Welcome into Mock Trial Masterclass: Your Guide to Controlling the Courtroom. My name is Luke Worsham, and I want YOU to be a mock trial master. I competed in and coached mock trial for a while, and I want to pass along everything I've learned to you. Whether you're an attorney or a witness, my channel is dedicated to helping you take your craft to the next level. It's game on!
Ugh I WISH I'd watched this before being cross-examined (in real court, not mock trial) because "I can explain" would have been really nice to have in my toolkit! Keeping that for later in case I ever end up there again.
Hi, I’m currently preparing for my own mock trial in highschool! I really do enjoy your videos, they are very informative. A little unrelated to the video but I was wondering how someone can incorporate or weave their theory into an opening statement as the prosecution without just making it seem like I’m claiming something?
Hey! So glad you're enjoying the videos! My biggest tip for that is to use an argumentative tone with the language of a statement. You can convey a persuasive tone while using phrases like "you will hear" and "the evidence will show." Just make sure you're focused on telling the jury what to expect, not on connecting dots with the evidence. Here's a deeper dive into how to write killer openings: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uxPUI9kqd-M.html&pp=ygUVbHVrZSB3b3JzaGFtIHNwZWVjaGVz
I'm directing an expert witness this summer and part of their testimony strongly points towards a conclusion that doesn't agree with what we are arguing, so I'm going to do part of the direct and then declare the witness as hostile just to ask questions about that part😂
My team does this all the time, and it works really well for us (just finished up my best scoring year yet as a _very_ problematic eyewitness so I would know lol). We call it “exploding our own bombs”
Hey, im trying to impeach a witness for personal bias. Their sworn affidavit makes it clear they have a bias to only see the defendant be prosecuted, instead of providing their expert knowledge of their field. Under United States v James, it says an expert witness can be impeached if shown bias or untruthfullness. Is this something i can use?
I've been really enjoying your videos lately, and since I'm going to have alot of free time over the summer, I was wondering if you had any tips on how to practice speaking skills/improv skills/objection battles over a break?
I'm so glad! The best way to get better at all of those things is repetition. Give opening statements in front of the mirror. Video yourself and watch it back. Don't just read the Rules of Evidence--come up with scenarios, and argue them back and forth with yourself. It may feel awkward, but that's how you do it!
What about presence sense expression? For example a child say, daddy my step dad grabbed my face on my cheeks, and you see that there are bruises on his face, would that hearsay be admitted?
Present sense impression has a time component to it; the rule deals with statements "made while or immediately after the declarant perceived" an event or condition. So, as far as that exception goes, you have to keep the time in mind.
Hey Luke! I was wondering about how one can handle rounds that have bad or unfavorable judges (mainly bad). By 'bad' I mean judges that will rule on objections with limited knowledge of the case or nature of the objection. For example, I had a judge that, in one breath, told the objecting team that their objection was flawed, then said that the correct objection was speculation and then sustained his own objection, without opposing counsel having to say a word. Or, a judge that will allow the asking attorney to respond to an objection, but not the objecting attorney to explain their objection. Is there a solution to judges like that? Keep making these videos!
This is a great idea for a video! I will add it to my list. For now, just know there's not a whole lot you can do other than roll with the punches and stay composed. You're gonna get stupid judges like that, but you can't let it rattle you.
Hahah reminds me of an insurance expert who: -Dropped out of high school and killed (at least) two people in the first page of their depo -Got fired from their landscaping job for it -Lied to their doctors to get prescription painkillers and then spent a year on drugs in their mom’s basement -Went back to school to become a cop then framed a missionary for selling drugs to kids -Got fired from the force for it -Got hired at the insurance company because their old ex-cop buddy felt bad for them -Refused to properly investigate or take notes according to company procedure -Got fired for it -Went back to landscaping and spent the last page of their depo lamenting how unfair life is And the writers felt the need to put a witness on the defense to give even _more_ evidence against this guy! I only included the stuff in the prosecution witness’ own depo! (I _was_ that defense witness so maybe I’m biased, I know a lot of this is inadmissible character evidence, but it’s still hilarious to me)
@@mocktrialmasterclass If only we had a choice! High school, so had to call all three witnesses. The other witnesses on the prosecution talked about this guy as the only reason they got an indictment in the first place and basically the thing holding the prosecution’s case together, so I guess they were just _really_ overcompensating in giving them all those negatives? Idk, that case was kind of a disaster and I loved every second of it lol
Hello, I’m currently writing a closing for prosecution, where a lady killed her husband after being abused. The defense in arguing that the abuse lead her to act out of desperation, where we the prosecution are trying to make the point that the abuse doesn’t justify her killing her husband, to simply it. It’s the U.S. v. Dominique Stephens case if you’re familiar with it. Do you have any advice on what sort of story I should tell for it? I’m having trouble coming up with one that feels effective.
Technically, leading as to preliminary matters is permissible (and why object because how does that hurt you?) and with child witnesses and witnesses with a mental disability. Each time one of your objections is overruled you lose a little credibility with the jury. And as hinted above, if something does not hurt you, let it go. Also, in real life, some judges will let you make and argue the objection without going to side bar, and others will make you argue everything without the jury hearing it. And one thing drives me nuts when I see it on TV, "objection." "Withdrawn." Or "I withdraw the question." Never do this! Let the objection be ruled on, unless you really realize you goofed. Letting the objection be ruled on preserves it for appeal or a new trial motion, if you withdraw it, it's gone. Plus it makes you look bad, like you are admitting you did something you knew was wrong.
Hi, im doing amock trial tmr and i'm bailiff, but some stuff in the booklet was unclear. When an attourney asks to approve an exhibit, the booklet says to take thr exhibit from the attourney, hand it to the opposing side, hand to the judge, then to the witness. Does this mean there will be multiple copies, or do i wait for each to read, or does the judge hand it to me after i read it or what? Pls reply im in terror of failing, ty :)
What do you recommend for an opening and closing speech about a accident of an employee during his work at the top of a building. I am defending the side of the employer (defendent) against the employee.
Thank you man. I have some cross exam questions for my schools mock trial the day after tomorrow and I know these are gonna be great tips based on your other videos
Great question! So opening statements are not "evidence" in and of themselves. That means that the jury can't consider them as proof, but merely as context for the evidence they're going to hear. So, yes, you are generally allowed to show physical evidence (docs, pics, etc.) that you expect to come in during the trial.
Do you have a video about objections to exhibits being placed into evidence? How are those handled? Thank you very much for all your knowledge. It's incredible to learn from you, you're the best!
Hey there! Those objections are handled the same as any other piece of evidence. RTR and connect the rule to explain why the exhibit should be allowed.
My state’s case this year was themed around AI, and our opener actually played around with the idea of having part of the speech be written by AI so that he could then point it out to the jury and make a point about it. We decided against it, ultimately, but it was weird to see how competent the AI was. Its opening was really bland, but it sounded real and stuck to the case facts we gave it!
@mocktrialmasterclass Dang, there's always a next time. One of these next 2 years I'd love to see you and Agathos Classical at nationals before I graduate.
I'm a hillbilly and very well educated, thank you very much. 😂 I agree chatGPT is useless for legal writing. Thanks for the content. I've been an attorney for 24 years, but still enjoy your content.
Thank you SO MUCH for this. In four weeks I'll be giving the closing argument in my first ever mock trial and I am absolutely terrified. However, I've been watching a lot of your videos and they help an unimaginable amount!
Could you also make a video on professionalism and how to look good as a team by being professional. For example how to make professional introductions, how to be respectful and professional to the other team entering evidence in the proper manner , what to do when you loose a hard objection battle etc. Love your videos!
Also, I'd really love to see a video about how to give yourself the best chance of winning against a team that is just flat out better than you are, for example in our state there are a couple dynasty mock trial programs you need to beat to go to nationals, and I was wondering how you would approach that. We went up against the state champion in a scrimmage a couple months before the tourney, and only lost by 12 points, so we're close.
@@reedemersonevans 😂 You’re not technically wrong, but it’s just a waste of time. Like, who honestly cares about a CV getting in? Why are we wasting time by objecting to it?
Hey Luke! Could you make a video about how you would approach a brand-new case for the first time? As in, would you read it with your team, or alone having everyone take notes? One of the problems our defense had this year was the lack of a cohesive theory in Colorado's Grimes v. Dixon, so if you could tell us how to better collaborate with the rest of the team when writing materials that would be great!
@@evanmiller9595 heaven forbid either of the experts said more about that inconclusive test. the reality is that an inconclusive test usually means someone is in the early stages of a covid infection. The plaintiff would be able to prove they developed COVID on or very near the time of the party
@@reedemersonevans Agreed. I mean I think that if the doctors tested Julian for covid then the doctors had reasonable belief that Julian had it at that time.
