“Objection, Your Honor!”
Overview:
In courtroom trials, there are complex rules about the items, documents, or testimony (spoken
words) allowed in evidence. If the item or testimony does not make it into evidence, (is
“inadmissible”) the judge or jury cannot consider it in the case.
The lawyer and the judge are responsible for enforcing the evidence rules. Before the Judge
can apply a rule of evidence, a lawyer must ask the Judge to do so. An attorney can and should
object anytime he or she thinks the opposing side is violating the rules of evidence.
How to Object:
Stand up and say, “OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, _____ (quote evidence rule).
Wait, standing, for the judge to agree or disagree (the judge’s “ruling.”)
*The attorney does not need to explain his or herself.
If the judge agrees on your objection, he or she will say: “SUSTAINED.”
If the judge disagrees, he or she will say: “OVERRULED.”
MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
Rule 1: Leading Questions
 A "leading" question is one which suggests the answer to the witness, usually (but not
always!) by asking the witness to give a "yes" or a "no" answer.
 Example: "Then, you saw Jordan turn to the left in a threatening way, right?"
Rule 2: Argumentative Questions
 Attorneys cannot argue with, or “badger,” the witness. Questions may also not be
argumentative in tone or manner. (Badgering is harassing or asking again and again).
 Example: “You actually expect the jury to believe that?”
Rule 3: Speculation
 Attorneys cannot ask questions that get witnesses to guess.
 Example: “Pat, how do you think Jordan was feeling when he came to your doorstep?”
Rule 4: Narration (or non-responsive):
 Witnesses' answers must respond to the questions asked. A long story is objectionable.
When the witness gives much more information than the question calls for, the
opposing side should object.
 Example: Lawyer asks: “How old are you?” and witness answers, “On the night of
September 10th, I was with my friends and we were going to a movie, and…”
Rule 5: Relevance
 Questions or answers that add nothing to the understanding of the issue in dispute are
objectionable.
 Example: In a bankruptcy trial, it would probably be irrelevant that the defendant cheated
on his wife.
Rule 6: Hearsay
 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.
 Example: From witness: “Ms. Gerson told me that Pat bought a gun.” From lawyer:
“What did he tell you?”
Rule 7: Beyond the Scope of the Packet (not a real objection in a real trial!)
 Questions that ask about, or answers that supply, important facts not contained in the
packet are objectionable. However, minor details regarding a character's role may be
asked and added.
 Example: “Actually, we did find a knife in Jordan’s pocket.”
Name: ______________________________________
Cross Examination: Prosecution
Unlike direct examination, the witness is not the “star” on cross exam. The lawyer is! Because
the witness may have things that “hurt” your client or your case, the point of cross examination
is to limit the witness’s testimony to statements that help our case, and to prevent the witness
from talking about anything else.
Questions on cross examination should be short, “leading” (drawing out a “yes” or “no” rather
than a long explanation), and support specific conclusions you want the jury to make. You are
really making an argument through the witness on cross.
Working in pairs, brainstorm some overall ideas you want the jury to take away
from the defendant’s testimony on cross-examination. Then, draft the questions
you would ask the defendant to support those ideas.
Example Argument: The defendant could have just closed the door and called the police
rather than shooting Jordan.
Example Questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
You opened the door before Jordan knocked, isn’t that right?
And Jordan never tried to enter the house?
He never said he would enter the house?
Jordan never stepped up onto your porch?
In fact, Jordan stayed twelve feet away the whole time you were arguing?
But you never tried to close the door?
You never tried to walk away?
Instead, you shot your gun?
Takeaway: This line of questioning should support the theory that shooting Jordan was
not reasonable, because Jordan was not a physically threat to the defendant.
Argument # 1: _______________________________________________________________
Questions:
1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________________________
4. ____________________________________________________________________
5. ____________________________________________________________________
Argument # 2: _______________________________________________________________
Questions:
1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________________________
4. ____________________________________________________________________
5. ____________________________________________________________________
Name: ______________________________________
Closing Statement Preparation Form: Prosecution
1. HOOK: Go back to theme and theory
“As we told you in opening statement, this is a case about __________________
___________________________________________________________________.”
2. ELEMENTS of Murder
“The defendant does not dispute that she intentionally shot and killed Jordan Davis.
Under Washington law, this is murder. In Washington, the defendant is guilty of murder
if she (fill in the elements):
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________.”
“And we have proven this with evidence. (List evidence: diagrams, testimony, etc.)
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________.”
3. REBUT the Elements of Self-Defense
If the defense proves that Pat Haines acted in self-defense, the prosecution will lose the case. So
you must disprove the elements of self-defense. Point to exactly what they failed to prove:
“The defense tried to tell you that Pat Haines was acting in self-defense. But let’s look
at the elements of self-defense. They are____________...”
1.
2.
3.
.”
4. Appeal to COMMON SENSE
Emphasize what makes sense in this case. The way normal people act. The way people are
expected to act. The way any one of us would have acted in that situation.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________.
5. That is why we ask you to return a verdict of GUILTY. Thank you.
Name: ______________________________________
Closing Statement Preparation Form: Defense
1. HOOK: Go back to theme and theory
“As we told you in opening statement, this is a case about __________________
___________________________________________________________________.”
2. Importance of the BURDEN OF PROOF
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest burden of proof. If the jury has any reasonable
doubts that the defendant did not intend to kill Jordan Davis, they cannot convict her of
murder. WHY is this important to our justice system?
3. The Prosecution did not prove the ELEMENTS (of murder) BRD.
“The Prosecution must have proven each element of (the charge) ____________
_________________________________________________________________________
(burden of proof) ________________________________________________________.”
4. Argue SELF-DEFENSE:
“Even if the prosecution proves the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, the
defense still prevails if it proves all of the elements of self-defense. The elements of selfdefense are:
1.
2.
3.
.”
“And we have proven this with evidence. (List Evidence: Diagrams, Testimony, etc.).
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________.”
4. The prosecution has FAILED to rebut the elements of self-defense.
Point to exactly what they failed to prove: _____________________________________
______________________________________________________________________.
6. That is why we ask you to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY. Thank you.