1. Judicial 101
By: James Schillaci
Rules of Evidence- http://alyig.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Rules_of_Evidence-
youth.pdf
Competition Rules- http://alyig.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Rules-youth.pdf
Courtroom Decorum- http://alyig.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/Courthouse_Rules_new-youth.pdf
Plaintiff- The accusing party in a civil trial.
Prosecution- The accusing party in a criminal case. (The State)
Defense- The defending party.
Burden of Proof- The burden of proof differentiates based on whether or not the trial is
a civil or a criminal case.
Civil- In civil cases the accusing party is the Plaintiff. The plaintiff has the burden of
proof in the trial so they sit closer to the jury. In civil cases the burden of proof is that of
more likely than not. Or over a 50 % chance that that person is responsible for the
crime.
Criminal- In criminal cases the accusing party is that of the prosecution or the state. In
criminal cases the verdict results in jail time and not loss of money; Because of this the
burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that as a jury you can not
convict that person if there is even one reason doubt as to their being guilty.
Freedom of the court- Attorneys need to ask for freedom of the court before moving
about the courtroom.

2. STIPULATIONS: (conditions or requirements that are specified or demanded as part of the
court/trial agreement. They cannot be altered or removed.)
1. All exhibits and witness statements included in the problem are authentic in all respects
and no objections to the authenticity of the exhibits shall be entertained. (Basically states
that everything in the case is 100% authentic and the court will not accept any objections
in regards to the authenticity of the affidavits or exhibits/evidence.)
2. Stipulations cannot be contradicted or challenged. (The conditions cannot be
contradicted or challenged.)
3. The signatures on all documents are authentic. (Means exactly what it reads.)
4. There are NO costume options permitted. (No, crutches, casts, gorilla suits, etc. are
allowed in the court.)
5. The Charge of the Court is accurate in all respects, therefore no objections to the charge
shall be entertained. (Speaks for itself.)
6. Chain of custody for evidence is not in dispute. (Evidence does not belong to any one
side.)
WITNESSES:
● The witnesses must be called by the parties. (You must call upon your witness. The
court will not do so for you.)
● Prosecution witnesses may not be called on behalf of the Defendant. (Prosecution
witnesses cannot be first called upon by the Defendant’s counsel. The Prosecution’s
witnesses must first be called upon by their own lawyers before they can be crossed by
the Defense.)
● Defense witnesses may not be called on behalf of the Prosecution. (Defense witnesses
cannot be first called upon by the Prosecution’s counsel. The Defendant’s witnesses
must first be called upon by their own lawyers before they can be crossed by the
Prosecution.)
● All witnesses may be female or male. (All roles are unisex.)
● PROSECUTION ALWAYS GOES FIRST IN CRIMINAL COURT. THEY HAVE FIRST
OPENING STATEMENT AND CALL THEIR WITNESSES FIRST AND THEIR
WITNESSES MAY BE CALLED IN ANY ORDER.
● WITNESSES ARE CALLED IN ANY ORDER, AND ARE QUESTIONED BY DIRECT
FIRST AND THEN ARE CROSSED. IF THE LAWYER WANTS, THEY CAN RE-
DIRECT AND RE-CROSS THE WITNESS.
Going Through the Motions
ENTERING IN AN EXPERT WITNESS:

3. ● During your direct examination of a witness who qualifies an expert in a certain
field. To begin the process, you must build up their credibility and show their
expertise.
● You will want to include any kind of background such as past work in trials, have
the written anything, was it published, education, etc.
● Once you have “laid the proper foundation” you may ask your judge to enter in
(Witness name) as an expert witness in (insert subject matter).
● (YOU WANT TO GET EVERYTHING IN THAT YOUR WITNESS IS AN EXPERT
IN RIGHT NOW, MAKE SURE YOUR WITNESS IS QUALIFIED IN THE FIELD
YOU ARE ENTERING THEM IN!)
● It is at this point that the opposing counsel will make their objections.
● If they fail to raise an objection or fail to give proper reasoning that your witness
is not an expert in their field, they will be entered in for the rest of the trial as an
expert witness.
● Should the opposing counsel make a sound objection as to why your witness
should not be entered in as an expert, and your judge agrees with them, you can
still attempt to enter your witness in again as an expert.
● You will just need to go back and lay more foundation and/or change the area of
expertise for said witness.
IMPEACHING A WITNESS-
● In a trial, there can often times be moments where you can invalidate a witness’s
testimony and credibility.
● This process can only happen during a cross, but the reason can begin in the direct.
● The main way you can impeach a witness is if they contradict their statement in their
affidavit.
● Should a witness do so, in either the direct or cross, you can call them out on it and
impeach them.
● To begin this process, ask the witness about their inaccurate statement and have them
confirm what they had said.
● Once they agree and are caught in the act, you will ask your judge if you may approach
the bench to retrieve the witness’ affidavit.
● You will then need to ask to approach the witness for clarification purposes. (You will
have to show the opposing counsel, after you retrieve the affidavit say “let the record
reflect I am showing opposing council” and simply walk and show the affidavit to the
directing attorney.)
○ Ask the Judge for permission to approach the witness for the purpose of
clarification.
● Ask the witness to identify the document. (“Do you recognize this?”, “How do you
recognize this?”, “And is this your signature?”)

4. ● Show them the section where they contradicted their statement and read it out loud.
● At this point you have effectively impeached the witness, and shown to the jury that the
witness is uncredible.
● You may choose to move on in your questioning or end it there it is up to you.
Sometimes ending a cross with an impeachment looks really good.
ENTERING IN EVIDENCE:
● To begin the process ask the judge to approach the bench to retrieve the exhibit.
● Once you have the evidence you will need to show the opposing council. Then you will
need to ask the judge to approach the witness for identification purposes.
● Ask the witness to identify the document. These questions are an easy way to go
through the process. “Do you recognize this?”, “How do you recognize this?”, “ Is this a
fair and accurate copy.”
● Finally to enter the evidence you turn to the judge and say. "Your honor at this
time the (Prosecution[Criminal]/Plaintiff[Civil]/Defense) tenders exhibit number(_)
as (Prosecution/Plaintiff/ Defense) exhibit number (1.2.3. etc.) at this point the
judge will ask if there are any objections.
● As the attorney you will have to be ready for the opposing counsel's objections .
If there is no complaint or if you win the objection battle then your evidence will
be entered.
Opening Statements- Opening statements are the beginning of the trial. They are
meant to tell the jury why we are all here today. To introduce your side of the case, your
witnesses, and what those witnesses will tell everyone in court today.( Just 1 main thing
from the witness's testimony). You will want to make your witnesses look credible and
make the jury feel bad for your client, without going on the attack. When you address
the opposing council just talk about what you know their witness will try to bring up
today. You will have 3 minutes to introduce your witnesses and your side of the case.
Direct Examination: For direct examination you will have 5 minutes. Direct
examination is where you introduce and question your witness for the jury. You will not
want to use leading questions during direct (questions that imply an answer). Other than
that direct examination is where you try and use that witness to get across all of the
relevant facts from that witness's affidavit that help your case in the form of a
conversation. Be ready for objections, the best way to do that is to study the Federal
Rules of Evidence.
Cross Examination: For Cross examination you will have 3 minutes. Cross is where
you try and discredit the witness that the opposing council has just directed. You are
trying to use the facts of the case to discredit that witness's testimony to help your side
of the case. Impeaching witnesses statements is a great way to do that, as well as
exposing any possible alternative motives for testifying (are they being paid?), or

5. whether or not they have any biases that need to be addressed.. Leading questions are
allowed and strongly encouraged on cross examination as it is much easier to control
your witness when you imply the answer especially if it is not a strong witness. Focus on
pointing out the inconsistencies of the witnesses testimony.
Re-Direct: Re-direct will be available after the cross finishes and allows the direct
attorney to get back up and restore the credibility of the witness but is limited to asking
questions only about subjects brought up on Cross examination. The time for re-direct
will come from the remaining time from your direct.
Re-Cross: Re-Cross will be available after the re-direct and it allows the cross attorney
to hurt the credibility of the witness again. However the attorney is limited to asking
questions about subjects brought up on the Re-direct. The time for re-cross will come
from the remaining time of the cross examination.
Closing Statements: Closing statements are your last chance to talk to the jury before
they go into deliberation. Each side will have 5 minutes to persuade the jury, the
(Plaintiff/Prosecution) will be able to rebut, but the defense will not as they do not have
the burden of proof. During the closing statement you recant the facts of the case, what
the pieces of evidence your side entered into evidence means and why your witness is
or is not at fault or why the opposing counsel's witness is at fault. Bring up anything that
will factually help your case, also if your council impeached any witnesses bring that up.
You are trying to combat everything the opposing council is trying to say to weaken your
case. Whoever is best at thinking on their feet will want to perform the closing as it has
the tendency to be a little more off script.
Attorneys should never ask a judge to instruct the witness to answer in only yes
or no testimony. This is a trial where we are looking at both sides of the case and
the judge will never want to limit the testimony of a witness as long as that
testimony is unobjectionable. On top of that it is your job as the attorney to
control the witness not the judges.
Badgering the witness is not a recognized objection.