Nadezhda Kan,
Uzbekistan

An introductory Mock Trial Debate Seminar

Intended for the use at universities and schools specialized in English and Comparative Literature Studies

Introduction

The following plan is a four hour academic seminar designed for and offered to the teachers of English at universities and specialized high schools as supplementary and extracurricular material intended to enhance student’s critical thinking abilities, a better understanding of jurisprudence and local as well as international juridical systems, develop debating skills, argumentation, logic, polish English language skills, and finally broaden students’ world outlook together with mutual understanding by means of a fair, unbiased, and ruled discussion called Mock Trial.

Students will exercise in introduction, assertion, refutation, and restoration of their and the opposite side’s arguments in a simulation of a trial usually held in civil courts (not confined to it only, though), carrying out the roles of jury, witnesses, prosecutors, advocates, defendants, experts, and judges. The following plan is counting for the presence of 15 participants (1 defendant, 3 judges (1 speaker judge and 2 jury), 3 prosecutors, 3 advocates, 3 witnesses, 2 experts).

Overview

Generally 2 sessions (classes) will be held for each Mock Trial Seminar, each lasting 2 hours. However this is not a rigid format and the same seminar can be done in four sessions, each lasting one hour for the purposes of easier learning, for example in summer camp or in schools. Rules of Mock Trial will be introduced and discussed as well as a couple of warming up games intended to prepare the students for the process of playing itself, played beforehand and after the Mock Trial itself.

Definitions

Mock Trial - a form of debate, which is an academic exercise, simulating real life process going on in civil courts, goals of which is to enhance student’s critical thinking abilities, develop debating skills, argumentation, and logic

Argument – a reason for or against in a debate

Counter argument – an argument, proving that previously stated argument (of the opposition side) is invalid

Refutation – a series of counter arguments, comprising either an essential part, or the entire speech

Point of Order (protest) – said at any time by a member of prosecution team or advocate team, except during the first and the last speeches of the opposing party, when either format or the spirit of the debate, and/or case debated is violated. Directed to the judges and a reason for the point of order should be briefly explained.

Judge’s decision – always final and definitive statement, which ultimately guides the flow of the debate and also made to decide, which party wins the trial

Agenda of the Seminar

The following tables represent activities by fulfilling of which, the actual Mock Trial seminar is executed and Mock Trial itself practiced. The seminar will be conducted in two session (four session variant is also possible and easily converted into existence from the given two-session variant).

Session one (Total time - 1 hour 55 minutes)

#	Description of an activity	Time
1.	Warming-up activity (getting to know each other)	15 min
2.	Game (start thinking engines)	20 min
3.	Explanation of the Format of Mock Trial (handouts distributed)	25 min
4.	Break	5 min
5.	Explanation of the Case (handouts distributed), role assignment	10 min
6.	Case assessment and in-group discussion	30 min
7.	Questions of the participants are addressed	10 min

Session two (Total time - 2 hours)

#	Description of an activity	Time
1.	Warming-up activity (an ice breaking game)	15 min
2.	Review of the last session	20 min
3.	Continuation of in-group discussion and strategies working out	20 min
4.	Break	5 min
5.	Mock Trial	50 min
6.	Feedback (Conclusions and recommendations are made up, weaknesses and strengths of each of the participant discussed)	10 min

Note:

As an alternative to a two-session seminar (two hours each), there could be a four-session seminar made (one hour each). In this case, each session described above is divided into two sessions in their fourth point (break time).

Detailed Description

Session one

1. Warming up activity (getting to know each other) – 15 minutes

A seminar instructor greets everybody and proposes a game (beginning with the closest one to the instructor person). Everyone, in orderly fashion should say his name and describe it with any adjective, which begins with the same letter as his name does (e.g. Awesome Anton). Then, the next player should repeat all names and their adjectives as well as add his own name and an adjective to it. Objectives: enhance memory, get to know each other’s name, check imagination patterns and association trends.

2. Game (start thinking engines) – 20 min

A continuation of getting to know each other and also invoking logical abilities of the people playing. Everybody is randomly divided by the instructor into several groups, consisting of 3 people. In each group each person, in his turn, tells quickly 2 truths about himself and one lie. Everybody else in the group can ask any questions about any of the statements, and the questioned can only tell truths about the true statement he’s made and only lies about the false one. The task is to detect that one false statement. Each individual is assigned 5 minutes. If in 5 minutes nobody guesses what the false statement was a speaker wins. Objectives: develop and implement logical abilities of the participants, develop critical questioning skills, participants find out more information about each other, prepare for similar activities in the actual Mock Trial session.

3. Explanation of the Format of Mock Trial (handouts distributed) – 25 min

The instructor distributes the handouts with explanation of the format of the Mock Trial. Mock Trial defined and its format explained by the inductor orally. Purposes explained:

1. General Provisions:

a. Judges decisions are always final.

b. Only judges, jury, advocates and prosecutors have a right to ask questions.

c. Points of Orders (protests) must be exclusively presented to judges at any time except during first and last speeches of advocates and prosecutors.

d. There must be an odd number of judges so that the final decision would be made my majority of votes.

e. Advocates and prosecutors do not have a right to ask about personal opinion of witnesses, or experts if the defendant is guilty (as it is judges responsibility to decide) or any other question to answer which, people have to be specialists or competent.

f. In all unexpectedly come up situation, the ultimate authority to solve them is granted to judges.

2. Roles

a. Judges (a decision making body, whether the defendant is guilty or not, also assign the sentence to the defendant if found guilty, settle order and regulate the flow of the Trial)

b. Jury (people with a right to ask any questions during the trial, second resort of judges)

c. Defendant (party accused of something, has a right to give a speech at the beginning of trial, has a right to redirect his answers to his advocates)

d. Advocates (a party in the Trial, trying to diminish legal consequences for the defendant, or prove that no guilt took place at all, a defendant defending party)

e. Prosecutors (a party in the Trial, trying to discover all illegality of the actions of the defendant, bring forward indictment and charges, law defending party)

f. Witnesses (people who give information in law-court, who saw an event debated take place and are able to describe it)

g. Experts (people, not usually affiliated with the actual case, having special knowledge or skill, which can clarify the case)

h. Audience (the rest of presenting at the court people, not having rights to interfere, ask questions, by other means interrupt in the process of judging)

3. Order of Speeches in Mock Trial
(Adopted from a handout, distributed in the Youth Center, Mock Trial Seminar. Altered)

1. Chief judge clearly calls court to order

2. Judges enter

3. Chief judge checks attendance of all parties engaged in Mock Trial

4. Chief judge opens the case

5. Chief judge asks prosecutors to read charge

6. Chief judge explains the rights of the defendant

7. Defendant pleads guilty or not

8. Chief judge sends out witnesses

9. Chief judge asks the defendant if he wishes to say anything

10. Judges question the defendant

11. Prosecutor questions the defendant

12. Defense questions the defendant

13. Chief judge calls for the 1^st witness

14. 1^st witness is questioned by the same scheme as in point 10 – 12 above

15. Other witnesses and experts are questioned as in point 14

16. Closing speeches are made by prosecution and defense

17. Judges discuss and give verdict

18. If found guilty, the defendant is told how to appeal

The instructor explains everything written above and answers all questions related to the format. Then the instructor asks students, one by one to repeat the procedure of the flow of the trial and asks check-up question.

4. Break – 5 min

5. Explanation of the Case (handouts distributed), role assignment – 10 min

The instructor announces the commencement of the process of Mock Trial and quickly explains the case, not going into details. Handouts with a detailed description of the case are distributed among participants and questions (if any) asked. The instructor assigns roles, matching to the best of his abilities, talents noted previously with the roles. Participants are asked to team up in accordance with the group they were assigned to and change/adjust their position if there is an urgent need to do so.

6. Case assessment and in-group discussion – 30 min

The participants (now teamed up in accordance with their roles and tasks) assess the case more carefully and work out strategies and plans, by the means of discussing, brainstorming and individual work on the case. The participants begin to prepare their speeches and questions. In case of witnesses and experts, the participants study carefully their part of the case so that the flow of the trial be as smooth as possible.

7. Questions of the participants are addressed – 10 min

When the assigned time finishes, the instructor calls for order and briefly summarizes the result of the session. He answers all of the questions, which came out after, or during the discussion of the case. After all questions are answered, he welcomes student for the second and the last session and announces date and time.

Session two

1. Warming up (an ice breaking game) – 15 min

Seminar instructor greets everybody and proposes to begin session two by a warming-up game. Last session, people relatively well got to know each other and now appointed by the instructor the first player describes any other person in the group and points for the answer (the name of the person described) at any individual in the group. He has to venture a guess about who this person is and if succeeded he sits down and the person whose name was guessed correctly continues the game, describing the qualities of another person. If not succeeded asks the help of the group and then himself chooses a person who would continue the game. No repetitions are allowed as the time is limited and the number of people in the group may be large. Objectives: people continue to get to know each other better and attune themselves for the people with whom they will have to work in the following parts of the session. Also develop recognition skills and eliminating ability.

2. Review of the last session – 20 min

After the game the instructor remind the students what happened during the first session and asks for feedback from the participants. The instructor checks faded knowledge of the format of the Mock Trial and if there is a need goes over the structure of the format. Then, he reminds the case and checks attendance. If not everybody came, he finds substitutes for the missing people and then welcomes any questions prior to the beginning of the process of the Mock Trial.

3. Continuation of the discussions in the groups – 20 min

People get together in groups again and swiftly brush up on the case and strategies already worked out. They polish their speeches and make final adjustments or the trial. They work on collaborative, integrated activity and in group critique and examine arguments devised. They sort out irrelevant ideas and prepare the final draft of their speeches and questions.

4. Break – 5 min

5. Mock Trial – 50 min

Judges assume their position and begin the case in accordance with the rules, regulations and provisions described above. The instructor watches the process of the Mock Trial taking notes of the mistakes participants make. The instructor is trying not to interfere along the entire process of the Trial, and only does it when there is a really stumbling situation.

6. Feedback (conclusion and recommendations are made up, weaknesses and strengths of each of the participants are discussed) – 10 min

After the Trial is over and judges announced their decisions and gave appropriate feedback, the instructor proceeds with his own feedback and comments on the rules broken but not noticed by the judges. He discusses strengths and weaknesses of all parties, preferably all people and recommends a course of actions he believes is appropriate to enhance the quality of the next Mock Trial. Then the instructor welcomes questions and after they are asked, he encourages the group answer them themselves. After final questions are asked and answered he makes conclusion and encourages the participant to further their exploration and practice of the Mock Trial in future. He sees the participants off and wishes them best luck in their future endeavors.

The proposed plan of the conducting of the seminar (Mock Trial) is by no means a definitive source of information about the Mock Trial debate format. It is only an introductory, ordered scheme following which, teachers in high schools and universities may introduce students to a form of debate called Mock Trial. This plan is intended for use in specialized in English Language learning schools (with preferable extracurricular studying of Comparative Literature) and at universities. Designed to fill approximately four hours of activity.

Recommendations

The author of this document suggests changing the rules of Mock Trial in the following: Witnesses and experts are only introduces generally to the case and not told what to say in detail. This would bring more flexibility to Mock Trial as well as healthy and fun unpredictability. It would also give a chance to witnesses and experts be more to Mock Trial then “reading machines” with no personal investment in \to the flow of the Trial. Also, there could be allowed points of order in the first and last constructive speeches of the prosecutors and advocates as sometimes the last speech can be used unfairly by either of the side to state falsely. Otherwise, in my opinion, Mock Trial debate format is acceptable.

The author humbly suggests that the cases for Mock Trial in the schools be those ones taken out of the books written by classicists and creatively adjusted for the present time if there is a need there, and also try to make this academic exercise a lot of fun for the students and a valuable source of information about jurisprudence, law interpretation, legislation system of Uzbekistan and other countries, as well as International legal standards adopted by international treaties and organizations.

The author also suggest an intensive practice of Mock trial at universities as part of extracurricular activity (especially in law schools), designed to help students develop essential logical, debating and negotiation skills so much needed in our nowadays social environment.

One way to improve the quality of Mock Trial seminars is to hand out unanimous questionnaires, in which students express their wishes and critiques about the seminar conducted and the instructor. There could also be testing materials be distributed to check overall students’ understanding of the rules and spirit of Mock Trial, their suggestions and even amendments they believe are necessary to improve the format of Mock Trial.

If the seminar is conducted to produce trainers of Mock Trial debate format, respective Certification could take place and best participants awarded.

Case

Foreword: The case on contradiction of the Eco-group, led by Grina Grinalova and Polish Government is complex enough to reflect full structure of Polish and international legislative systems, show their workings and controversy. It is also a positively complex by its very structure in terms of variety and abundance of information presented by witnesses, experts, and a great deal of speculation space left to advocates and prosecutors. This case is nearly perfect for such a debating format as Mock Trial.

This case can be easily (and in many instances preferably) left and not altered. It would perfectly suit the plan I described in this very proposal, however, I suggest to your attention another case, which could work on an alternative basis in such debating environments as schools or Debate Camp.

The following case is proposed as an alternative only to the Dam Case and represents by itself a simplified case for younger participants.

Case: Three little pigs and Wolf

Cast: Red Riding Hood and two woodsmen (speaker judge and jury respectively), Wolf (defendant), Beaver (witness of the prosecution #1), Piggy 1 (survivor victim and witnesses of prosecution #2), Hunter (witness of advocate team #1), Angry Dog (witness of advocate team #2), Ant (expert in the field of animal psychology and building construction), prosecution team (Terminator 1, Terminator 2, Terminator 3), advocate team (Superman, Beavis, Butthead)

Facts: Mother pig suddenly gets a raise in salary and decides to go for vacation as it was summer time and the weather was more than perfect. She plans to leave her house on June 1, 2001 and needs a housekeeper as well as a babysitter for her 12, 13, and 14 year-olds. She looks through newspapers and finds out about Wolf (defendant) offering his services in house keeping and babysitting for a reasonable price. She gladly accepts his services and after swift negotiations quickly leaves her house and goes meeting her vacation somewhere in another country. She warns their youngsters that Wolf is going to come and baby-sit for them. This news doesn’t bring much happiness to three little pigs.

Wolf, notoriously known for bad temper, wakes up on June 1, 2001 in an especially bad mood with a terrible hangover. He suddenly recalls he has to be at work in 10 minutes (it was 9:50 am, he has to be there at 10) and quickly dresses up, leaves his house, and runs towards Pig’s place. En route the point of destination he meets Piggy 1, a 12-year-old little pig, who intentionally misguides Wolf into directly opposite to their house direction. Wolf, not knowing he has been fooled, runs like a dog for hours and finally finds out in a local grocery where the Pig’s place really is and understands that Piggy 1 fooled him. In a hurry he is getting to the Pig’s place swearing loudly (and thus being heard distinctly by a beaver) that “he’s gonna kill those silly, dirty little pigs and eat them: one for breakfast, second for lunch and the last one for dinner.” Beaver, a neighbor of three little pigs, hears it and remembers.

Meanwhile, Piggy 1 tell the story to his brothers and they together decide not to let Wolf watch over them and not to let him in their house, regardless their mom’s strict order to listen to what Wolf says. They barricade the door and quickly make 2 fake houses near the real one. They set wolf traps in those two houses and hope wolf will get his piece.

Wolf not knowing what destiny he is about to face sees the first of two fake houses and knocks on the door. The door is opened and Wolf sees his nemesis – Hunter. Hunter sees him and immediately withdraws his huge gun and aims at Wolf. Wolf shrieks and runs away, his skin is holed in 456 places. His mood is inferior and he understands that in his case money he wants to earn are really bloody. He also hears Hunter say as he was running after him: “Damn those little pigs for not letting me bring a cannon, I would blast this Wolf with it once and for all!” Finally Wolf managed to run away and get to the last of two fake houses. Cautiously he opens the door and sees Angry Dog, which immediately grabbed him. Wolf was about to say good bye to his sorry life but Angry Dog says: “Listen, buddy, I am not that angry today, so I will let you go. Besides, I do not like the idea of tree little pigs exterminate wolfs by using dogs, your close relatives. I would gladly bite your head off in other circumstances, but I think it is mean to do it when you are tired, not ready, and set up by those little pigs, whom I do not hate, but liking them is totally beyond my abilities. So I will let you go. Go in peace and teach those little pigs respect the elder.” Angry dog let Wolf go and happy Wolf finally got to the point of his destination.

Wolf’s mood was far from superior when he found out that the door is unwilling to open before him He shouts: “Hey, you, little pigs open the door. You have wound my nerves more than enough today, so let us settle it. Please!” Little pigs shouted back: “Get the hell away from us! We don’t want you here. Try to come in and you will regret it, silly Wolf. Go away.” Wolf was trying to negotiate with them several times. All times he failed. Finally, he has had enough of it. Infuriated like all hell, he inhales to the fullest capacity of his lungs and exhales the air in the direction of the door. Door is blown away and three little pigs scream in terror seeing awesome Wolf chasing them and tearing into pieces. Only one pig survived. That was Piggy 1.

Police comes tem minutes later to find Wolf finishing eating Piggy 3, and Piggy 1 on the very top of a high tree near the house. They arrest Wolf save Piggy 1 and leave the spot.

Profiles

Wolf

Emotionally unstable 29 year-old male wolf. Born in Zimbabwe. Lived there for 20 years of his life. Have never been on criminal record and thinks that lawfulness is an excellent idea. Knows 6 languages: French (native), German, Polish, Japanese, English, and Uzbek. Doesn’t acknowledge his guilt and believes he was provoked to behave the way he did. Also believes that killing is justified if not intentioned. Have never had any interactions with pig family before and had nothing personal against them until the day of the incident.

Piggy 1

A 13 year-old teenager many times convicted of lying and misbehavior. Hates wolfs and thinks pigs are the only species that have a right to have rights. He was the one, who misguided Wolf and did it for fun. He was the one, who contacted Hunter and asked him to come and kill Wolf. He was the one, who brought Angry Dog to the second fake house and tried to bribe him with 2 kilos of meet. Likes music, in particular Madonna, Michael Jackson and a New Age band Secret Garden.

Beaver

A 17 year-old teenager. A close friend of Piggy 2, which has been eaten by wolf. Saw Wolf rushing towards the house of three little pigs, promising to himself to eat all of them. He was the one who called the police.

Angry Dog

Emotional 20 year-old dog with principles. Doesn’t like wolfs and pigs. But at the same time, hates to be dishonest. One of the deadliest wolf killers in the past, before he retired. On the day of accident was in excellent mood and came to the second fake house out of interest. From the very beginning he decided he would let Wolf go as he didn’t like that Piggy one wanted to buy him for 2 kilos of meet.

Hunter

Calm, serious 45 year-old person all his life hunting wolfs down. Honest and principled. Hates wolfs and wishes to exterminate all wolf in the galaxy. Have known pig family for 5 years and was a family friend. His license of a hunter expired two days before the incident.

Ant

A well-known specialist in the spheres of animal psychology and building construction. By no means is affiliated with any of the participants in the case and has been know for honesty and professionalism. He is free to make any statements during Mock trial as long as he doesn’t contradict himself. He is not assigned what to say as he is intended to bring unpredictability to the flow of Mock Trial.

Legislation

Animal Criminal Codex

Article 232 Murders

a. Murder is the heaviest of all crimes in the Forest and punished by death. However is totally forgiven if committed as a means of self-defense and as the only means of surviving famine.
b. If the murder is provoked, the extent of punishment or presence of any punishment at all is left to be decided by judges.

Article 403 Bribes

Any attempt to bribe and to accept bribes for any purposes is an illegal act the punishment for which is 3 year long imprisonment.

Animal Rights

Article 1

Each and every animal has a right to live and protect his life.

Article 89

No reasons can justify the commencement of unlawful actions of one animal towards another animal.

Back | E-mail