
over time.

● Facts to help Jackson

○ Taylor Anderson wasn’t wearing a seatbelt in the car even though Jackson told
everyone to wear a seatbelt
○ Ms. Jackson “always” informs people riding in a car with him to have their
seatbelts on.
○ In State v. Parker, 128 Utop. 107, 624 P.2d 304 (App. 1980), vacated in part on other grounds, 12
 determined that the defendant must be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his or he
○ Tracy Roller of Roller Accident Reconstruction states that “The rolling over of the
vehicle was not the responsibility or fault of the driver but is the result of an
unusually high center of gravity which causes an unreasonably high likelihood of
a rollover when the vehicle is sharply maneuvered on unequal ground.”
○ The Jeep has a dangerously high center of gravity and Tracy Roller says that the
mishap would probably not have occurred if the car manufacturer did not give the
Jeep such a high center of gravity. (Car Manufacturer at Fault???)

● Cross Examination of Robin Jones:

○ You said you’re scared to go out during the day because of students speeding by
so often?
○ You also said there’s no crosswalk where the student was crossing?
○ Did you check to see if any cars were coming when you signaled for the student
to cross?
○ Do you think your car being in front of the student could’ve obstructed the view of
any other cars on the street?
○ Do you think it’s possible that Jayden didn’t see the biker because of your car
blocking the view?

● Cross Examination of Gray Martin:

○ Is is true that you were friends with Jayden in the past?
○ Did Jayden seem like the type of person to take risks?
○ Did you usually look both ways when crossing the street?
○ Students normally speed down the streets to get back to school in time, am I
correct?
○ So you didn’t think to check for any students coming down the street even though
this was the usual time they came back from lunch?
○ Also, Jayden swerved when avoiding you, right?
○ Do you think if you had checked more carefully you would’ve seen Jayden’s car
coming and been able to avoid it?

● Cross Examination of Officer Alex Demlong:

○ Is it true that most people travel down Elm at a speed of around 40mph?
○ How fast did you calculate the speed of the car to be?
○ Are you aware of the Jeep’s high center of gravity?
○ Did you take the Jeep’s mass, weight, center of gravity, etc into account during
your calculations?
○ (if he says no or i don't know the question above) Is it possible that with taking
the Jeep’s measurements into the equation, Jayden could have actually been
driving at the normal speed of other citizens?)
○ Could the Jeep’s unusually high center of gravity have contributed to the rollover
at all?
 ● Direct Examination of Jayden Jackson:
○ Tell me some facts about yourself
○ How did you learn to drive? (talk about how many classes he took and how
serious he was about it)
○ How long have you been driving to school for?
○ What happened leading up to the accident? (talk about going to lunch, how the
street going back was closed, Taylor was worried about being late)
○ What was Taylor doing right before you crashed?
○ How did the crash happen?
○ What did you do after the crash?
○ Was swerving to avoid Gray Martin justified?

● Direct Examination Reece Anderson:

○ What’s your relationship with Jayden Jackson?
○ What’s your relationship with Taylor?
○ Would you call Ms. Jackson a safe driver?
○ Tell us your account of the accident
○ What happened once you got out of the car?
○ How do you feel towards Jayden after Taylor’s death?
○ Do you think that Ms. Jackson swerving to avoid Gray Martin was justified?

● Direct Examination of Tracy Roller:

○ Tell us some facts about yourself
○ Tell us about Ms. Jackson’s car
○ What issues were you hired to investigate?
○ What data did you use to get your conclusion?
○ What did you conclude from your investigation?
○ Was Ms. Jackson going unnecessarily fast according to your conclusion?
○ Were there any warnings about the car rolling over?
○ Do you think it’s Ms. Jackson’s fault for crashing? Why?

● Closing Statement:

Your Honor, members of the jury, throughout the process of this trail, myself and my
co-counselors have shown comprehensive evidence proving the innocence of Mr.
Jayden Jackson. We have shown that Ms. Jayden Jackson attempted to ensure safety in
his vehicle by telling everyone to put on their seatbelt. We have shown that the law, as
shown in State V. Parker, directly contradicts the state’s case. We would like to remind
the jury that the law demands an unjustifiable risk, this risk was justified by Ms. Jayden
Jackson attempting to avoid Gray Martin. We have had an expert in the field show that
the car manufacturer placed a dangerously high center of gravity on the vehicle, causing
the vehicle to roll over. We have shown Ms. Jayden Jackson’s lack of fault repeatedly
within the bounds of this case. We have shown enough to prove that Ms. Jayden Jackson
is not guilty of these charges.

The state’s prosecutor has attempted to pin Ms. Jayden Jackson with the blame
for this tragic accident due to risks he took with extreme justification. They have charged
him with a crime that requires a risk taken to be unjustified to have the defendant
convicted. In this case, we have shown that the risk taken was in order to save a life, and
thus was justified. They have attempted to slander Ms. Jayden Jackson’s driving record
based on a singular speeding ticket two years prior to this unfortunate ordeal. They have
said that he was “Recklessly Driving” due to the fact that he was changing the radio
channel, a normal thing to do. He was not expecting a bike to appear in front of him due
to the fact that Robin Jones signaled Gray Martin to cross carelessly despite the fact Ms.
Jayden Jackson’s car was already going down the road. Alex Demlong has been shown
to not have taken multiple factors into consideration during her calculations. The
prosecutor has not shown evidence comprehensive enough to show the guilt of Ms.
Jayden Jackson beyond a reasonable doubt.

Would it truly be just to put a young man with his whole life ahead of him into
prison for homicidal negligence, a crime which, following the letter of the law, he did not
commit. What happened to Taylor Anderson was a tragedy, yes, but ruining more
innocent lives because of this horrible accident is not the answer. Is it truly proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Jayden Jackson committed homicidal negligence?
We believe not. We believe that throughout the process of this trial we have proven the
innocence of Ms. Jayden Jackson from these charges herein leveled against him. We ask
that you believe the same. Don’t put an innocent young man into prison for years of his
life because of a terrible accident. We ask the members of the jury to render a verdict of
not guilty.

Summary:

"State of Utopia vs. Jayden Jackson" involves Jayden Jackson, a high

school student charged with negligent homicide after a car accident
resulting in the death of Taylor Anderson. Jayden, driving with friends
Reece and Taylor, lost control of the vehicle while attempting to change
the radio station, causing the car to crash. Taylor, not wearing a seatbelt,
was ejected and killed.