Prosecution Weaknesses

[Bovice]

In thinking about the problems facing the Prosecution side of the case, particularly given the Furman v. UVA instance at the NYU tournament I come to wonder whether the point discrepancy facing Prosecution side appears on their cross scores or their direct scores?

Basically, is the problem with the Prosecution side the fact that it still doesnt have enough facts in its favour, or are there simply too many points for the Defense to cross on?

I hope AMTA considers this factor when considering future case changes...

[WolfInWolfsClothing]

I once heard a coach say "witnesses are the offensive and defensive lines of mock trial."
 
You could make a case that the point discrepancy has less to do with the facts (does your average scoring judge really pay that much attention to the details?) and more to do with the potential for high-scoring characters based on the available affidavits.

[Bovice]

The majority (most certainly the best ones) of characters are completely fabricated outside of the affadavit, I would argue someone's ability to create a quality character is at best loosely created around the affadavit itself, except maybe their requirement to eat harmful facts...

[WolfInWolfsClothing]

Brief re-cap of this forum topic.
 
Poster #1: "I think there's something wrong with the prosecution case."
 
Poster #2: "Could be how people play the witnesses?"
 
Poster #1: "No. That's not right.  Minus 1 karma"

[DyingDeclaration]

The best way for the prosecution to prove their case is with witnesses like Maxwell and Lee--both who get shredded on cross. Then the defense puts up witnesses like Grace, Michaels and Malone--character witnesses who do not lend themselves to powerful cross examinations. I think that's a really big problem with this case.

[GhostofTomJoad]

Poster #1: "No. That's not right.  Minus 1 karma"

Karma for you.  BOth of you really, because I think poster 1 is right.

[Bovice]

Would remind you poster number 1 is Bovice, and I run trains on people.

The best way for the prosecution to prove their case is with witnesses like Maxwell and Lee--both who get shredded on cross.

So the question is, which is the solution, beefing up the facts on the other 3 witnesses in order get you enough facts without Maxwell and Lee, or simply removing the problems from Maxwell and Lee?

Or more to my original wonder, do the numbers really support idea that Prosecution cases can prove their case with maxwell/lee, they just lose out on points because of the nasty crosses? Case facts rarely matter until closing, and many rounds are decided before then.

I would agree based on my experience that the crosses of Lee and Maxwell are brutal, but their direct scores were rarely outstanding either. I imagine, though don't know for sure, that just beefing up those two affadavits alone would solve Prosecution woes.

And I'm not just saying "no, that's not right," I'm trying to promote a discussion to develop exactly how far Prosecution problems go, because I think it's a complex problem.

[Mocker78]

We tried a Maxwell-less lineup and did not fair any better.  The problem was the judges are instructed about a Maxwell co-conspirator that may or may not be called, and we were penalized out of the gate by judges for not calling Maxwell (this was told to our team after the round).

We have tried every possible prosecution witness call between our three teams, and none of them offer a solid case theory.  The defense crosses of our witnesses is where we were loosing ballots, and I also agree that a lot of it has to do with the defense having more character witnesses available, who score well. 

With regards to case changes, word on the street is that there will be none until ALL ORCS are finished if at all, so don't hold your breaths. 

I know mock trial is predicated on the luck of the first round draws, but the side of the case is now more important than the team you are competing against.  I assume some regionals and most ORCS will have many upsets based on this fact alone.     

[iwgbtp]

With regards to case changes, word on the street is that there will be none until ALL ORCS are finished if at all, so don't hold your breaths. 

I know mock trial is predicated on the luck of the first round draws, but the side of the case is now more important than the team you are competing against.  I assume some regionals and most ORCS will have many upsets based on this fact alone.     

I find it hard to believe that AMTA will forgo the national case changes...before nationals. There's no way that changes will be made before Regionals are done but I think we can all expect some new witnesses before ORCS.

While there is a noticeable defense bias, I can't imagine this is going to affect people getting out of Regionals. If a team can't take down at least 2 of the 4 prosecution ballots against the competition at most of these regionals, then I think they have deeper problems than simply a case imbalance. Of course, I say this now, before probably going to regionals this weekend and dropping all 4 prosecution ballots...

[Quotequeen]

While there is a noticeable defense bias, I can't imagine this is going to affect people getting out of Regionals. If a team can't take down at least 2 of the 4 prosecution ballots against the competition at most of these regionals, then I think they have deeper problems than simply a case imbalance. Of course, I say this now, before probably going to regionals this weekend and dropping all 4 prosecution ballots...

I'm not sure what you mean by "a team" when you say this.  If you're talking about the top 10 or so teams, then you're probably right.  But there are a lot more teams in the country than that, and a lot depends on how the pairings go.  The "next tier" of teams, so to speak, can run into real trouble.  Drop two ballots to the top team in your region (on whatever side) and then face a team that is pretty close to you in ability, draw prosecution, and lose.  I think this is a pretty realistic scenario for teams that under most circumstances would qualify for ORCS and do fairly well there.

[iwgbtp]

If you're talking about the top 10 or so teams, then you're probably right.  But there are a lot more teams in the country than that, and a lot depends on how the pairings go.  The "next tier" of teams, so to speak, can run into real trouble.  Drop two ballots to the top team in your region (on whatever side) and then face a team that is pretty close to you in ability, draw prosecution, and lose.

I think that is a fair distinction and I suppose we will see if the imbalance prevents teams from moving on to ORCS. I can't imagine that it will, given that last year any winning record pretty much got a bid.

I agree that some serious changes need to be made before ORCS. At that level and after I have a feeling the imbalance is going to be much more evident, especially when you drop to the top 6 and no open bids. 

[Will181198]

For what it's worth here are the ballot divisions by side from Chapel Hill this past weekend:
(Obviously 24 ballots possible in each round, P listed first then D)

Round 1 - 12 v. 12
Round 2 - 9.5 v. 14.5
Round 3 - 9 v. 15
Round 4 - 14.5 v. 9.5

[The Gelf]

The best way for the prosecution to prove their case is with witnesses like Maxwell and Lee--both who get shredded on cross. Then the defense puts up witnesses like Grace, Michaels and Malone--character witnesses who do not lend themselves to powerful cross examinations. I think that's a really big problem with this case.

I disagree.  I think the prosecution crosses can be quite powerful, especially Malone and Michaels (if done well). 

[ImproperCharacter]

I think that we need to see how things pay out at all the regionals. I know that at some of the more publicized invitationals there was a big discrepancy. But those tournaments came so soon after the first case changes that we might see some different results as teams learn to utilize the changes. I know that Don Donelson reported that the side imbalance was not as pronounced at SOBEIT as it was at the Downtown for instance. Maybe we will see more side balance going forward.

But even if there is more balance I would like to see some new witnesses just for the sake of mixing things up.

[In Limine]

I disagree.  I think the prosecution crosses can be quite powerful, especially Malone and Michaels (if done well). 

Lets not forget Charney! Voire dire of the bug expert always keeps things interesting, and you know it always puts a smile on for those 1L judges