Reflective Essay on Mock Trial

Introduction

I played the role of a witness in the case of R vs Max Paulson where my core task was to give testimony of the victim called Smith. I was to ensure that my testimony was believed by the jury. I began my testimony by describing the circumstances surrounding my collision with the vehicle driven by the defendant at the intersection of the crosswalk.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Initially, I was nervous as I gave my testimony but I quickly adjusted and became comfortable playing the role. The lawyers were helpful in clarifying my doubts which greatly made me adjust to my role. I naturally have a low voice that forced fellow classmates seated at the back to strenuously listen to me. My classmates seated at the back were forced to strain their ears due to my low and soft voice. I was frequently requested to audibly repeat my averments when I commenced my testimony. I was able to adjust my voice to make it audible enough for the entire mock court to clearly hear me as I went on with my testimony. I also experienced challenges when testifying about the precise location the victim was hit by the defendant. This is because I am not proficient in interpreting traffic maps which made it quite taxing for me to pinpoint the directions traffic was flowing at the time of the vehicular accident.

As a member of the jury, I had to take sufficient notes during the trial process as the attorneys and the witnesses were engaged during examination in chief and cross examination. These notes helped me during mock deliberations as I was able to firmly and clearly articulate my point of view as far as the case was concerned. Note taking also made me immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect where jurors that did not pay keen attention during the examination process feel more knowledgeable than those who were attentive.

As a court reporter, I was tasked with the duty of taking depositions for the purpose of preserving the averments made by the witnesses during interrogatories for record purposes. I noted how the lawyers tactically asked clear-cut questions to the witnesses and demanded precise answers without drifting away from the subject matter of the questions. The lawyers were thorough in their interrogatories making sure no question was evaded by the adversary witnesses. They were also cautious not to ask leading questions that attract objections from adversary lawyers. There were some light moments during the interrogatories especially when Fred was playing the role of a witness gave amusing responses that sent the whole mock court into laughter. When asked by the interrogating lawyer to describe himself, he humorously responded by saying, "I am just a student." The written transcripts were used by the judge, parties involved in the case and for the court's record.

Facts of the Case, Applicable Law and Verdict Reached

The brief facts of the case are that the defendant, Mr. Poulson was driving a motor vehicle when he collided with Smith who was riding a bicycle at the crosswalk at the intersection of Elm Street and Third Avenue. Mr. Poulson Smith broke his leg after the impact of the collision which took place around 7 pm .on the 23ed of April. The applicable law of the case of the state of Minnesota v. Max Poulson was section 169.13 of the Minnesota statutes. Subdivision 1 (a) and subdivision (2) of section 169.13 states that:

A person who drives a motor vehicle while aware of and consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the driving may result in harm to another or another's property is guilty of reckless driving. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a significant deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. Any person who operates or halts any vehicle upon any street or highway carelessly or heedlessly in disregard of the rights of others, or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any property or any person, including the driver or passengers of the vehicle, is guilty of a misdemeanor (2014 Minnesota statutes Chapters 160-174 A-Transportation- Chapter 169- section 169.13 Traffic Regulations- Reckless OR Careless Driving, 2014).

The verdict delivered by the jury after deliberating was in the favor of the state since they concluded that the defendant Mr. Poulson was guilty of the accused charges. The verdict meant that Mr. Poulson had committed the offense of reckless driving and careless driving hence violating both Subdivision 1 (a) and subdivision (2) of 169.13 Minnesota Statutes. This particular decision was arrived at after the jury considered that the prosecution's case had the necessary elements to render the defendant guilty in violation of the aforestated subdivisions.

General Comment about the Mock Trial

The mock trial was an exciting experience since it brings the imagination of participating in a trial process into practical reality. It took away the seriousness attached classwork theoretical formality. It was generally enjoyed by all my classmates. The mock trial exposed me to a lot of legalese that is essential for a lawyer when addressing or receiving court directions from the presiding judge. The oral arguments made by the defense and prosecution lawyers showed depth and thorough preparation which impressed everyone in class including the judges who encouraged every participant to be adequately prepared for subsequent cases. It was also interesting noting how lawyers were elated after scoring major concessions during cross examinations. Ultimately, the mock trial exposed me to the real world of litigation and I purpose to continue improving myself as I aspire to venture into the world of litigation as a career lawyer.

What I Learned during the Mock Trial

One of the skills that I learnt from the mock trial was to project my voice is such a manner that could be heard by everyone in a mock court. Learning how to audibly speak with conviction is a big score for me since I naturally have a low and soft voice. I was happy that I was able to communicate to the judge and the jury in a logical and coherent manner while the prosecutor engaged me during direct examination. I believe my testimony was precise since I gave the exact details that best showed how the victim was not at fault during the traffic collision.

While playing a juror's role, I was able to derive legal conclusions because precise and direct evidence was tabled before the court. I greatly enjoyed the varying points of views when deliberating with my classmates if there was any contributory negligence on the part of the victim during the vehicular accident. I was keen at analyzing testimony given by witnesses in order to ensure that my ultimate conclusion was not only logical but also legally correct. My most memorable session was during the deliberations of the second trial where members of the jury were heavily opinionated and engaged in protracted deliberations that took a lot of the court's time before arriving at the final conclusion. Also memorable were some testimonies that gave the jurors laughter during deliberations. As subsequent trials took place, jury members spent far much less time to determine the victim of the cases.

I got to better learn evidence rules during the mock trial exercise while playing the role of a court reporter since I was keen on the directions given by the judge. Learning the right kind of evidence to adduce in court prevents a lawyer from laboring in vain during preparations. Learning the rules of evidence also saves a lawyer from embarrassment by discerning irrelevant evidence that can easily be taken as relevant by a layman's mind. The judge normally guides the jury on the type of evidence and testimony that they may rely on when deliberating and arriving at their ultimate unanimous decision. From the jury box, I was able to learn the standard procedure applicable in criminal trials that essentially sets the order in which the parties to the case take turns in making opening statements and closing statements to interrogating the witnesses.

As a witness, I learned that one should not contradict what other witnesses had testified. Since many cases are won or lost at the witness stand, it is of great import that witnesses should have their facts right. This lesson will help me even as I aspire to be a lawyer because I will be able to prepare my witnesses in a manner that will ensure their averments do not contradict each other while at the witness' stand. I also learned the importance of making a witness feel comfortable during direct examination as well as during cross-examination. I experienced first-hand and understood that witnesses who are tensed up and not relaxed are likely to be hostile during cross-examination. If a lawyer is unable to extract the right information that will help his case then chances are that he may lose the case. Ultimately, the roles of a witness, juror and reporter gave me an eye-opening experience since I was able to comprehend and appreciate the practical lessons.

References

US codes and statutes. 2014 Minnesota statutes Chapters 160-174 A-Transportation- Chapter 169- section 169.13 Traffic Regulations- Reckless OR Careless Driving (2014). Minnesota.