Hernandez sustained a broken nose and an orbital fracture. Hernandez when he returned home late that night. You will want to provide a lot more details. Studies show that many jurors are likely to make up their mind about a case after simply hearing the opening statement. After a person has made up their mind, it can be hard to change their opinion. You will want to highlight all the important evidence you have.
But keep in mind the time limits that your mock trial competition sets. Work with your teammates in this respect.
So a good opening statement anticipates the points that the defense attorney will make in their opening statement. For example, if the defense is claiming self-defense, point out that self defense does not apply because the defendant provoked the fight, or the defendant is much larger than the victim.
For example an example of an attempt to anticipate defenses is below. Members of the jury, the defense may claim that the defendant acted in self-defense.
Does the Argument address the procedural context and the arguments based upon it? Content of Rule Is the synthesized rule legal standard set forth clearly and completely? Is the synthesized rule framed favorably for the party you represent, supporting the conclusion that you want the court to reach?
Rule Proof Does the Rule Proof carry forward and develop each of the ideas stated in the Rule Synthesis in a section of one or more paragraphs that begins with a thesis idea sentence? Do the cases discussed in the Rule Proof illustrate and support the idea expressed in each thesis sentence?
Does the Rule Proof address the holdings, legally significant facts, and reasoning of the cases discussed? Are the parts of cases that counter your argument distinguished or explained? Does the Argument raise and address relevant policy arguments?
Does the Argument demonstrate how underlying policy objectives in the law are met if the court accepts the application of law to fact? Does the Application of rule to fact illustrate the theory of the case? Counterargument Does the Counterargument address and dispose of the arguments raised by the opponent, without overemphasizing them? Organization Does each paragraph within a point or subpoint advance the argument being made? From the foregoing, a general consensus emerged that trial advocacy was jumbled with incompetence, unethical practices and confused duties of trial advocates which were founded on the erroneous methods of learning the law.
Trial advocacy compelled judges to bear with ineffective trials and the public to consume poor legal services. It is for these reasons that changes in the art of trial advocacy became inevitable. The following part illustrates the modern trends of trial advocacy. Modern trends of trial advocacy Having described the general discontent in trial advocacy, we now turn to some of the key changes made in the United Kingdom.
First, the law has been reformed to regulate trial advocacy. The Legal Services Act of established the Legal Services Board whose task is to ensure that the legal profession conforms to set professional standards of legal practice and that the law is practiced in the public interest with consumer rights at heart. It provides for accreditation guidelines, quality assurance, and continuous professional development [14] To discourage the trial-and-error method, law school curriculums now provide practical skills through clinical education, judicial attachments, court simulations, moot courts, among others.
Additionally, trial advocacy is now a key competence factor for all professional advocates. This has become a course taught in law schools. At the bar, continuous legal education is increasingly adopted. Law firms are now conducting trial advocacy trainings not only to their young attorneys but also as refresher to the seniors. Law Societies also demand that all advocates undertake continuous legal education in order to acquaint themselves with the new trends.
We have traced trial advocacy from the development of the adversarial justice system where trial advocates were mainly focused on winning cases no matter the tactic.
This led to several criticisms especially the multiple duties of a trial advocate, professional ethics, competence and the method of learning trial advocacy skills. As a result of these criticisms, several changes have been put in place including legal reforms, establishment of regulatory bodies, provision of practical learning methods to learn trial advocacy in law schools and the adoption of continuous legal education.
In fact they refer to the early advocates not formally trained in law as masqueraders who only specialized in rhetoric. He equated the ridiculously incompetent attorneys to dentists who could aptly identity a cavity but have no hint on how to fix it, hence putting the integrity of the legal profession at stake.
0コメント