'10-'11 Case Summary

[MRE803]

I think there are times when introducing a witness's testimony just to discredit it can make sense, and defense Jan Patels were one of those times.  But those times are few and far between.  I have a huge problem, however, with stealing witnesses what doing so provides for clearly unrealistic testimony.  For example, when I competed, there were teams who would try to steal the state's medical examiner or the defense's paid medical expert.  It is positively ludicrous for such a witness to be testifying for the other side, it does not teach anything about good advocacy, and it is not something that AMTA should encourage.  In my opinion, those witnesses should always be side-constrained.

Honestly, I like the idea of a largely side-constrained witness pool with a small number of truly swing witnesses that can be taken by either side.  I was really pleased with the option for a swing Michaels in this year's case, for instance.

Has there been an instance where there was a witness on salary that could be stolen? I am just curious as I don't remember one, but i think only a very few limited should be side-constrained the plaintiff, defendant and maybe one or two more. for mock trial purposes I agree it does mean more work and more preperation and in some cases more scripts, but also there is more to do and to be thrown your way when things are not side constrained. I know the first time i saw a defense patel I was thrown off, but thank the good lord that it happened before nationals, but it taught me that no matter what you can't be prepared for EVERYTHING.

[Exact]

Riley Faith's affidavit said something like "I was paid x amount of dollars by the side calling me today..."

Then again, I don't know that many folks who called Faith were "stealing" him by the end.

[Not Offered For My Truth]

I don't see how it rewards unscripted teams.  You just create more scripts to accommodate more possible witness lineups.  If a team has to adjust "on the fly", that means they didn't think through and prepare for all of the possibilities.

I'm really excited about losing the side constraints.  Last year became quite dull towards the end, and based on the witness lineups, just about everybody in the room knew exactly what would be said and where every objection was coming from, when it was coming, and the whole colloquy.  The only adventure was waiting to see what the judge would say.


I do think that adding unpredictability in witness selection is an advantage to unscripted teams.  Perhaps "on the fly" is the wrong terminology, but unscripted teams are constantly thinking "on their feet" even when it is their primary case option.  It makes for a more natural appearance AND allows you to emphasize a point that has become particularly important, or to rebut and unexpected piece of evidence from the opposition.  Making contingency scripts for every scenario is one thing.  It is quite another to know all of those scripts AND be ready to adapt when the judge takes out a huge chunk of it.  We've all seen a scripted team roll his/her eyes up to look at the imaginary script in their mind and get back on track, and I imagine that an unfamiliar script would cause a great deal more of those moments.

[Golden Skull]

Has there been an instance where there was a witness on salary that could be stolen? I am just curious as I don't remember one, but i think only a very few limited should be side-constrained the plaintiff, defendant and maybe one or two more. for mock trial purposes I agree it does mean more work and more preperation and in some cases more scripts, but also there is more to do and to be thrown your way when things are not side constrained. I know the first time i saw a defense patel I was thrown off, but thank the good lord that it happened before nationals, but it taught me that no matter what you can't be prepared for EVERYTHING.

When I competed ('00 - '04) the only side-constrained witnesses that I remember were parties.  So, yes.  For instance, my senior year, the medical examiners could be stolen just as I had described.  In fact, the team that we hit in the 4th round of the Championship Tournament told us that if we had not taken the medical examiner with one of our first two picks, they would have stolen her (instead, they stole our 3rd witness, Topaz Cash -- basically a motive witness who was the defendant's agent.  Cash didn't have much in the way of defense evidence to present, the purpose of their calling Cash was to gain character points and to play down the defendant's "I'll kill him" statement to Cash).  I forget if it would have been possible to steal the police officer.

[DesertClassic]

I much prefer the arrangement where witnesses can be called by either side. 

However, last year did dramatically reduce the number of crosses I had to edit which was much-appreciated.

[The Gelf]

I think there are times when introducing a witness's testimony just to discredit it can make sense, and defense Jan Patels were one of those times.  But those times are few and far between.  I have a huge problem, however, with stealing witnesses what doing so provides for clearly unrealistic testimony.  For example, when I competed, there were teams who would try to steal the state's medical examiner or the defense's paid medical expert.  It is positively ludicrous for such a witness to be testifying for the other side, it does not teach anything about good advocacy, and it is not something that AMTA should encourage.  In my opinion, those witnesses should always be side-constrained.

Honestly, I like the idea of a largely side-constrained witness pool with a small number of truly swing witnesses that can be taken by either side.  I was really pleased with the option for a swing Michaels in this year's case, for instance.

I HATED defense Patels.  "Let's call a witness who will act over the top crazy and retarded" is not the way to The Gelf's heart. 

[The Gelf]

I much prefer the arrangement where witnesses can be called by either side. 

However, last year did dramatically reduce the number of crosses I had to edit which was much-appreciated.

Amen to that!

[sourpunchsk]

I don't see how it rewards unscripted teams.  You just create more scripts to accommodate more possible witness lineups.  If a team has to adjust "on the fly", that means they didn't think through and prepare for all of the possibilities.  I also don't place much value on "stealing" witnesses, at least to the extent where the vast majority of the affidavit clearly favors one side.  A plaintiff-oriented witness testifying for the defense (or vice versa) and trying to spin inconvenient facts from the affidavit usually comes off looking pretty foolish in my humble opinion.  One of my big mock trial pet peeves is the abundance of teams who seem to find value in introducing evidence for the sole purpose of discrediting it.

First of all, I'm still a bit confused as to what constitutes a "script" vs. having a blueprint for a direct. Is it just the extent of the written words on the page you practice from, or does it imply some author outside the attorney-witness pair? Are there really any [good] teams that have no idea of what they're going say or how they're going to say it when they take the stand? The whole discussion of "scripts" seems to be some sort of insult to certain teams (at least theoretically), but I seriously don't know who doesn't rehearse directs and, particularly as the season progresses, have at least a "groove" of what they say and how they say it.

With respect to "stealing" witnesses, I think it's just a part of the game. I don't think the reason to do it, however, is to discredit the testimony from the witness' affidavit, but rather simply to emphasize other parts of it. Mock trial cases are the furthest thing from reality (shocker, i know ) with no objective truth for any of the witnesses. Half the fun is spinning the ridiculousness that is in some of these affidavits into some sort of real persona with a real perspective. So much of what we get is up to interpretation, and I think being able to realistically portray a witness on one side who generally is called on the other has a certain value in this activity.

Of course, there are limits, and certain witnesses can never be called by the other side without it being farcical. Also, the benefits of preventing the other side from calling a witness (along with the positive facts in their testimony) must be weighed against the costs of not calling a more obvious witness for that side. It's clearly a judgment call.

And yes, this does create the need for many more backup crosses. Again, such is (or was prior to this past year) the nature of the activity. Again, just because something is tenuously prepared beforehand does not mean there's no thinking "on the fly." Not only do you have to be able to learn/edit/rewrite a cross on a moment's (or case-in-chief's) notice, but you obviously have to be able to adjust all parts of your case in order to accommodate any changes.

[Nov 10 1775]

First of all, I'm still a bit confused as to what constitutes a "script" vs. having a blueprint for a direct. Is it just the extent of the written words on the page you practice from, or does it imply some author outside the attorney-witness pair? Are there really any [good] teams that have no idea of what they're going say or how they're going to say it when they take the stand? The whole discussion of "scripts" seems to be some sort of insult to certain teams (at least theoretically), but I seriously don't know who doesn't rehearse directs and, particularly as the season progresses, have at least a "groove" of what they say and how they say it.

It's not "scripted" to practice a direct. Only a very foolish team would proceed with a direct examination without even an idea of how the dx will go. However, it CAN be scripted when the direct starts to sound scripted. That's a little confusing, but what I mean is this: some teams you see at Regionals and ORCS have practiced the same lines for months, and consequently sound like they are reading off a script. They have said the same words so many times that the words no longer mean anything to them. This makes them sound disingenuous. Unscripted attorneys and witnesses always sound original. They may be saying more or less the same thing in each round, but their word choices, tone, etc. vary according to the situation.


Still, I think the majority of scripted teams manifest themselves in cross examinations. Every good crosser prepares cross points and figures out the general structure of their cross. However, it is the weaker attorneys who prepare QUESTIONS and recite them verbatim in trial. If the witness throws the attorney a loop, or if some objection colloquy doesn't go the crosser's way, the crosser is unable to adapt. His script is a lifeline, and he clings to it like a drowning man. As a result, his next few questions might not make sense. They might be objectionable, based on what the judge just said. That's why the best attorneys are the ones who think fast on their feet. They work fluidly with a number of cross points, interweaving them in each round to create a cogent cx specially tailored for the witness and the opponent's case theory.


Hopefully the witnesses without side constraints will favor the teams that can adapt -- but I must agree that the scripted teams will just come up with more scripted crosses.

[Not Offered For My Truth]

It's not "scripted" to practice a direct. Only a very foolish team would proceed with a direct examination without even an idea of how the dx will go. However, it CAN be scripted when the direct starts to sound scripted. That's a little confusing, but what I mean is this: some teams you see at Regionals and ORCS have practiced the same lines for months, and consequently sound like they are reading off a script. They have said the same words so many times that the words no longer mean anything to them. This makes them sound disingenuous. Unscripted attorneys and witnesses always sound original. They may be saying more or less the same thing in each round, but their word choices, tone, etc. vary according to the situation.


Still, I think the majority of scripted teams manifest themselves in cross examinations. Every good crosser prepares cross points and figures out the general structure of their cross. However, it is the weaker attorneys who prepare QUESTIONS and recite them verbatim in trial. If the witness throws the attorney a loop, or if some objection colloquy doesn't go the crosser's way, the crosser is unable to adapt. His script is a lifeline, and he clings to it like a drowning man. As a result, his next few questions might not make sense. They might be objectionable, based on what the judge just said. That's why the best attorneys are the ones who think fast on their feet. They work fluidly with a number of cross points, interweaving them in each round to create a cogent cx specially tailored for the witness and the opponent's case theory.


Hopefully the witnesses without side constraints will favor the teams that can adapt -- but I must agree that the scripted teams will just come up with more scripted crosses.

Agreed.  But my good friend leaves out on what I find to be the most shocking aspect of the truly scripted teams.  That they actually write scripts.  It was bizarre to me to see someone actually reading a direct examination word for word before a round at Gold.  It just seems unnatural.

[The Gelf]

Agreed.  But my good friend leaves out on what I find to be the most shocking aspect of the truly scripted teams.  That they actually write scripts.  It was bizarre to me to see someone actually reading a direct examination word for word before a round at Gold.  It just seems unnatural.

I don't see what's shocking about it.  Many good teams use scripts.  As for sounding unnatural, the key, of course, is to write things in a way that sounds authentic when you recite it

[The Gelf]

It's not "scripted" to practice a direct. Only a very foolish team would proceed with a direct examination without even an idea of how the dx will go. However, it CAN be scripted when the direct starts to sound scripted. That's a little confusing, but what I mean is this: some teams you see at Regionals and ORCS have practiced the same lines for months, and consequently sound like they are reading off a script. They have said the same words so many times that the words no longer mean anything to them. This makes them sound disingenuous. Unscripted attorneys and witnesses always sound original. They may be saying more or less the same thing in each round, but their word choices, tone, etc. vary according to the situation.


Still, I think the majority of scripted teams manifest themselves in cross examinations. Every good crosser prepares cross points and figures out the general structure of their cross. However, it is the weaker attorneys who prepare QUESTIONS and recite them verbatim in trial. If the witness throws the attorney a loop, or if some objection colloquy doesn't go the crosser's way, the crosser is unable to adapt. His script is a lifeline, and he clings to it like a drowning man. As a result, his next few questions might not make sense. They might be objectionable, based on what the judge just said. That's why the best attorneys are the ones who think fast on their feet. They work fluidly with a number of cross points, interweaving them in each round to create a cogent cx specially tailored for the witness and the opponent's case theory.


Hopefully the witnesses without side constraints will favor the teams that can adapt -- but I must agree that the scripted teams will just come up with more scripted crosses.

Somebody clinging to a mock trial script while drowning is the best image ever.

[Nov 10 1775]

Somebody clinging to a mock trial script while drowning is the best image ever.

Haha I thought so too. I imagine it's something like in the final scene of "Titanic," where Kate Winslet is the scripted mocker and Leonardo DiCaprio is the adaptive mocker. Except in the end, it's Winslet who drowns because she holds on to the script, and Leonardo diCaprio becomes an AMTA All-American.

[Not Offered For My Truth]

Haha I thought so too. I imagine it's something like in the final scene of "Titanic," where Kate Winslet is the scripted mocker and Leonardo DiCaprio is the adaptive mocker. Except in the end, it's Winslet who drowns because she holds on to the script, and Leonardo diCaprio becomes an AMTA All-American.

In this scenario, is there a lonely mock trial script buried at the bottom of the ocean forever (a la necklace)?

[Golden Skull]

I don't see what's shocking about it.  Many good teams use scripts.  As for sounding unnatural, the key, of course, is to write things in a way that sounds authentic when you recite it

Agreed.  Good performers find ways to take scripts and make the performance, based on a script, appear natural.  Not that a script is necessary to a good performance.  But if you practice a direct a lot and find that you need to ask questions in a certain sequence, need certain content in your answers, and find there are particular turns of phrase that work well, what else are you doing but creating a script?