Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Well, I might as well describe something that I've obviously been having experience with lately. It's about the differences between Mock Trial, a court system for high schoolers based upon real life court, and what I deem TV Trial. See, this is my utter dork-ness shown to the extreme! biggrin

TV Trial: an exciting but misrepresented, cheaper, or faster version of a true court system. It is usually enhanced by simplifying the rules of court in order to appeal to a wider audience.
Direct: to question a witness in open court by asking details which, in complete context, support your case.
Cross: to question a witness in open court by asking details which, in complete context, weaken your opponents' case.


An example of a TV Trial that I can name is the popular Nintendo DS court game of Phoenix Wright. The cross examinations of witnesses on this game, which takes up a major portion of gameplay, are very limited in description and loose in being dealt with. You can assume things very easily, whereas in real court such assumptions might be disproved by even a rookie lawyer with ease. This is mainly to give younger audiences a chance at having fun with the game and not get so frustrated as to throw their DS off a 20ft tall building, no doubt. (I could delve into many other differences which set it apart from current trial systems, such as the lack of any real consistent procedure, but that's deviating)



Now, the Mock Trial system I've been exposed to is quite controlled in comparison. There are strict limitations on "hearsay" (what witnesses hear from another person) which can only be admitted under certain circumstances, like admissions of guilt. Objections also are supposed to be based on certain rules which have been broken. Exhibits of evidence which are related to the trial have to be submitted to the court by procedure.

Let me also make one huge difference clear. You cannot just go barging into a courtroom and destroy a witness's testimony from the get-go in Mock Trial. Any prepared lawyer has looked through the witnesses which he/she is using, and they are not going to make stupid mistakes. You really have to be careful about your questions, especially your cross examinations against the other attorney's witnesses.

Witnesses themselves can be very tricky once they get their role down pat, and what you get them to admit I have found the following ideas very appealing:

Keep it simple with your questions, and make sure you are able to fulfill your original intent: to prove your case or disprove the opposing team's case. If you reveal suspicions slowly with each witness that can't be turned around, you can build up a much more solid case. The third little pig built a successful house of many bricks that were joined by mortar, not of a large clump of twigs or hay that were expected to keep the other two little pigs safe from the Wolf.

Don't go off on weird tangents while directing or crossing (especially when crossing!) a witness, as this really ruins you if you can only act on "suppose she did that, then suppose he did that". There is nothing worse than delving into Occam's Razor. No jury approves of that. Note: closing arguments are a good place to explore tangents, but don't focus on merely one suspicion. Make sure you cover a decent area of your opponents' case with a heavy sprinkling of suspicion, and try to convince the jury with all these facts put together.

That's the gist of what I was trying to get across. neutral Don't you envy me? xd