Introduction

These educational materials were graciously written by former MJP competitors. This is a
secondary reference; the primary references should be the official MYIG MJP case and rules
packet.
They are not “required reading,” they are made available to help support you in assembling your
MJP team and case. Mock trial is not something that can be learned only by reading guidebooks.
It is a “real world” activity that is best learned by observing, practicing, and experimenting. We
strongly encourage you to go watch mock trials (or real trials), practice against your teammates,
and seek out support from members of the legal community in your hometowns.
If you have any questions about or recommendations for improving these materials, please
contact staff@myig.org.

Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................2
Theory, Theme, & Objections Guidebook.......................................................................................4
Theory.......................................................................................................................................... 4
Theme.......................................................................................................................................... 5
Objections.................................................................................................................................... 6
Opening Statements & Closing Arguments Guidebook................................................................13
Opening Statements................................................................................................................... 13
Closing Arguments.................................................................................................................... 15
Theme Flips............................................................................................................................... 16
Direct Examination Guidebook..................................................................................................... 18
Introduction to Direction Examination...................................................................................... 18
How to Create a Direct Examination......................................................................................... 18
General Tips...............................................................................................................................19
Additional Resources................................................................................................................. 19
Cross Examination Guidebook...................................................................................................... 21
Introduction to Cross Examination............................................................................................ 21
How to Create a Cross Examination..........................................................................................21

2 | Page
 General Tips...............................................................................................................................22
Additional Resources................................................................................................................. 22

3 | Page
 Theory, Theme, & Objections Guidebook
Written by: Mason Morse, MJP & MSU Mock Trial Alumnus
Theory
​ In mock trial, an important part of your presentation is your theory. Your theory is simply
what your side think happened, and how you want to present it to the judge or jury. It is
important to have a clear, organized, and concise theory. If your theory is too broad or generic, it
may not be convincing. On the other hand, if it is too complex or specific you risk losing your
audience. Let’s discuss some examples.
​ Presenting a theory is not simply repeating the witness statements in the case. A theory
strategically presents facts in a convincing way that is meant to lead the jury to one—and only
one—conclusion. Just repeating the witness statements is easy but not engaging, especially if this
isn’t the first time a judge has heard a case. Good themes will lead judges to say, “That was an
interesting way you presented the facts,” or “I hadn’t considered that way to attack this case” or
“I really liked how you presented that evidence with that witness.”
​ For example, Jane Doe owns a winery. Jane’s daughter Janet is getting married at the
winery. However, Jane doesn’t like Janet’s fiancé, Casey. The morning of the wedding, Casey
dies from pesticide poisoning. It is the same pesticide used at the winery. Casey’s family decides
to sue Jane for wrongful death. The plaintiff’s theory could be that Jane Doe poisoned Casey
because Jane didn’t want Casey and Janet to get married. The defense’s theory could be (based
on the facts of the case) that there was an owner of a rival winery at Jane’s winery the day before
the wedding, they this rival had access to the pesticide used at the winery, and poisoned Casey to
create a media story.
​ Notice what both sides are arguing in this case. Of course, we only have a one-paragraph
summary; not a full set of facts. The plaintiff’s argument is straightforward, a bad relationship
led to malice led to poisoning. The defense’s argument also has a logical chain of events. A rival
winery owner desperate for a story poisoned someone. Both of these theories have strengths and
weaknesses, but can still be presented in a way that is organized and clear.
​ Let’s look at another example. Joanna and John Doe are a separated couple and
frequently get in fights. One night Joanna comes home to her new apartment and finds that her
apartment has been robbed and her expensive engagement ring and nothing else has been stolen.
Joanna wants the police and the State of Michigan to bring charges against John, which they do.
The Prosecution’s theory could be John Doe stole the ring to sell it, as his relationship with
Joanna was over. The Defense’s theory could simply be that there is not enough evidence to link
John to the crime. For example, John wasn’t spotted near the house that day, the police never
found John’s DNA at the scene, the police never found that ring for sale anywhere, and there’s
no evidence John still had access to Joanna’s apartment.
Burden
4 | Page
An important part of constructing your theory is the “burden of proof” your side has. Burden of
proof is what each side has to “prove” their case to win the lawsuit, and to what level of certainty
that side has to “prove” their case.
Burden of Proof
Prosecution (Criminal Trial) “Beyond a reasonable doubt”
Plaintiff (Civil Trial) “Preponderance of the Evidence”
Defense No burden

The Prosecution (for criminal trials) and Plaintiff (for civil trials) always have the burden of
proof. This makes sense: the Prosecution or Plaintiff is the party that is bringing the lawsuit
against the Defendant. So, it makes sense that they have the “burden” to prove why their claim is
correct.
In criminal cases, the Prosecution has the burden prove that the crime was committed by
Defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a high burden, and is a safety valve to ensure that
we do not convict people of crimes unless we have a high degree of confidence that they
committed the crime.
The simple formula to create a theory is X happened because of Y. So after you read all the
witness statements and the evidence, ask yourself, and consider this question from both sides of
the case, “Why did this happen?” By describing the logical chain of events and reason that each
event led to the next one, this is usually a good basis for a theory. After you form your team in
your first few meetings you should have a theory discussion set the best theory for your team.
Remember you’ll be pressured (especially in a mock trial case) to find a theory that has zero
holes or weaknesses. No theory is perfect; don’t let a bad fact or two entirely dissuade you from
pursuing a theory.
Theme
​ Once you have a theory, it is time to decide your theme. This is a phrase or something
similar that can be weaved through your case. The purpose of having a theme is very practical:
trials are long, people have limited attention spans. A major part of an effective mock trial team
is to keep the attention of your judge and jury focused on why your side should win. A
memorable theme that the judge and jury can do that—it should be memorable and describe your
theory of the case.
How do you come up with a good theme? A theme should be something that helps the jury
follow your theory, it makes it relateable. If your theory is based around a financial motive you
could have the theme “Money was his motive”. A theme does not have to be complex, even a
simple theme like that could work. As another example, if your theory is based around
negligence you could have the theme “Dangerous decisions had deadly consequences”. Catchy
themes can have some sort of alliteration or rhyme, but don’t make it too cheesy. If you’re

5 | Page
struggling to come up with a theme, that's ok! Most of the time themes can be easily changed and
worked in your case. I’ve changed a theme an hour before a round and it worked out. A tip if you
are having theme trouble is after you write your direct examinations and cross examinations look
for common ideas, concepts, or words. Let’s say the case is assault and a lot of your witnesses
are saying the word frustration. Your theme could be “frustration led to a fight”.
​ Themes should be decided as a team. This discussion, while not always fun, is important.
Don’t be afraid to make suggestions, even if your theme doesn’t work entirely it could inspire
one of your teammates to work off that suggestion and come up with a better theme. I always say
when it comes to themes there are no bad suggestions.
​ After you come up with your theme you should integrate it into your case. Themes should
be used several times in the openings and closings and worked into direct and cross
examinations.
​ Ideally the way you should approach your case should be starting with a theory, support
that theory with compelling facts from witnesses statements and evidence, and binding all of
those compelling facts and evidence with an easy to follow theme.
Objections
​ An important part of mock trial is evidence and objections. Evidence (in addition to
witness testimony) is a critical part of proving what did or did not happen. But, there need to be
“guardrails” to ensure that only relevant, useful, and credible evidence is used at trial. These
guardrails are called “rules of evidence.” If the other side tries to introduce witness testimony or
evidence that violates one of the rules of evidence, you can object and argue why the evidence or
testimony should not be allowed at trial.
Objection arguments are often dramatized in the media. If you want to learn how to properly
object, I would not recommend watching Law and Order. Objections are actually based on very
specific evidentiary rules, and are not a competition of “who can yell the loudest.”
No matter what your experience is, objections can be intimidating and sometimes confusing, but
hopefully I can simplify things. Let's get some general tips out of the way.
1.​ The best way to get better at objections is to practice. Both witnesses and attorneys
should be frequently looking over the objections section of the MJP rules packet to study
objections. This section includes all the objections you’re allowed to make in competition
with a brief description and an example. This is a great resource to look at, for the
purposes of this guide I won’t explain what every objection means, as that would be
redundant. But I will give tips where appropriate.
2.​ If you get an objection or an objection response wrong, don’t worry about it! What’s
important is that you act as confident as possible while arguing and do your best to adapt
if a ruling doesn’t go your way. Sometimes judges will rule against you because for the

6 | Page
 sake of the competition the other side needs a piece of evidence or because they want to
see how you’ll react.
3.​ Some judges don’t have the same interpretation of the rules, just because one judge
sustained your objection doesn’t mean other judges will also sustain that same objection.
4.​ Objections are meant to evaluate the admissibility or something, which is just should it be
let in or kept out. Inadmissible means it should not be allowed, admissible means it
should be allowed. A judge will decide what is the case with a ruling.
5.​ You really only have to establish evidentiary matters (situations where objections come
into play) to “by the preponderance of the evidence” same standard of civil case burdens.
This can be a helpful thing to throw into a response.
So how do objections work? In mock trial you can raise an objection to a question an attorney
asks, a response a witness is giving, or a piece of evidence. Objections will follow this format:
●​ The side raising an objection will stand up and say “Objection” or something similar.
●​ That side will state why they are objecting and make an argument to the judge.
o​ Possibility A: Most of the time the judge will then ask the other side for a
response. If the judge does not ask the other side for a response, that side can
request the opportunity to respond.
o​ Possibility B: Sometimes the judge will just make a ruling if they are certain
about the admissibility in question. If this happens you can respectfully request a
response, but you may not get one and that’s ok.
Important tip! While arguing objections you should stand to address the judge. DO NOT argue
with the other attorney. You should be making your argument to the judge and the judge only.
1.​ To show we know the rules. Frankly sometimes you just want to show you know the
rules of evidence and that's ok, showing knowledge of objections can be a way to earn a
point. Be careful though some judges can sense when an argument is frivolous so you
want to have a somewhat solid reason why you're objecting. Whether an objection is
frivolous is something you are judged on.
2.​ To stop momentum. When the other team is asking a lot of questions in a row
uninterrupted they can get in a groove, which could help them score better. Objecting is a
way to throw off their rhythm. Even when you're wrong some competitors will skip the
question they're asking entirely!
3.​ To protect our witnesses. Sometimes our witnesses get asked a difficult or hard question.
Objecting at this time can (if we're somewhat lucky) prevent them from having to answer,
and at worst give them time to think. Judges will want to see that you are looking out for
the witness you're directing.
4.​ To keep out information we don't want the jury to see. If the other side is asking a
question or admitting evidence that will reveal bad information about our witnesses or
our case we don't want it in! Objecting successfully at these moments can definitely help

7 | Page
 your score and throw the other team a curveball. Remember if that information is kept out
they can't use it in closing arguments, and if teams try to use it you can use that against
them in your closing arguments.
Be careful with items 2 and 3! If you object during an important question and don't have a good
argument, the other team can do what I call a mini close, this is an opportunity where they get to
explain their entire theory and why this piece of evidence or question is so important. We don't
want to give them this opportunity! And again, use caution because we don’t want to make
frivolous objections.
​ Now sometimes we are unsure if we should object, again that’s ok. If you are unsure if
you should object or not here is a quick checklist
1.​ Does this matter?
2.​ Does this help or hurt our theory?
3.​ Does this help or hurt their theory?
If the question, answer, or piece of evidence just simply doesn't matter, I’d recommend not
wasting your breath. If the other side is bringing out information that is good for your theory,
don’t stop them! You now have the added benefit in your closing argument to say the other side
brought up information that is good for you. If the information hurts your theory, then you may
want to consider objecting. Similar reasoning applied to if the information helps or hurts their
theory.
It may be hard to consider those questions in a split second when you have to make an objection
(objections need to be timely, meaning pretty much right when the evidence, question, or
response comes out) but with practice you’ll be able to react quicker. Also, with enough practice
and knowledge of the case you should be able to plan objections and responses. In MJP there are
four and only four witnesses in total that will be called every time. If you study the case enough
you already know what each witness is allowed to say. Based on this information once you have
a rough idea what the other side is arguing you can try to plan when you will object. On the other
hand if you know a certain question, answer, or evidence could bait a certain objection, you can
plan a response for that! With all things mock trial (while some off the cuff improv is good
sometimes) planning is key!
​ Now I’m sure that what many of you are wondering is “how do I object?” or “how do I
make good objections/responses?” There is a simple formula known as “IAC” that you can use:
●​ Issue: What is the objection? What rule of evidence are you citing?
●​ Analysis: How does this rule of evidence apply to the evidence/testimony that is being
objected to?
●​ Conclusion: Are you requesting that the evidence/testimony is admitted or excluded?

8 | Page
Now if you are working with a legal professional or a law student they may say there should be a
step for rule number. In real life objections come from something called rules of evidence.
Lawyers make objections because the information in question violates those rules. While there
are technically rule numbers in the MJP rules packet, it is typical in MJP mock trial not to use
them. If you want to use them, go for it (in that case the format would go Issue, Rule, Analysis,
and Conclusion)
Here are two examples of IAC at work, using two different rules of evidence:

Relevance Example:
Q: Mr. Doe, have you ever paid a toll on the Ohio turnpike?
Attorney 1: Objection your honor to relevance (issue). Whether this witness paid a toll on the
Ohio turnpike doesn't have a tendency to make a fact more or less likely (analysis). Therefore
this is irrelevant evidence and is therefore inadmissible (conclusion)
Attorney 2: Response? Your honor this question is relevant (issue), today opposing counsel has
argued that Mr. Doe was at the scene of the crime at 8pm. With the evidence provided by
opposing counsel the only way that would be possible is if Mr. Doe took the Ohio turnpike and
consequently paid a toll (analysis). Therefore this is admissible (Conclusion).
Judge: I see both arguments but relevance is a low bar so I’ll overrule for now, but counsel
should move on soon, if not feel free to re raise your objection.
Hearsay Example:
Attorney 1: What happened next?
Witness: Well Bob said he was going to rob the bank.
Attorney 2: Objection your honor to hearsay (Issue). The definition of hearsay as an out of court
statement being used for the truth of the matter asserted. This statement was made out of court
and since the prosecution has brought charges of grand larceny today, they are absolutely using
this statement for its truth value (Analysis). It meets the definition of hearsay and is inadmissible
(Conclusion).
Attorney 1: Your honor this statement meets an exception for hearsay (Issue). This statement
shows the then existing mental state of the defendant, it shows his plan and intent to rob the bank
(Analysis). Therefore this is admissible (Conclusion).
Judge: I agree, overruled.​

Notice how each argument was structured in a concise way that makes it easy to understand both
arguments. Note if your objection or response is hard to follow, but correct, the judge still may
not rule in your favor.

9 | Page
With that out of the way let's go through some specific tips for certain objections.
Leading:
●​ Just because a question calls for a yes or no answer doesn’t mean a question is leading.
There’s a difference between “Did you drive your car that day?” and “You drove your car
that day, right?” The question really needs to imply/suggest the answer to be leading.
●​ Same as direct examinations, you cannot ask leading questions in re-direct

Speculation:
●​ For non-experts the standard for speculation is a rationally based perception. This is what
you can determine from your five senses. Testifying beyond this is speculation.
Lack of Personal Knowledge:
●​ I’d recommend using this sparingly while your witness is being crossed. Some
judges/opposing counsels will say this is cross if the witness doesn’t know the answer
they can say so. Doesn’t mean you can’t use this altogether but be careful
Relevance:
●​ The standard for relevance is the tendency to make a fact that is relevant to the case more
or less likely. In order for something to be relevant it must have this tendency, this is also
known as the bar for relevance. This is a low bar. Notice how this was used in the
example. Using these phrases in arguments can be very helpful. Note you do not need to
repeat this for every objection or response.
●​ How a witness feels about a situation who is not a victim or defendant is not relevant
most of the time, as it just does not have the mentioned tendency.
o​ Q: Mr. Random Person, how do you feel about the robbery?
o​ A: It was really bad.
●​ Sometimes these types of questions get asked and while this is very simplified you can
see how these questions don’t get us anywhere.
●​ If you don’t want to tip the other side off to why you’re asking a question in your analysis
section of an objection response you can use “laying a foundation”. This can be
somewhat of a get out of jail free card, but use it sparingly.
Argumentative:
●​ This can effectively be used if attorney’s try to add commentary during questions
o​ Attorney: What is your relationship like with the defendant
o​ Witness: I don’t really like them
o​ Attorney: wow that’s not very nice
●​ That’s a bit simplified again but you see the point

Foundation:
10 | Page
 ●​ Be wary of this objection when writing your questions. People have the tendency to skip
some foundation because all competitors know the case. Foundation for knowledge is
very important especially because many judges are not very familiar with the case.
Hearsay:
●​ Most of the time what the witness on the stand has previously said isn’t hearsay. The
reason why we have hearsay is because we don’t know if what this other person said is
true, they didn’t say it under oath and threat of perjury. At the time the witness is on the
stand we are unable to verify with the person who said something if it’s true. This isn’t
necessarily the case when the witness on the stand talks about their previous statements
because we can simply cross examine them on it.
●​ Hearsay is one of the more complicated objections so don’t be discouraged if you don’t
get it at first.
●​ The definition of hearsay is:
1.​ an out of court statement
2.​ Used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
●​ That means that the statement must have been made outside of the current court
proceeding and that the side offering that statement is offering the statement as true
●​ So let's say the prosecution witness says on the stand “I told Bob he shouldn’t drive” but
the prosecution isn’t trying to prove that’s what the witness said, they don’t care what the
witness told bob. That isn’t hearsay. The only way that statement would be hearsay is if
the prosecution was trying to prove that this witness thought that Bob shouldn’t drive or
told Bob he shouldn’t drive.
●​ Which leads to a potential exception to hearsay, that the statement isn’t being used for the
truth of the matter. Instead you’re using it for something else such as: the subsequent
action of someone, the effect on the listener, really just to establish something other than
the truth of the statement.
●​ Example: Your honor the definition of hearsay is an out of court statement being used for
the truth of the matter asserted. We are not using this for the truth value of this statement,
rather for the subsequent action of Bob, which is that he calls a cab driven by the
defendant.
●​ Again this is a response that should be used carefully, the judge may not buy it when this
is the fourth time you aren’t using a statement for the truth of the matter asserted.
●​ Party opponent only goes one way. Each side has a party representative. For the defense
it is always the defendant. For the plaintiff/prosecution it can be the person who is
bringing the lawsuit or the lead detective in a case. Defense can only use party opponent
for statements made by the plaintiff/prosecution’s party representative
Plaintiff/prosecution can only use party opponent for statements made by the defense’s
party representative.
●​ The examples given for then existing mental emotional or physical state are not
exhaustive
11 | Page
Now what do I do when a team uses an objection that isn’t in the rule packet. This can happen
sometimes, and not by any malicious intent. Some teams are helped by judges, attorneys, and
law students who are not aware of the fact that MJP doesn’t use all possible objections. If that
happens and you don’t know how to respond to it I’d recommend saying something along the
lines of “your honor that objection is not permissible for this proceeding as outlined in the MJP
rules packet” This does break the fourth wall a little bit but it’s an option.
With that you should have all the basic knowledge and some good tips on how to structure and
make objection arguments! If you have any questions there are often local legal professionals
who are more than willing to help the next generation of prospective legal scholars, so it can’t
hurt to ask! Remember that practice makes perfect and no matter what the most important thing
in mock trial is that you are learning and having fun!

12 | Page
 Opening Statements & Closing Arguments Guidebook
Written by: Mason Morse, MJP and MSU Mock Trial Alumnus
Opening Statements
​ Opening statements are the first time you get to present your case to judge and jury, so
you’ll want to pick your words wisely. Notice that this is called the opening statement not the
opening argument. At this time you should not be making arguments (if you do it’s technically
objectionable but MJP does NOT allow objections during opening statements and closing
arguments). After any pre-trial matters the Prosecution or Plaintiff team will present their
opening statement first, then the Defense team will present their opening statement. In MJP your
openings have a time limit of 4 minutes. In my experience with this time constraint you should
aim for opening statements to be anywhere from 3 minutes 30 seconds to 3 minutes 45 seconds.
You don’t want to run out of time but you also want to make sure that you cover all the content
you need to. Let’s see what exactly you’ll be judged on for your opening statement per MJP
rules. Judges should look at if an opening statement tells a story, establishes LOVID (Location,
Offense, Venue, ID, Date), gives previews of witnesses, discusses burden of proof, explains
theme/theory (if you don’t know what those terms mean check out the resource on theory and
themes), and asks for a verdict.
With that rubric in mind let’s talk about organization. We can think of the opening as four
sections: Intro, Law, Witnesses, Conclusion. The intro should have a few sentences that serve as
a hook to grab the attention of your audience, should include your theme, and a story section.
The story section of your opening should be in the beginning. And we can think of “story” as
essentially your theory. Throughout the beginning of your opening you should explain your
theory. In general this should be about a third of your opening or so. You need to make sure you
properly explain the important aspects of your theory. Now, there’s a couple ways that you can
begin your opening statement. You can start off by stating your theme. For these resources
imagine a prosecution team has the theory that the defendant committed murder for a life
insurance policy and their theme is “money was the motive” defense team has a theory that the
police run a faulty investigation and their theme is “they went with the first answer, not the right
one” So one strategy would be to start the opening just saying “They went with the first answer,
not the right one” then go into their story. Some teams may decide to launch right into their story
and mention their theme where they think it’s right. Either strategy is good, however if you
decide to go with the latter you want to really emphasize your theme to make it clear to the
judge.
Important distinction here. Like I mentioned there shouldn’t be arguments in an opening. So
instead of saying “On the day in question the defendant changed the life insurance policy on the
victim” or “Throughout the investigation the police had one suspect and one suspect only”, you
should say “Today the evidence will show on the day in question the defendant changed the life
insurance policy on the victim” or “You’ll see that throughout the investigation the police had
one suspect and one suspect only” You certainly don’t need to have caveat statements like that
13 | Page
before every fact you introduce (especially if a fact is stipulated to or agreed about) but make
sure to include statements like that before your important facts. Again we are giving an opening
statement and not an opening argument, bigger facts should be more open because no evidence
has been produced yet.
Next let’s talk about LOVID. This is something that only prosecution teams have to worry about
(you actually don’t need to worry about it at all in civil cases). LOVID is just something that
you’ll weave throughout your opening. For example in your opening you don’t need to
physically ID the witness during your opening, but you should mention their name. During your
story you should mention the location and venue that the crime took place at. When you talk
about the burden of proof you’ll naturally discuss the offense the defendant is being charged
with.
Your story section should end with a transition into what I refer to as the law section of the
opening. This is the section where both sides should explain the law involved in the case. This
includes the charges (in a criminal trial) or claims (in civil trials), elements of those charges
(what the prosecution or plaintiff must prove), and the burden of proof. In a civil trial that burden
is by the preponderance of the evidence, that means more likely than not to be true. In a criminal
trial that burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. It could be helpful to try to find an analogy to
explain the burden. Now if you are the defense you don’t need to say exactly what the
prosecution says because it could be redundant, but don’t be afraid to point out something that
the prosecution didn’t mention.
Next you’ll want to introduce your witnesses. In MJP you have two witnesses that you will call
every time, but you can decide what order you will call the witnesses. You should introduce your
witnesses in that order. You should introduce their name and the reasons why you’re calling that
witness. You can say something like “we expect so and so to testify to ___”, “today so and so
will tell you__”, or “when so and so takes the stand you’ll learn__”.
After you talk about your witnesses you want to go into your conclusion. Your conclusion should
just be a few sentences to wrap up your opening to really set up your case and try to convince the
jury (or judge) that your case will come to the correct conclusion. Then you want to ask for a
verdict. If you are defense that will be not guilty or not liable if you are prosecution or plaintiff
that will be guilty or liable.
Now let’s circle back to theme. You can’t just say your theme once and call it a day. In general
you should mention your theme at least three times throughout your opening, but a good theme
should be able to be weaved throughout the entire opening. In general I like to mention the theme
twice by the time the story section is done, once or twice when discussing witnesses, and then
once again in the conclusion. If your theme can’t be worked in that amount of times, you may
want to consider tweaking it.

14 | Page
And that’s it! Your opening should pretty much be the same every time you give it (defense
teams may want to have slight tweaks depending on what the prosecution/plaintiff team says in
opening) so your opening should hopefully be easy to memorize, and especially for a speech like
an opening you should try your best to memorize it. My advice is to just try to remember your
opening a section at a time then string it all together.
Good luck and as always make sure to have fun.
Closing Arguments
​ In mock trial the closing argument is your last chance to score some points so like the
opening you want to spend your time wisely. For MJP you have 5 min to give your closing
argument, if you are a prosecution or plaintiff closer you then have 3 minutes to give a rebuttal
argument based on what the defense closer said.​
​ It’s important to note that at this point we are not giving a closing statement, or a closing
summary, we are giving a closing argument! You should be making arguments about the case
based on the facts and evidence! Now what exactly are you being judged on when you give a
closing argument? Judges are looking for closings that argue the evidence not just restate it,
reestablishes LOVID, relates back to the theme of opening, connects the dots of testimony of all
witnesses, argues elements and burden of proof, and asks for a verdict.
​ With that rubric in mind we can talk about organization again. The close should also have
four sections: Intro, Law, Arguments, and Conclusion. Similar to the opening, the intro can begin
with the theme and should have something that gets the attention of your audience, maybe a
really important thing a detective said or a really incriminating piece of evidence or statement
from the defendant. Then the rest of your intro shouldn’t completely regurgitate the story from
the opening but remind the jury why you are prosecuting or suing someone.
Then, if you’re clever the transition from essentially “why are we here” should easily lead to you
discussing the law of the case. At this point the jury has heard the law twice so both closers can
afford to be a little more simplified and brief, but again defense closers pay close attention for
anything the prosecution or plaintiff misses.
​ At this point I want to address a common question “how much of my closing can I
memorize verses write during trial”. I’ve given closing arguments for eight different mock trial
cases and I’d say about 60%, but you should be prepared to adapt any part of your close at any
time. For the most part you can prewrite your law section, and what your introduction and
conclusion say is (again be prepared to tweak parts based off of what happened in trial). Odds are
you have a good idea what arguments you’re going to make so while you can prewrite transitions
between arguments, but (and I cannot stress this enough) never ever ever prewrite all of your
arguments. While you know what witnesses the other side will call and you’ll probably have a
good idea what they’re going to say. You should begin figuring out the exact words of your
argument when the other side begins giving their opening statement. This is important because if
you reference a piece of evidence that didn’t come in or you say a witness said something in trial
15 | Page
when that didn’t happen, it becomes obvious that you weren’t necessarily paying attention in
trial. Now mistakes may happen and you’ll accidentally say something that didn’t come out and
it's not the end of the world. We've all done it. Just try your best to avoid that.
​ After you discuss the law it’s time for you to apply the law with your arguments. Now
there are a few ways you can do this. The way I recommend is to talk about each element you
have to prove and talk about the evidence (exhibits and testimony) that proves or disproves that
element. You can also go through each witness and talk about the pros and cons of the witnesses
and talk about the facts that came out with that witness that proves or disproves an element. Or
maybe you have a set of different arguments that will tie together testimony and exhibits and
combined they will prove or disprove the elements. What’s important is that you do your best to
have a clear structure that is easy to follow.
​ Let’s take a quick detour and talk about LOVID. Again if you’re in a civil case don’t
worry about this. Defense teams don’t be afraid to point out if the prosecution didn’t establish
part of LOVID. Prosecution teams similar to opening you should naturally integrate each aspect
into your close. In your story you’ll naturally talk about the location and venue and you’ll
naturally say the defendant’s name. In the law section you will talk about the offense.
​ After you’ve made your arguments it’s time for your conclusion. This should just be a
few really well thought out and convincing sentences to put a nice bow on your team’s case.
After that simply ask for a verdict.
​ The defense close and prosecution/plaintiff rebuttal have the added task of responding to
what the other side said. Defense closers, as tempting as it may be, you will not be able to
adequately respond to everything that the other side said while still establishing your case. My
advice is as you are developing your arguments you will naturally have time to take small jabs at
the other side’s case and poke holes in their theory. The important thing to keep in mind for the
defense close and prosecution/plaintiff rebuttal is that while you may be responding to
something, you want to appear in control. So, having good organization is key.
Prosecution/plaintiff closers, again you will not be able to respond to everything the other side
said. While you have three minutes for rebuttal my advice is to take no more than a minute and a
half and pick two to three points you have good responses. It may also be tempting to reiterate
your arguments and squeeze in your theme, be wary of this. While reiterating your points is
certainly a good thing, it must fit in naturally. If your response to defense arguments does not
allow you to restate your theme I would advise you against mentioning your theme.
Theme Flips
​ Theme flips are something that both closers and defense openers have an opportunity to
do. A theme flip is when you change something in the other side’s theme and use it against them.
While this is a fun thing to do and it can certainly gain you points I would only advise them
when you are confident in the theme flip. Some themes are hard to flip so rather than using one
that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense you would likely see better luck focusing on the other
16 | Page
aspects of your speech. The best place to put theme flips are in the beginning or end of your
speech (I would lean more towards the beginning) or in an appropriate spot in your arguments.
Defense openers I’d say the best spot is in the beginning of your open. Ultimately a theme flip
should be something that you and your co-counsel mostly agree on for how to flip it and when to
use it.
​ And that’s it! Openings and Closings may seem scary but they are very fun when you
really get into them. Good luck and as always make sure to have fun!

17 | Page
 Direct Examination Guidebook
Written by: Payton Bucki, MJP Alumna

Introduction to Direction Examination

Direct examination is the process where party questions their own witnesses. During direct
examination, the attorney is given the opportunity to ask their witness questions and present
evidence in order to build their case-in-chief. In the MYIG MJP competition, each student
attorney is able to complete one direct examination on their respective student witness (per trial).
It is required that attorneys utilize open-ended questions during direct examination, as leading
questions are not allowed unless an exception applies. During direct examination, the opposing
party is allowed to object to questions asked by the attorney or statements made by the witness.
Following direct examination, an attorney from the opposing party is given the opportunity to
perform a cross examination on the witness. During cross examination, the attorney representing
the witness may object to any questions asked by the opposing attorney or statements made by
the witness. Once the opposing attorney has concluded their cross examination, the attorney
representing the witness is typically given the opportunity to redirect the witness. The purpose of
redirect is for the attorney representing the witness to fill in any holes in their case that the
opposing attorney may have exposed during cross examination. The judge of the trial may limit
the number of redirect questions an attorney may ask during direct examination.
How to Create a Direct Examination
There is no best way to create a direct examination; however, there are several rules of thumb
each competitor is encouraged to follow when drafting direct questioning for their witness.
Competitors should create a rough outline of their direct examination; and make edits and
updates to the document in the months leading up to competition.

Some general guidelines are helpful in constructing a direct examination.

●​ Formally call the witness to the stand
o​ “Your Honor, I’d like to call Miss/Mr. X to the stand.”
●​ Witness approaches the witness stand and is sworn in
o​ “Miss/Mr. X, will you please state your name, spelling the last for the court?”
●​ Ask the witness questions about their background and other introductory information
o​ Where they live, what their profession is, etc.
●​ Get into the main line of questioning of your direct examination
o​ Ask the witness about details relevant to the case
●​ Formally conclude your direct examination
o​ “Thank you, Miss/Mr. X, I have no further questions for you at this time.”

18 | Page
You may also want to consider the organizational structure that is most appropriate to use for
your direct examination. Counsel may benefit most from a chronological questioning approach;
however, sometimes an issue approach is a better approach.

General Tips
●​ Ask open-ended questions
o​ You want to make your witness the star!
●​ Be mindful of objections…be sure to word your questions to avoid objections.
o​ If your question does get objected to:
▪​ Stay calm
▪​ Provide your reasoning as to why the question did not fall under the
objection, ask to reword the question, or (if you accept the objection, and
want to move on) state that you withdraw your question and will move on.
●​ Think: what main points about your witness do you want your jury to know?
Frame your questions around these points. Don’t simply follow the structure of the
witness’s testimony.
●​ Prepare! You should know your witness’ testimony as well as they do.
●​ What evidence is most important for this witness? Know what evidence you want to
bring out prior to questioning
●​ Use compassionate, agreeable, empathetic language. You want the jury to view your
witness as a vulnerable human.
●​ Keep your questions short and sweet.
o​ You don’t want the jury to be confused, you want the witness to be the star!
●​ Make your witness SHOW the jury, not just tell the jury what they are feeling.
o​ Use physical evidence, vivid imagery words, emotion words.
●​ Address your weaknesses!
o​ Only if it makes sense. Sometimes it's better to not break up the flow of your
direct and try to keep out harmful info with an objection or just trust the witness
to handle it.
Additional Resources
●​ https://www.starneslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/wwb-rth-wss-ajta-2015.pdf
●​ https://www.hklaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Articles/20170224_MLW.pdf
●​ https://www.mocktrialstrategies.com/direct-examination-2/
●​ https://ojen.ca/en/resources/videos/mock-trial-how-to/direct-examination
●​ https://store.streetlaw.org/mock-trial-guide-lesson-6/
●​ https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/225-2

19 | Page
 Cross Examination Guidebook
Written by: Payton Bucki, MJP Alumna

Introduction to Cross Examination

Cross examination is the process by which an attorney questions the opposing side’s witness.
Cross examination follows direct examination. The attorney’s goal during cross examination is to
poke holes in the opposing side’s case by pointing out weaknesses in the witness’s testimony and
discrediting the witness. Oftentimes, an attorney asks leading questions during a cross
examination, in an attempt to “trap” the witness into answering uncomfortable questions. These
leading questions are typically not allowed during a direct examination. The attorney may also
present relevant evidence and impeach the witness as necessary. Once an attorney has completed
their cross examination of a witness, the opposing side is given the opportunity to conduct a
redirect examination.

How to Create a Cross Examination

There is no single formula to create a cross examination; though there are several rules of thumb
each competitor is encouraged to follow when drafting cross examination questioning for their
witness. Competitors should create a rough outline of their cross examination, and make edits
and updates to the document in the months leading up to competition.
Some general guidelines that may be helpful in building your cross-examination:
●​ Assess the credibility of the witness.
o​ Question the witness’s professional experience and relationship with the
defendant, when appropriate. Cross examination is a prime opportunity to
discredit the other team’s witness, or potentially even identify biases the witness
may have.
●​ Ask yes/no questions.
o​ Cross examination is a chance for you to pick apart your opponent’s case. Under
limited time constraints, you want to be sure you make smart use of your time
while also mitigating the explanations the witness can provide.
●​ Consider important flaws in the witness’s testimony.
o​ Acknowledge the weak points of the witness’s written and verbal testimony…and
grill them on these weaknesses. By focusing on major inconsistencies, you will
present the issues with opposing counsel’s case in a clear manner.

General Tips
●​ Ask leading (yes or no) questions. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions.
20 | Page
 o​ Don’t give your witness the opportunity to explain themselves (unless it helps
your case)
●​ Keep the questions simple. The more complex the questions are, the more opportunity the
witness will have to give a vague answer, or to avoid answering entirely.
●​ Prepare! Know the most important points that you want the witness to admit. If you get
the witness to admit to a very damaging statement for their side, consider either repeating
the statement (or having the witness repeat it), or ending your cross-examination. If the
last question was very damaging for the other side’s witness, this is a powerful feeling to
leave the judge and jury with.
●​ Know how to impeach!
●​ Use evidence in your favor (shows sophistication).
●​ Block witness’s view to their attorney. When you are cross-examining a witness, if you
physically stand between the witness and their attorney, this can help to prevent any
nonverbal “coaching” between the witness and their attorney.
●​ Don’t maintain an aggressive demeanor
o​ Be polite and confident
o​ Attack in your closing!
●​ Ask questions that demonstrate any bias the witness may have.
●​ Know how to voir dire.
●​ You should know the witness’s testimony better than they do!
●​ Stay calm when dealing with uncooperative witnesses.

Additional Resources
●​ https://www.trialguides.com/blogs/news/conduct-a-winning-cross-examination

21 | Page