Best Gold Round for Observational Purposes

[GuyNoir]

Hello all,

About as simple as it sounds.  I'm a first year coach, and many of my first year mockers want to see what a Gold round (at least on tape) looks like. 

Obviously, any of the Gold Rounds would be great for them to see, but I was wondering if those of you who have participated in/observed/shelled out $$$ for Gold rounds have opinions on which one is the best to watch for teaching purposes.

Any suggestions/opinions/thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

[ImproperCharacter]

I believe I've seen all the videos and I don't think you could go wrong with any of them. In my opinion the best one to learn from is the UCLA v. Georgia Tech round.  That UCLA team is the best team I have ever seen. Watching Amanda Bonn my freshmen year taught me so much about how to be an attorney and how to own the room. The Georgia Tech team is a good team, but watching UCLA is more valuable. No offense to that Georgia Tech team, but I think UCLA dominated the round.

Alternatively, I think the best overall round is the UVA v. Harvard. It is a very close match and both teams are stellar. I think if you are looking to see how two great teams look when they square off, I would go with this one.

[DesertClassic]

For my money you cannot beat Iowa v. Howard.  Only watch Iowa though since I do not think Howard's style is applicable to the way teams are competing today.

If you want to see a text book--perfect opening statement see Rhodes' Jennifer Kierce v. Miami Oh.

[GuyNoir]

Thanks!  That's exactly the sort of input I was looking for. 

And I agree, I think everything about Amanda Bonn's performance (except her rebuttal) in that UCLA v. GT round was amazing--that cross examination of the Dr. was a beat-down.  I think she's a great competitor to imitate in that she strikes a great balance of courtesy and aggressiveness.

I'll check out that opening argument you mentioned as well. 

Interesting thoughts on Howard--I thought that was a great round on both sides, although Iowa definitely deserved to win.  I'm not sure what you mean about Howard's style not being as applicable these days.

Are there any great witness performances to look out for?  Particularly characters, but also experts--our characters are often either too bland or too over-the-top.  Who's a good character to base a convincing character witness on?

Thanks again for the input!

[GuyNoir]

Alternatively, I think the best overall round is the UVA v. Harvard. It is a very close match and both teams are stellar. I think if you are looking to see how two great teams look when they square off, I would go with this one.

And pardon my ignorance, but wasn't this the Max Jeffries case, which for some reason wasn't taped?  Maybe I'm getting them mixed up... I heard that was a great round--wasn't it a split, +3, -4 on the ballots?

[iwgbtp]

And pardon my ignorance, but wasn't this the Max Jeffries case, which for some reason wasn't taped?  Maybe I'm getting them mixed up... I heard that was a great round--wasn't it a split, +3, -4 on the ballots?

I could just be really off, but if memory serves me correct it was UVa vs. Harvard two years in a row. They faced off in State v. Perry and Max Jeffries v. Polk County PD.

[mocksluzer]

I could just be really off, but if memory serves me correct it was UVa vs. Harvard two years in a row. They faced off in State v. Perry and Max Jeffries v. Polk County PD.

Correct. In one round I'm pretty sure they split 2-1 (3 scoring judges) with UVA winning. In the other I'm pretty sure it was UVA but a much greater margin

[MiaWUCU]

If you want to see a text book--perfect opening statement see Rhodes' Jennifer Kierce v. Miami Oh.

Was that the Everest case or Thornhill?  Either way, though I can't remember specifically, Rhodes's witnesses were outstanding both years, as I recall.

[xavier86]

I have used the 2006 DVD to show some stellar examples of characterizations and opening/closings.

[ItalianTrojan]

I have to agree with Jimmy - the Iowa vs. Howard round is fantastic.  I don't think there are very many (if any) who could have matched McGivern's closing in that round.

[DesertClassic]

I have to agree with Jimmy - the Iowa vs. Howard round is fantastic.  I don't think there are very many (if any) who could have matched McGivern's closing in that round.

The amazing thing is that by all accounts it was an off round for him.

[xavier86]

Doesn't he come across as a jerk a little though? He starts whispering or something. It was kinda weird. I really like Daniel Goodkin from Harvard, and Daniel Young from UVA in the 2006 round. I think they were fantastic.

[GuyNoir]

IIn my opinion the best one to learn from is the UCLA v. Georgia Tech round.  That UCLA team is the best team I have ever seen.

We watched the plaintiff (UCLA) case in class yesterday, mostly observing their witnesses.  I thought it was a great balance--the crying victim/plaintiff (although a little over-the-top), the lay expert/character male nurse, and the spot-on psychiatrist.  That performance by the psychiatrist is one of the best experts I've ever seen, and what I tried to base my own performance (as an expert witness) on when I competed.

I think Georgia Tech hung with them on cross, though.  It was a great demonstration of what an idealized trial would look like--a passionate, emotional plaintiff, and a calm, collected, precise defense. 

Thanks for all the recommendations!  I'll be delving into the video archive to pull up some of these performances you've been mentioning.

[xavier86]

Torrents anyone? 

[xavier86]

Which year is UCLA v Georgia Tech?

[HBomber]

UCLA v. GT was the 2004-2005 season, I believe.

Harvard and UVA faced off two years in a row, for the Tyler Perry case (2005-2006), and the Jeffries case (2006-2007).  UVA took the first match on tiebreakers (net point differential +1) and the second match straight up, winning 2/3 ballots.

I closed against Daniel Young in that second championship match, and it's a great pity that the match wasn't recorded; he did a superb job.  And I'll always have love for my man Dan Goodkin and his closing the previous year!

[sills]

Travis McGivern is a chump. He is nothing without his deep knee bends, and at best he drops three to four inches on those. Not to mention, his suspenders are too tight. He was way over the hill by the time the 02 championship came around. Kaela Meidlinger carried that whole team on her back. And in 03 it was all Dan Anderson.

[Protege]

I've seen all the tapes and done some comparative analysis on them. For the bang of your buck, if you can only get one, get the last one taped (UVA v Harvard). It will give you a solid idea of some of the more recent champions and what they do (because both UVA and Harvard are considered top tier) and you get better quality (video wise). Plus the last one taped was a DVD, which is leagues above VHS (pause and play is a great plus for instruction). This higher resolution is helpful especially when gauging reactions from everyone in the courtroom and watching how they respond or don't respond to a situation.

If you want to go farther, the UCLA rounds had some of the best witnesses I've ever seen. Iowa went back to back, but I preferred the second year they won. They also had some great attorneys who are good to teach others from (at least in my experience).

[Travis]

You can always count on teammates to keep you grounded 

Travis McGivern is a chump. He is nothing without his deep knee bends, and at best he drops three to four inches on those. Not to mention, his suspenders are too tight. He was way over the hill by the time the 02 championship came around. Kaela Meidlinger carried that whole team on her back. And in 03 it was all Dan Anderson.

[tsm]

Do want these videos!