The (Role Here) needs to know
The (Role Here) needs to be able to
Trial Sequence
Before the trial
… a (enter roll here) needs to
Beginning of the trial
… a (enter roll here) needs to
Middle of the trial
… a (enter roll here) needs to
End of the trial
… a (enter roll here) needs to
Defendant and Witness
You need to be ready to take the stand to testify (tell your version of the story), or to be
questioned by either the prosecution or the defense (or even both!). To prepare, you need to
look back through the text to find the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
What have you done?
What have you seen?
What information are you aware of?
Who are you aligned with?
Who are you opposed to?
REMEMBER. Sometimes characters have very small parts in a scene but are still there to
witness things. You will need to look carefully through the whole text. You will need to read
between the lines in some cases. Support your answers with text evidence!
Choices of activities:
1) Create a timeline for your character using text evidence.
2) Fill in this graphic organizer using the questions provided:
1
4
2
5
3
3) Create a scene by scene breakdown for your character.
I have seen
I did
I know
So I
So I
So I
Journalists
You write for the Verona Times! A highly respected news source in Verona. For the trial, you will
write 2 articles. One as the trial beings and one after the trial has ended.
Begins: Your article will cover the introduction of the trial including the defendant, the different
teams, and an introduction of the case to the citizens of Verona. You need to give your reader
the who-what-when-where-why of the trial. Write it to a citizen that has no idea what has
happened. Keep in mind, the Capulets and the Montagues are a pretty well-known fighting pair
of families.
Ends: Your final article will be written as a summary of what ultimately happened. Write your
article as if to someone that wasn’t able to attend the trial. What kinds of things were said. How
did people react? What was the verdict? How did people respond to the verdict? Basically, a
summary of the trial.
A typical newspaper article contains five (5) parts:
Headline: This is a short, attention-getting statement about the event.
Byline: This tells who wrote the story.
Lead paragraph: This has ALL of the who, what, when, where, why and how in it. A writer must
find the answers to these questions and write them into the opening sentence(s) of the article.
Explanation: After the lead paragraph has been written, the writer must decide what other facts
or details the reader might want to know. The writer must make sure that he/she has enough
information to answer any important questions a reader might have after reading the headline
and the lead paragraph. This section can also include direct quotes from witnesses or
bystanders.
Additional Information: This information is the least important. Thus, if the news article is too
long for the space it needs to fill, it can be shortened without rewriting any other part. This part
can include information about a similar event.
(Headline)
___________________________________
(byline)
(Lead Paragraph)
Continue your article on your own page
Prosecution and Defense
Prosecution/Defense (2-3): this team of attorneys are responsible for proving that the
defendant is (or is NOT) responsible for the death of Romeo and Juliet. They need to:
●
●
●
●
●
Write and present an opening statement that introduces what you will be arguing and
why you’re arguing it
Create questions to ask the different witnesses that would lead a jury to conclude that
the defendant is (or is NOT) responsible.
Understand the rules of the courtroom.
Keep Questions and statements organized and together
Write and present a closing statement summarizing your case and why the jury should
agree with you.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. BREAK THE WORK UP! There is too much work for one person to do on their own. You
are in a team. Have someone in charge of opening and closing statements. Someone in
charge of 5-6 witnesses and someone in charge of the remaining witnesses.
2. STAY ORGANIZED! Use a binder/folder something to keep your statements organized,
your witness questions, and daily logs organized.
Time Guidelines for Trial
1. Prosecution team offers opening argument (a prepared statement of 3 minutes)
2. Defense team offers opening argument (a prepared statement of 3 minutes)
3. Witnesses take the stand. Prosecution and Defense take turns questioning each witness.
4. Prosecution presents closing argument (an organized summation of 5 minutes)
5. Defense presents closing argument (an organized summation of 5 minutes)
6. Judge offers instruction for the Jury
7. Jury deliberates (votes as a group in order to render a verdict)
8. Jury foreman states the verdict of the Jury (guilty or not guilty)
9. Judge then: states whether the defense is guilty or not guilty.
Trial Sequence
1. Opening Statement: These are brief presentations to the judge which are made by the
attorneys. (3 minutes per side.)
a. The Prosecution Attorney will outline the case by briefly telling the judge (and jury) the
facts of the case in the light of which is favorable to his/her side, the legal points
expected to be raised during the trial, and a statement of the result that he or she will
seek at the close of the case. Note: The application of the law to the facts shall not be
argued in the opening statement.
b. The Defendant’s Attorney will then do the same.
2. Examination of Witnesses: (6 minutes for each direct examination and 3 minutes for a
crossexamination)
a. Direct: The purpose of this segment of the trial is to allow your witnesses to tell their
side of the story in a narrative manner. Witnesses should know their statements cold.
Attorneys should be sure to listen to their witness’s response so that if he or she forgets
anything, you can make sure it gets into the record by asking the question again or
rephrasing the question to elicit the response desired.
b. Cross: At the close of every direct examination, the opposing counsel will crossexamine
that same witness before the next witness is called. The purpose of cross-examination is
to impeach the witness’s credibility (believability); that is, to make him/her look bad in
the eyes of the judge/jury. This can be done by showing the witness is biased or
prejudiced, the witness doesn’t remember exactly what happened, or the witness did not
actually see what happened. It may also be used to bring out additional information
helpful to the other side.
c. Redirect: Assuming time is remaining, the attorney who called the witness may ask
follow-up questions about issues raised in the cross-examination.
3. Closing Arguments: These are the concluding arguments made to the judge/jury by each
side. (5 minutes per side.)
It is always proper in the final argument to refer to a witness’s interest in the outcome of
the case, his or her appearance and conduct while testifying, and the character and credibility of
the parties and witnesses when the remarks are based on facts in evidence. The closing
argument should tie the whole case together as if the attorney is closing a circle. The attorney
should point out the most favorable things brought out in the trial in his/her favor and suggest
weaknesses in the opponent’s case. The attorney should always ask for a judgment or ruling in
the client’s favor.
a. The prosecutor, who always has the burden of proof, has the right to have the first
closing argument, and may use part of the four minutes as rebuttal.
b. The defendant’s attorney then has an opportunity to argue the case. The attorney
should urge the judge/jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof, and should point
out any facts which would lead the judge/jury to believe that the state’s story is not quite true so
that the prosecution is not entitled to convict the defendant.
Rules of Evidence
Trial Rules: These rules are designed to ensure that both sides receive a fair hearing. The
lawyer and the Judge are responsible for enforcing these rules. Before the Judge can apply
rule of evidence, a lawyer must ask the Judge to do so. In other words, if a lawyer has an issue,
they MUST ask the judge to intervene.
An attorney can object any time she or he thinks the opposing attorney is violating the rules of
evidence. The attorney may object to:
1. questions that the other side’s attorney is asking
2. to answers that a witness is giving
3. to exhibits that the other side is attempting to admit into evidence.
Generally attorneys are not allowed to object to opening statements or closing arguments.
The attorney wishing to object should stand up and do so at the time of time of the violation.
When an objection is made, the judge will ask the reason for the objection. The objecting
attorney should state what specific rule of evidence is being violated. For example:
If a lawyer asks a question of a witness that doesn’t relate to the case but is just
mean -Defense Lawyer (to witness): Don’t you think that Juliet was just lying?
Prosecuting Lawyer: Objection, your honor. The witness would be just guessing.
Then the judge will turn to the other attorney who asked the question or offered
the exhibit, and that attorney usually will have a chance to explain why the
objection should not be accepted (“overruled”) by the judge.
Defense Lawyer: Your honor, the witness is Juliet’s mother and has an
understanding of her daughter’s mind.
The judge will then decide whether question, answer, or exhibit must be discarded because it
has
violated a rule of evidence (“Objection sustained”) or whether to allow the question, answer or
exhibit to become part of the trial record (“Objection overruled.”)
Judge: Objection sustained
Defense Lawyer must now ask a different question to either make their same
point OR move on to a different point.
Witness Examination
Direct examination occurs when attorneys call and question their own witnesses. Direct
questions generally are phrased to get a witness to testify to a set of facts.
Example of a direct question: “Officer Delgado, how long have
you worked at the police department?”
Attorneys may only ask direct questions of their witnesses. Leading questions may only
be asked on cross-examination, that is, when questioning the other side’s witnesses.
Rule 1: Leading Questions
Leading questions may not be asked when questioning one’s own witness in direct examination.
Leading questions may and should be used on cross examination. A “leading” question is one
which suggests the answer desired by the questioner, usually by stating some facts not
previously discussed and asking the witness to give a “yes” or a “no” answer.
Example: “Then, Ms. Trumbo, you saw Jordan turn to the left in a
threatening way?”
If counsel asks leading questions of their own witness, the
opposing lawyer should object.
Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, counsel is leading the witness.”
Possible Response: “Your Honor, leading is permissible on cross
examination,” or “I’ll rephrase the question.”
So, the example of the leading question would not be leading if rephrased as
“Would you please tell us what you saw next?” This question does not ask for a “yes” or “no”
answer.
Rule 2: Argumentative Questions
Attorneys cannot badger or argue with witness. Questions may also not be argumentative in
tone or manner. Badgering is harassing or asking again and again. While attorneys on crossexamination, that is when questioning the other side’s witnesses, can be forceful and pressing,
there is a point in which the attorney goes too far and a judge will sustain an objection for being
argumentative.
“Objection. That question is argumentative.”
Rule 4: Narration: The witness’ answer must respond to the question. A long story is
objectionable. Narration occurs when the witness gives much more information than the
questions calls for.
Example: Question, “Mr/s Gerson how do you know Pat Haines?”
Witness: “I own Sunuva Guns and Ammo. I have owned it for
over four years, and enjoy hunting, and pretty much any activity
that involves guns. Pat comes into my shop on a regular basis.
Pat came in on the night of January 30 and …”
Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, the witness is narrating.”
Possible Response: “I will ask more specific questions.”
Rule 6: Hearsay (rumors) With certain exceptions, statements that are made outside of the
courtroom are not allowed as evidence if they are offered in court to show that the statements
are true. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, but the only two that apply to this trial
are:
1. That a witness may repeat a statement made by either party in the case if the statement
contains evidence that goes against his or her side; OR
2. If a person’s state of mind at the time of a certain event is important, any statements made
about that event at the time the event occurred concerning the speaker’s intent, knowledge or
belief will be admissible.
Rule 7: First-hand Knowledge Witnesses must testify about things that they have directly
seen, heard or experienced.
Example: Kim Gerson cannot testify about what happened at Pat
Haines’ house on the night of Jan. 31st. “So, Kim, can you tell us
what happened on the night of Jan. 31st?”
Objection: “Your Honor, the witness has no first-hand knowledge
of this event.”
Rule 8: Opinions Unless a witness is qualified as an expert in the area under question, the
witness may not give an opinion about matters relating to that area. However, if the evidence is
about something in common experience, an ordinary witness may give an opinion once the
witness has established that he or she had an opportunity to form an opinion about the subject.
Example: In a case about whether the defendant was drunk at a
party, another guest could testify that: “I was there, and talked with
and observed the defendant for about an hour. It is my opinion
that the defendant was drunk at 11:45 p.m. the night of the party.”
Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, the witness is giving an
opinion.”
Possible Response: “Your Honor, the witness may answer the question because she had an
opportunity to observe the defendant, and whether someone is drunk or not is within the
common experience of an average person.”
Jury
These students will, for the time of the trial, sit, listen, and take notes. Their job is to listen to the
arguments of the prosecution and the defense. Then, based on the arguments presented,
decide is the defendant is, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty. You are expected to take some
notes during the trial to recall basic information that witnesses have said and that the attorneys
have argued.
Despite its use in every criminal trial, the term “reasonable doubt” is very hard to define. The
concept of reasonable doubt lies somewhere between probability of guilt and a possible doubt
of guilt. Reasonable doubt exists UNLESS the jury can say that he or she has an insistent
conviction, a moral certainty, of the defendant’s guilt.
Your job, ultimately, is to decide if the defendant is innocent or guilty. You must reach your
verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and the directions of the judge. you
may not speak to any of the witnesses or any member of either legal team. You may not follow
any news regarding this trial. Due to the high profile nature of this case, the jury is being
sequestered. We have decided to send you to Scotland to stay with Macbeth for the next two
weeks. You will be responsible for managing your own activities and time while you are there.
If you are selected to be the jury foreman, your job will be to speak for the jury when asked by
the judge and to bring any questions the jury may have to the judge. Additionally, you will be
responsible for moderating the discussion and vote of the jury.