Mock Trial Competition Rules

All Connecticut high school mock trials will be governed by the Connecticut High
School Mock Trial Rules of Competition ("Rules of Competition") and the Connecticut High
School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence ("Rules of Evidence").
Questions or interpretations of the Rules of Competition are within the sole discretion of
the Board of Directors of Civics First, Inc., and/or its designee ("Civics First"), whose decision is
final.
Each competitor and coach should be thoroughly familiar with these rules. Failure to
comply with these rules may result in disqualification. Consequences will be determined by the
competition coordinator(s).
Rule 1.1 Rule Violations
All rule violations must be brought to the judge's attention by participating student
"attorneys" during the trial in a timely and appropriate manner. UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES may any coach or member of the audience interrupt the trial for ANY
reason, except as provided in these rules, nor may they communicate rule violations to the
student "attorneys" in any way during the trial. It is the responsibility of the students
participating in the competition to be thoroughly familiar with the rules and alert the
judges to any and all violations. Failure to do so results in missed opportunity. It is
simply too difficult for competition coordinator(s) to witness all violations or to make a ruling
based upon an alleged violation that they did not witness. Trial judges will be instructed to note
violations and discuss them with the coordinators after the trial as the judges are present and can
make the best assessment at the time of the actual occurrence of the alleged violation if it is
brought to their attention in a timely and appropriate manner. Rule violations should be brought
up as an objection like any other objection.
Rule 1.2. Code of Conduct
The Rules of Competition, as well as proper rules of courthouse and courtroom decorum
and security, must be followed. Please remember that this program is intended to be an academic,
educational and enjoyable experience for all involved. Please follow a proper sense of fairness in
competition and remember the spirit of the competition is to provide an engaging educational
activity for students. Civics First possesses discretion to impose sanctions, including but not
limited to disqualification, immediate eviction from the competition, and/or forfeiture of all fees
and awards (if applicable) for any misconduct occurring while a team is present for any mock
trial competition conducted by Civics First, including flagrant rule violations and/or breaches of
decorum which affect the conduct of a trial or which impugn the reputation or integrity of any
team, school, participant, court officer, judge, or the mock trial program.

Rule 1.2a
Courtesy Toward Judges: All participants should rise when a judge enters or exits the
courtroom. Judges should be addressed as "Your Honor," even when making an objection.
Request the court's permission to approach a witness or the bench. Do not interrupt or argue
with the judge.
Rule 1.2b
Courtesy Toward Witnesses: Do not intimidate or insult witnesses. Avoid confusing
witnesses with verbose or convoluted questions. Do not insinuate facts which your team will
not present evidence to support. For example, do not ask an opposing witness "have you been
released yet from treatment by a psychiatrist for being a habitual liar?" unless you have evidence
that this is true.
Rule 1.2c
Courtesy Toward Attorneys: The judges may not interrupt an attorney's opening or
closing statement. Attorneys should avoid frivolous objections. Direct all your remarks to the
judge or the witness, not to opposing counsel. For example, when making an objection, say
"Your Honor, l object on the ground that...." rather than saying "Attorney Dumkoff, you know
that evidence is hearsay!"
Rule 1.2d
Personal Appearance: Personal appearance (clothing, grooming, etc.) creates an
impression. Participants, both witnesses and attorneys, should consider the impression
they wish to make. Avoid distracting habits such as gum-chewing, pencil-tapping, or
nervous fidgeting and dress appropriately for a courtroom.
Rule 1.2e
No food or beverages should be brought to any courthouse.
Rule 1.2f
Be courteous during security checks.
Rule 1.3. Emergencies
During a trial, the presiding judge and/or Civics First shall have discretion to declare an
emergency and adjourn the trial for a short period of time to address the emergency. Any actions
taken by Civics First in the event of a declared emergency will be final.
Rule 2.0 TEAMS
Team members: Each school may enter up to four teams in the regional rounds. A
school with multiple teams may be asked to compete in different regions. WE MUST HAVE A
COMMITMENT THAT ALL TEAMS REGISTERED WILL COMPETE. Each team shall
be composed of not less than six nor more than fourteen students (with extras). For any
single round in the competition, three students shall act as attorneys and three students shall
act as witnesses. Thus, on larger teams, some students will be observers for a given round.
PLEASE NOTE MINIMUM NUMBER OF STUDENTS IS SIX. If a team has less than 12
students, students who have 2 roles must have their second role on the opposite side from the

first role in the competition (i.e.: prosecution and defense sides).

Additionally, a person will be designated as the official timekeeper for the team at each
trial. The official timekeeper may be (but need not be) one of the team members who competes
as an attorney or a witness; however, a student may not be a timekeeper in a trial in which he or
she is performing as an attorney or a witness.
Rule 2.1 Coaches
Each team shall work with their school's law instructors and a practicing attorney (or
attorneys) to prepare for competition. Coaches may attend their team's competitions but may
not give advice or signals or communicate in any way with their team during the
competition.
Rule 2.2 Judges
There will be a panel of up to three judges for each trial, to be chosen by the Mock Trial
Regional Coordinators and Civics First. The Committee shall endeavor to find judges who are
impartial to either competing school. If not enough judges are available for a given round, there
may be a single judge. At the semi-final level there will be one presiding judge that responds
to all objections and three separate scoring judges. This format will be used whenever there
are enough judges to do so in the lower rounds.
Rule 2.3 Team Eligibility
Teams competing in the Connecticut High School Mock Trial Competition are to be
comprised of students who are enrolled in a particular school, community group or approved
home study program with an adult advisor for the current academic year. Each school may enter
up to four teams in the regional rounds.
No school with an outstanding balance from the previous year's competition will be
allowed to participate. All outstanding balances must be paid up prior to the
commencement of the competition not including the fee for the current year's participation.
Although fees for the current year must be made prior to the end of that academic school
year.
Rule 2.4 Team Roster Form
The Team Roster will become official at the time of on-site registration at the team's
Regional Competition and may not be altered if the team advances. The Team Roster must
include the names of all of the students who are either competing for that team, serving as
timekeeper, or attending as an alternate, up to a maximum of fourteen. Copies of the Team Roster
Form must be completed and duplicated by each team prior to each trial.
Before beginning a trial, the teams must exchange copies of the Team Roster Form. The
Form should identify the gender of each witness so that references to witnesses will be made in
the proper gender. Copies of the Team Roster Form should also be made available to the judging
panel and/or presiding judge before each round.
Rule 2.5 Team Presentation
Teams must prepare both the Prosecution/Plaintiff and Defense/Defendant sides of the
case, using six individual team members in each trial. For each trial round, teams shall use three
students as attorneys and three students as witnesses. If a team has less than twelve members

then roles may be doubled up between but not within prosecution and defense sides. In other
words, one person may play a part on prosecution and a part on defense but not two parts on one
side.
Rule 2.6 Team Duties
Team members are to evenly divide their duties. Each of the three attorneys will conduct
one direct examination and one cross-examination; in addition, one of the three will present the
opening statement and another will present the closing argument.
Attorneys control the presentation of evidence at trial and argue the merits of their side of
the case. They do not themselves supply information about the facts of the case. Instead, they
introduce evidence and question witnesses to develop their case.
The attorney who examines a particular witness on direct examination is the only person
who may object to the opposing attorney's cross-examination questions, and the attorney who
cross-examines a witness is the only person permitted to make objections during the direct
examination of that witness.
Witnesses tell the court the facts in the case. Each team must see that their witnesses are
thoroughly prepared and familiar with their roles and must call all of its assigned witnesses.
Teams may not call any "surprise," or additional, witnesses (witnesses whose testimony is not
contained in the case materials.) Each team must call all three of its assigned witnesses.
Witnesses must be called only by their own team during their case-in-chief and examined by
both sides. Witnesses may not be recalled by either side.
Rule 2.7 Student Timekeepers
Each team participating in the competition is responsible for providing one student as an
official timekeeper in each of its trials. The official timekeeper must be an official team member
listed on the Team Roster Form; however, the timekeeper need not be a competing team member.
All timekeepers must be familiar with the procedure for keeping time during the trial. In
addition, each timekeeper must be equipped with a stopwatch and a set of "Time Remaining"
cards, provided by the team, with the following designations to signal time: 20:00, 15:00, 10:00,
5:00, 4:00, 3:00, 2:00, 1:00, 0:40, 0:20, and "STOP". Modification of intervals is not permitted.
Rule 3.0 Delay of Trial
The failure of a team to report promptly at the assigned time should be reported to the
judge, who will notify the competition staff. A team arriving more than 15 minutes late may
forfeit the round.
Rule 3.1 Viewing of other trials
Team members (including coaches, understudy witnesses and attorneys, etc.) may not
view other teams in competition so long as they remain in the competition themselves.
This includes viewing other teams from the same school. Team members, alternates, attorney
coaches, teacher sponsors, and any other persons directly associated with a mock trial team,
except for those authorized by Civics First, are not allowed to view other teams' performances so
long as their team remains in the competition. This includes members of teams from the same
school in that if a school has more than one team participants may only observe their own team
not the other teams from their school as long as they remain in the competition. Coaches with
more than one team may observe any trial in which one of their team is participating.

Rule 3.2 Regionals

All teams will participate in a regional tournament. Civics First will notify schools as to
specific dates. All schools compete twice at the regional level, once for each side prosecution/plaintiff and defense/defendant. No guarantees can be made regarding which site a
school will attend, and a school with multiple teams may be asked to compete in different
regions in order to balance out entries.
Rule 3.3 Quarter and Semi-Finals
Teams that win in both trials of their regional round as provided in these rules will be
invited to advance to the quarterfinals. The quarterfinals will be a single elimination tournament;
that is, all teams will compete at least once, but only those teams that win will advance to the
next round of the quarterfinals. Number of rounds will be based on number of teams advancing
and pairings and sides will be chosen randomly. Winning teams will follow the pre-determined
bracket schedule regardless of which side they have or will be presenting so no team is assured
of switching sides in any given round at any time after the regional level. The top four teams that
win their case in the second round of the quarterfinals will advance to the semi-final round. The
semi-final round will be a single elimination tournament. The two winning teams from the semifinals will advance to the final competition.
Rule 3.4 Final Competition
The two winning teams in the semi-final competition will compete for the state
championship. The sides will be determined by a flip of a coin in advance by Civics First. All
participating schools are invited to attend.
Rule 3.5 Uneven Number of Teams Procedure
In the event an uneven number of teams are ready for trial at any given level of
competition, the site coordinator and/or Civics First will randomly draw from a group of
volunteer teams which a full teams of 12 students to have both their prosecution and defense
sides compete simultaneously against different opponents in order to even out the matches. In
the event NO team is able to compete against the unmatched team, the unmatched team will
receive a bye and advance by default.
Rule 3.6
Civics First reserves the right to make adjustments to these rules as needed to ensure
fairness to all teams. Whenever possible, these adjustments will be made in writing in advance of
the competition to which they apply.
Rule 4.0 The Case
The case will be a fact pattern which may contain any or all of the following: statement
of facts, indictment, stipulations, witness statements/affidavits, jury charges, and exhibits.
Stipulations may not be disputed at trial. No case materials may be altered by either team.
The case shall consist of three witnesses per side, all of whom shall have names and
characteristics that would allow them to be played by either males or females.

Rule 4.1 Witnesses Bound by Statements

Each witness is bound by the facts contained in his/her own witness statement, the
Statement of Facts, if present, and/or any necessary documentation relevant to his/her testimony.
Fair extrapolations may be allowed, provided reasonable inference may be made from the
witness' statement.
A witness is not bound by facts contained in other witness statements.
Rule 4.2 Unfair Extrapolation; Special Objection
A fair extrapolation is one that is neutral. Unfair extrapolations may be attacked through
an objection, through impeachment, and/or during closing arguments.
If a witness is asked information not contained in the witness' statement, the answer must be
consistent with the statement and may not materially affect the witness' testimony or any
substantive issue of the case.
Attorneys for the opposing team may refer to a special objection, such as "unfair
extrapolation," or "This information is beyond the scope of the statement of facts." When an
attorney objects to an extrapolation, the judge will rule in open court to clarify the course of
further proceedings. The decision of the presiding judge regarding extrapolations or any other
evidentiary matters is final.
Rule 4.3 Research and Resources
During the trial, teams may use only those exhibits, court rules, statutes, and/or cases
provided in the official competition case materials. Neither team may submit briefs to the Court
or hold any opponent responsible for knowing of any outside resources.
Rule 4.3a
Exhibits: Teams are responsible for having a clean copy of each exhibit for use in the
competition. An exhibit must be admitted as a full exhibit by a team during the trial in order for
the team to use the exhibit in its case.
Rule 4.3b
Further Study: Teams may read other cases, statutes, and materials to add to their
understanding of the problem and strategies others have used in similar situations. However, no
competitor shall be held responsible for knowing any information that is not contained in the
case materials, a reasonable inference thereof, or common knowledge
Rule 5.0 Courtroom Setting
The Prosecution/Plaintiff team shall be seated closest to the jury box; if there is no jury
box then the Prosecution/Plaintiff team shall be seated on the judge's left. No team shall
rearrange the courtroom without prior permission of the judge, Civics First staff, or court
personnel.
Rule 5.1 Stipulations
Stipulations should not be considered to be known by the Judge(s) and must be pointed
out by a competing attorney when a clarification is necessary.

Rule 5.2 Reading Into The Record Not Permitted

Stipulations, the indictment, and/or the Charge to the Jury will not be read into the record.
Rule 5.3 Trial Sequence and Time Limits
The trial sequence at time limits are as follows:
1. Opening statement (5 minutes per side)
2. Direct and Redirect (optional) Examination (25 minutes per side)
3. Cross and Re-cross (optional) Examination (20 minutes per side)
4. Closing argument (5 minutes per side)
The Prosecution/Plaintiff gives the opening statement first. The Prosecution/Plaintiff gives the
closing argument first and may reserve a portion of its closing time for a rebuttal. The
Prosecution/Plaintiff need not request of state that it is reserving rebuttal time. The
Prosecution/Plaintiff's rebuttal, if any, is limited to the scope of the Defendant's closing
argument.
Attorneys are not required to use the entire time allotted to each part of the trial. Time
remaining in one part of the trial may not be transferred to another part of the trial.
Rule 5.4 Timekeeping
Each team is required to provide one student who will serve as the official timekeeper for
that team. Timekeepers are responsible for fairly and accurately keeping and reporting the time
during the trial presentation and during any disputes. During the rounds of the competition,
timekeepers are to act as a neutral entity. Timekeepers are not to communicate with their
respective teams during the course of the trial presentation, recesses or during any dispute
procedure, except to display the time remaining cards and indicate (as directed by the presiding
judge) how much time is remaining during a particular part of the trial.
Time limits are mandatory and will be enforced. Time runs from the beginning of the
witness examination, opening statement, or closing argument until its conclusion. Introduction of
counsel or witnesses prior to the opening statement shall not be included in the time allotted for
opening statements. However, if counsel or witnesses are introduced once the opening statement
has commenced, such time shall be included in the time allotted for the opening statement. Time
stops only for objections, questioning from the judge, or administering the oath. Time does not
stop for introduction of exhibits.
Timekeepers should display the applicable Time Remaining cards simultaneously. At
the end of each task during the trial presentation (i.e. at the end of each opening, each witness
examination, each cross examination and each closing argument) if there is more than a 15
second discrepancy between the teams timekeepers, the timekeepers must notify the presiding
judge of the discrepancy. The presiding judge will then rule on the discrepancy, the timekeepers
will synchronize their stopwatches accordingly and the trial will continue. Any discrepancies
between timekeepers less than 15 seconds will not be considered. No time disputes will be
entertained aft e the trial concludes. The decisions of the presiding judges regarding the
resolution of time disputes are final.
If a team is unable to provide a timekeeper, then the actions of the sole timekeeper are not
subject to dispute by that team.

Rule 5.5 Time Extensions and Scoring

The presiding judge has sole discretion to grant time extensions. If time has expired and
an attorney continues without permission from the Court, the scoring judges may determine
individually whether or not to discount points in a category because of over-runs in time. 9
Rule 5.6 Re-direct/Re-cross
Re-direct and re-cross examinations are permitted although not required, and are included
in the total witness examination time allotment.
Rule 5.7 Scope of Closing Arguments
Closing arguments must be based upon the actual evidence and testimony presented
during the trial.
Rule 5.8 Standing During Trial
Unless excused by the presiding judge, attorneys will stand while giving opening
statements and closing arguments, during direct and cross examinations, and for all objections
and any other time in which they address the bench.
Rule 6.0 Objections Generally
The only allowable objections are those contained in the Rules of Competition or the
Connecticut High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence. If counsel makes an objection not
contained in these rules, counsel responding to the objection must point out to the judge, citing
Rule 4.12, that the objection is beyond the scope of the allowable objections. However, if
counsel responding to the objection does not point out to the judge the application of this rule,
the court may exercise its discretion and consider such objection.
In addition to objections that are available under the Connecticut High School Mock Trial
Rules of Evidence these objections may be entertained by the presiding judge:
1. Lack of Proper Foundation: Attorneys shall lay a proper foundation prior to moving the
admission of evidence. [See Rule 4.14.]
3. Assuming Facts Not in Evidence: Attorneys may not ask a question that assumes unproved
facts. However, an expert witness may be asked a question based upon stated assumptions, the
truth of which is reasonably supported by evidence (sometimes called a "hypothetical question").
4. Questions Calling for Narrative or General Answer: Questions must be stated so as to call for a
specific answer. (Example of improper question: "Tell us what you know about this case.")
5. Non-Responsive Answer: A witness's answer is objectionable if it fails to respond to the
question asked.
6. Asked and Answered: Except as may be necessary on cross-examination to fully develop
witness testimony, a question which has been answered should not be asked again of the same
witness.
7. Compound Question: A question that combines two or more questions is not permissible.

8. Beyond the Scope of Cross or Re-Direct Examination: After cross-examination, provided

that time remains to do so, additional questions may be asked by the direct examining attorney,
but only on matters raised on cross examination. After re-direct examination, provided that time
remains to do so, additional questions may be asked by the cross-examining attorney, but only on
matters raised on re-direct examination.

Rule 6.1 Objections During Opening Statement/Closing Argument

No objections may be raised during or after opening statements or closing arguments.
Rule 6.2 Procedure for Introduction of Exhibits
As an example, the following steps effectively seek to introduce evidence:
1. All evidence will be pre-marked as exhibits.
2. Show the exhibit to opposing counsel.
3. Ask for permission to approach the witness. "Your Honor, may I approach the witness with
what has been marked for identification purposes as Exhibit No. ___?"
4. Ask the witness to identify the exhibit. "I now hand you what has been marked for
identification as Exhibit No. ____. Would you identify it please?" Witness should answer to
identify only.
5. Ask the witness a series of questions that are offered for proof of the admissibility of the
exhibit. These questions lay the foundation or predicate for admissibility, including questions of
the relevance and materiality of the exhibit, but need not include questions as to chain of custody,
business record, authenticity or any other bases related to the accuracy or authenticity of the
exhibit.
6. Offer the exhibit into evidence. "Your Honor, we offer Exhibit No. ___ into evidence."
7. Court: "Is there an objection?" (If opposing counsel believes that a proper foundation has not
been laid or that the exhibit is objectionable on other grounds, the attorney should be prepared to
object at this time.)
8. Opposing Counsel: "No, Your Honor," OR "Yes, Your Honor." If the response is "yes", the
objection will be stated for the record. Court: "Is there any response to the objection?"
9. Court: "Exhibit No. ___ (is/is not) admitted." If admitted, questions on content may be asked
of any witness.
Rule 6.3 Allowable Motions
The only motions permissible are motions to move exhibits into evidence and motions
requesting the judge to strike testimony following a successful objection to its admission.

Rule 6.4 Sequestration

Teams may not invoke the rule of sequestration.
Rule 6.5 Bench Conferences
Bench conferences are allowed.

Rule 6.6 Offers of Proof

No offers of proof may be requested or tendered.
Rule 7.0 Supplemental Material; Costuming
Teams may refer only to materials included in the trial packet. No illustrative aids of any
kind may be used, unless provided in the case packet. No enlargements of the case materials will
be permitted. Absolutely no props or costumes are permitted unless authorized specifically in the
case materials. Costuming is defined as hairstyles, clothing, accessories, and make-up which are
case-specific.
The only documents which the teams may present to the presiding judge and/or judging
panel are the individual exhibits as they are introduced into evidence and the team roster forms.
Exhibit notebooks are not to be provided to the presiding judge and/or judging panel.
Rule 7.1 Trial Communication
Coaches, teachers, alternates, and observers shall not talk to, signal, communicate with,
or coach their teams during trial. This rule remains in force during any recess which may occur.
Attorneys on the same team may communicate among themselves during the trial verbally or
through written notes, except during the argument of objections; however, no disruptive
communication is allowed. Other than actual testimony, witnesses are not allowed to
communicate with anyone during a trial or any recess of a trial. Signaling of time by the teams'
timekeepers shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
Coaches, teachers, alternates and observers must remain outside the bar in the spectator
section of the courtroom. Only team members participating in this round may sit inside the bar
and communicate with each other, except as provided above. Violations of this rule may result in
removal of the offender from the courtroom and possibly disqualification of the team depending
upon the severity of the violation. Suspected violations should be brought to the attention of the
judges in a timely manner so judges may handle the situation as it arises. If any coach of a team
in the trial suspects such a communication violation they are allowed to write a note to the
judge(s) and pass it to them through the bailiff as long as this can be done without disrupting the
proceedings and without communication that is in violation of this rule with the exception of the
passing of the note to the bailiff. Any other person observing the trial proceedings, including
spectators that suspect such a violation they may communicate such suspicion to the coach and
the coach shall decide whether or not to communicate such suspicion to the judge(s) through the
bailiff. ONLY the coach may communicate this suspicion to the judge(s) through the use of the
bailiff.
Rule 7.2 Videotaping/Audiotaping/Still Photography
Videotaping or audiotaping is not allowed during any trial, except by Civics First. Teams
may take still photographs of their own team members only and may not include ANYONE in

their photos that are not a part of their school. However no pictures may be taken during trial
proceedings at all except by Civics First.
Rule 7.3 Use of Notes
Attorneys may use notes in presenting their cases. Witnesses are not permitted to use
notes while testifying during the trial. Attorneys may consult with each other at counsel table
verbally or through the use of notes. The use of laptops or other electronic devices is prohibited.
Rule 7.4 The Critique
The judging panel is allowed 10 minutes for debriefing. Presiding judges are to limit
critique sessions to a combined total of ten (10) minutes.
Judges shall not make a ruling on the legal merits of the trial and may not inform the
students of score sheet results unless requested to so by Civics First staff.
Rule 8.0 Finality of Decisions
All decisions of the presiding judge and/or judging panel are FINAL.
Rule 8.1 Score Sheets
Score sheets are to be completed individually by the scoring judge or judges. The team
that receives the most points wins the round.
Rule 9.0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any alleged rules violation must be brought to the presiding judge's attention by
participating student attorneys during the trial in a timely and appropriate manner. Under no
circumstances may any coach or member of the audience interrupt the trial for ANY reason, nor
may they communicate rule violations to the student attorneys in any way during the trial. It is
the responsibility of the student attorneys participating in the competition to be thoroughly
familiar with the rules and to alert the presiding judge to any and all violations. Failure to do so
results in missed opportunity. The only exception to this rule is the suspected violation of the
communications rule in which a coach may pass a note to the bailiff only to be passed on to the
judge(s). Any audience member that suspects such a violation must notify the coach and the
coach is the only one allowed to pass the note.
Rule 9.1 Dispute Resolution Procedure
Possible rulings by the presiding judge will be based upon severity of the violation and
may include:
a) No rules violation has occurred;
b) A rules violation has occurred but no action is required;
c) A rules violation has occurred and the presiding judge is able to issue a ruling to correct the
violation at that time; or,
d) Ruling is taken under advisement and the alleged rules violation will be reported to Civics
First for possible future action.

The decision of the presiding judge regarding rules violations is final.

Rule 9.2 Reporting of Rules Violation Outside the Bar
Alleged rules violations which occur outside the bar during any trial round may be
brought by teacher or attorney-coaches exclusively. Such notification must be made promptly to
Civics First in writing, although oral notification may precede such writing. Civics First will
consider the report and take any actions deemed appropriate and fair. Actions taken by Civics
First under this provision are final.

STEPS IN A MOCK TRIAL

Rule 10.0 Opening Court
The bailiff will open court by saying: " All Rise. The Superior Court for the State of
Connecticut is now open and in session, the Honorable Judges _________ presiding. All
persons having due cause of action herein, draw near and give attention according to law. You
may be seated." When the judge enters, all participants should rise and remain standing until the
judge is seated.
Rule 10.1 Call of the Calendar
The Judge will announce the name of the first case and ask if the parties are ready: "The
Court will now hear the case of _______v._________." Is the Plaintiff ready? (Plaintiff's
attorney answers "Ready, Your Honor"). Is the Defense ready? (Defense's attorney answers
"Ready, Your Honor"). "You may proceed."
Rule 10.2 Opening Statements (5 minutes per team)
The plaintiff in a civil case or prosecution in a criminal case makes an opening statement
first, followed by the defense. In the opening statement, the attorney introduces the members of
his/her team and outlines the case as they intend to present it, highlighting key testimony,
summarizing the evidence which will be presented to prove the case and describing the relief
requested.
"Your Honor, my name is ______ attorney for Mr./Ms. __________, the
(Plaintiff/Defendant). My
colleagues are _________, and ___________." (In a criminal case the prosecution would
say: "Your Honor, my name is ________ attorney for the State of New Justice. My
colleagues are __________, and ________________.")
Rule 10.3 Direct Examination by the Plaintiff/Prosecution
The plaintiff/prosecution's attorneys conduct direct examination (questioning) of each of
its own witnesses to bring out the facts of the case. At this time, testimony and other evidence to
prove the plaintiff/prosecution's case will be presented. The purpose of direct examination is to
allow the witness to narrate the facts in support of the case.
NOTE: The attorneys for both sides, on both direct and cross examination, should
remember that their only function is to ask questions; attorneys themselves may not testify or
give evidence, and they must avoid phrasing questions in away that might violate this rule.
The attorney calls a witness by saying: "Your Honor, I would like to call Fran Witness to
the stand." The bailiff then swears in the witness by asking the following: "Do you solemnly

swear or affirm that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court shall
be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth according to the Mock Trial Rules?" The
witness takes the oath or affirmation by saying: "I do."
Rule 10.4 Cross-Examination by Defense.
After the direct examination of a witness for the Plaintiff/Prosecution, a defense attorney
cross-examines the witness in order to show the weaknesses in his or her testimony and test the
witness's credibility. The cross examiner seeks to clarify or cast doubt upon the testimony of the
opposing witnesses. Inconsistency in stories, bias, and other damaging facts may be pointed out
to the judge through the use of effective cross examination.
Rule 10.5 Redirect Examination
Following the Cross-examination, the Plaintiff/Prosecution attorney who did the direct
may conduct redirect examination of its witnesses to clarify any testimony that was cast in doubt
or impeached during cross examination. The attorney may ask questions to "rehabilitate" the
witness, to explain any damaging admissions, or to reestablish the testimony. The attorney
cannot ask questions about facts not already brought out during the cross examination. These
questions are limited to the scope of the cross-examination.
Rule 10.6 Re-Cross Examination
The defense attorney who conducted the cross-examination of that witness may conduct a
re-cross examination of the same opposing witness to impeach previous testimony. The defense
attorney may ask questions on points brought out during redirect examination only.
Rule 10.7 The Defense's Case: Direct Examination by Defense
After the plaintiff/prosecution has presented its case, the defense attorneys conduct direct
examination (questioning) of each of their own witnesses. At this time, testimony and other
evidence to prove the defendant's case will be presented. The purpose of direct examination is to
allow the witness to narrate the facts in support of the case.
Rule 10.8 Cross Examination by the Plaintiff/Prosecution Attorneys
After the attorney for the defense has completed questioning a witness, the judge then
allows the plaintiff/prosecution attorney to cross examine the witness. The cross examiner seeks
to clarify or cast doubt upon the testimony of the opposing witnesses. Inconsistency in stories,
bias, and other damaging facts may be pointed out to the judge through the use of effective cross
examination.
Rule 10.9 Redirect Examination
Following the cross-examination, the defense attorney who did the direct may conduct
redirect examination of its witnesses to clarify any testimony that was cast in doubt or impeached
during cross examination. The attorney may ask questions to "rehabilitate" the witness, to
explain any damaging admissions, or to reestablish the testimony. The attorney cannot ask
questions about facts not already brought out during the cross examination. These questions are
limited to the scope of the cross-examination.

Rule 10.10 Re-Cross Examination

The plaintiff/prosecution attorney who conducted the cross-examination of that witness
may conduct a re-cross examination of the same opposing witness to impeach previous
testimony. The defense attorney may ask questions on points brought out during redirect
examination only.
Rule 10.11 Closing Arguments (5 minutes per team)
The Prosecution/Plaintiff gives the closing argument first and may reserve a portion of its
closing time for a rebuttal. The Prosecution/Plaintiff need not state that it is reserving rebuttal
time prior to commencing its closing argument. The Prosecution/Plaintiff's rebuttal, if any, is
limited to the scope of the Defendant's closing argument. The closing attorney summarizes the
case in the light most favorable to their respective positions, with reference to testimony which
supports their case and relevant case and statutory provisions.
Rule 10.12 Verdict
The Judges will retire (leave the courtroom) to review their notes and to reach a decision.
The decision of the judge is final.
HINTS ON PREPARATION FOR A MOCK TRIAL
TOURNAMENT
The following tips have been developed from previous experiences in training a mock trial team.
All students should read the entire set of materials, and discuss the information/procedures and
rules used in the mock trial contest.
The facts of the case, witnesses' testimony, and the points for each side in the case then should be
examined and discussed. Key information should be listed on the chalkboard as discussion
proceeds so that it can be referred to at some later time.
Even though a school team has to represent only one side in the case during any single round of
the competition, all roles in the case should be assigned and practiced. This will help in
practicing the case as well as preparing for future rounds.
The credibility of the witnesses is very important to a team's presentation of its case. As a result,
students acting as witnesses need to really "get into" their roles and attempt to think like the
persons they are playing. Students who are witnesses should read over their statements
(affidavits) many times and have other members of the team or their class ask them questions
about the facts until they know them "cold."
Based on the experiences obtained through several years of mock trial competitions, we have
found that the best teams generally had the students prepare their own questions, with the
teacher-coach and attorney-advisor giving the team continual feedback and assistance on the
assignment as it was completed. Based on the experience of these practice sessions, attorneys
should revise their questions and witnesses should restudy the parts of their witness statements
where they are weak.

Opening statements should also be written by team members. Legal and/or non-legal language
should be avoided where its meaning is not completely understood by attorneys and witnesses.
Closing arguments should not be totally composed before the trial, as they are supposed to
highlight the important developments for the plaintiff and the defense which have occurred
during the trial. The more relaxed and informal such statements are, the more effective they are
likely to be. Students should be prepared for interruptions by judges who like to question the
attorneys, especially during the closing argument.
As a team gets closer to the final round of the contest, the tournament requires that it conduct at
least one complete trial as a "dress rehearsal." All formalities should be followed and notes taken
by the teacher coach and students concerning how the team's presentation might be improved. A
team's attorney advisor should be invited to attend this session and comment on the enactment.
The ability of a team to adapt to different situations is often a key component in a mock trial
enactment, since each judge or lawyer acting as a judge, has his or her own way of doing things.
Since the proceedings or conduct of the trial often depend in no small part on the judge who
presides, student attorneys and other team members should be prepared to adapt to judicial
rulings and requests.
TRIAL SETTING
Before participating in a mock trial, it is important to be familiar with the physical setting of the
courtroom, as well as the events that generally take place during the exercise and the order in
which they occur. This section outlines the usual steps in a 'bench" trial- - - that is, a trial without
a jury.
COURTROOM LAYOUT
JUDGE
BAILIFF

WITNESS STAND
JURY BOX

DEFENDANT'S
TABLE

PLAINTIFF'S TABLE

AUDIENCE

SEATING

PARTICIPANTS
The Judge
The Attorneys
Plaintiff - Defendant (Civil Case) Prosecution
Defendant (Criminal Case)
The Witnesses
Plaintiff - Defendant (Civil Case)
Prosecution - Defendant (Criminal Case)

Modified Rules of Evidence and Procedure

In trials in federal and state courts in the United States, formal rules regulate the
admission of and exclusion of evidence (what evidence can and cannot be presented in court).
Evidence may be testimonial (a witness' testimony) or physical (documents, objects,
photographs, etc.). The rules of evidence are designed to ensure that both parties receive a fair
trial and to exclude any evidence that is irrelevant, untrustworthy, or unduly prejudicial.
For purposes of mock trial competition, the Civics First Mock Trial Rules of Evidence
are used. They are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence but have been modified and
simplified. Rules that are not included were not deemed applicable to mock trial procedure.
If it appears that a rule of evidence is being violated, an attorney may raise an objection
to the judge. The judge then decides whether the rule has been violated and whether the evidence
must be excluded from the record of the trial. In the absence of a properly made objection,
however, the judge will probably allow the evidence. The burden is on the mock trial team to
know the Connecticut High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence and to be able to use them to
further their case and fairly limit the actions of opposing counsel and their witnesses.
Not all judges will interpret the rules of evidence or procedure the same way, and mock
trial attorneys should be prepared to point out specific rules (quoting, if necessary) and to argue
persuasively for the interpretation and application of the rule they think appropriate. No matter
which way the judge rules, the ruling should be accepted with grace and courtesy.
The Civics First Mock Trial Rules of Competition and these Mock Trial Rules of
Evidence govern the proceedings of the Connecticut Mock Trial Competitions.
Studying the rules will prepare you to make timely objections, avoid pitfalls in your own
presentations, and understand some of the difficulties that arise in actual cases. The purpose of
using rules of evidence in the competition is to structure the presentations to resemble those of an
actual trial.
All evidence will be admitted unless an attorney objects. Because rules of evidence are
so complex, you are not expected to know the fine points. To promote the educational
objectives of this program students are restricted to the use of a select number of evidentiary
rules in conducting the trial.
Because of their complexity, for purposes of this mock trial competition, the rules of
evidence have been modified and simplified as follows:
Scope of These Rules
Rule 101: Scope:
These rules govern all proceedings in all rounds of the Mock Trial Competition. The
only rules of evidence to be considered in the competition are those included in these rules.

Rule 102: Objections:

An objection which is not based upon these rules shall not be considered by the
court (the judge). The time keeper shall stop the clock when an objection is raised and restart the clock after said objection has been ruled on by the judges.
It is the responsibility of the party opposing evidence to prevent its admission by a timely
and specific objection. Objections not raised in a timely manner are waived. An effective
objection is designed to keep inadmissible testimony, or testimony harmful to your case, from
being admitted. It should be noted that a single objection may be more effective in achieving
this goal than several objections. Attorneys can and should object to questions which call for
improper answers BEFORE the answer is given.
An attorney may object if s/he believes that the opposing attorney is attempting to
introduce improper evidence or is violating the modified rules of evidence. The attorney
wishing to object should stand up and object at the time of the claimed violation. The attorney
should state the reason for the objection. It is not necessary to cite by rule number the specific
rule of evidence that has been violated. (Note: Only the attorney who questions a witness may
object to the questions posed to that witness by opposing counsel.) The attorney who asked the
question may then make a statement about why the question is proper. The judge will then
decide whether a question or answer must be discarded because it has violated a modified rule of
evidence ("objection sustained"), or whether to allow the question or answer to remain in the trial
record ("objection overruled"). Objections should be made as soon as possible; however, an
attorney is allowed to finish his/her question before an objection is made. Judges may make
rulings that seem wrong to you. Also, different judges may rule differently on the same
objection. Always accept the judge's ruling graciously and courteously. Do not argue the point
further after a ruling has been made.
As with all objections, the trier of fact will decide whether to allow the testimony, strike it
or simply note the objections for later consideration. Judges' rulings are final. You must
continue the presentation even if you disagree.
A proper objection includes the following elements:
attorney addresses the judge,
attorney indicates that he/she is raising an objection,
attorney specifies what he/she is objecting to, e.g. the particular word, phrase or question,
and attorney specifies the legal grounds that the opposing side is violating.
Example:
(1) "Your honor, (2) I object (3) to that question (4) on the ground that it is compound."
Rule 103: Summary of Allowable Evidentiary Objections For Mock Trial Competitions:
Allowable objections are further explained individually below. The allowable objections
are invention of facts, relevance, lack of foundation, lack of personal knowledge, inadmissible
character evidence, improper opinion, hearsay, leading question, argumentative question, asked
and answered, compound question, narrative, non-responsive and outside the scope of cross, redirect or re-cross.
Rule 104: Violation of Mock Trial Rules:
This objection is to be used by the student "attorneys" during the competition to report an
alleged competition rule violation to the judge, such as witnesses or others communicating with
attorneys, or attorneys conducting more than one direct or cross examination for their team or an

attorney other than the examining attorney making an objection. This objection is to be used for
violations of any competition rules, not for rules of evidence as they are their own objections.
Rule 201: Invention of Facts:
One objection available in the competition which is not an ordinary rule of evidence
allows you to stop an opposing witness from creating new facts. The object of these rules is to
prevent a team from "creating" facts not in the material to gain an unfair advantage over the
opposing team. On direct examination the witness is limited to the facts given in the case
materials. If the witness goes beyond the facts given (adds new facts or speculates about facts),
the testimony may be objected to by opposing counsel as speculation or as invention of facts
outside the case materials.
If a witness is asked information not contained in the witness' statement, the answer must
be consistent with the statement and may not materially affect the witness' testimony or any
substantive issue of the case. A fair extrapolation is one that is neutral. Unfair extrapolations may
be attacked through an objection, through impeachment, and/or during closing arguments.
If you believe that a witness has gone beyond the information provided in the Fact
Situation or Witness Statements, use the following form of objection:
"Objection your honor. The answer is inventing a material fact which is not in the record," or
"Objection your honor. The question seeks testimony which goes beyond the scope of the
record and calls for an invention of facts."
However, if a witness testifies in contradiction of a fact given in the witness statement,
opposing counsel should impeach witness' testimony during cross-examination. Note: This is a
different situation calling for an impeachment NOT a 201 objection.
Rule 202: Invention of Facts - Cross-Examination.
If on cross-examination a witness is asked a question, the answer to which is not
contained in the facts given, the witness may respond with any answer, so long as it is responsive
to the question, does not contain unnecessary elaboration beyond the scope of the witness
statement, and does not contradict the witness statement. An answer which is unresponsive or
unnecessarily elaborate may be objected to by the cross-examining attorney. An answer which
is contrary to the witness statement may be impeached by the cross-examining attorney. Note:
This is a different situation calling for a impeachment NOT a 202 objection.
Rule 203: Reasonable Inference:
Due to the nature of the competition, testimony often comes into question as to whether it
can be reasonably inferred given facts A, B, C, etc. A reasonable inference is a fact not in the
record but that can follow naturally from the facts provided and that does not change the material
facts of the story. For example, the height or eye color of a witness may be a material fact if it
identifies him/her as a suspect in a crime but an insignificant inference if it means nothing to the
issues of the case. It is ultimately the responsibility of the trier of fact to decide what can be
reasonably inferred. However, it is the students' responsibility to work as closely within the
fact situation and witness statements as possible.
Rule 301: Relevancy.
Only relevant evidence is admissible. Relevant evidence is evidence (physical or
testimonial) which tends to make the existence of a fact which is important to the case more or

less probable than the fact would be without the evidence and the fact is of consequence in
determining the action. However, relevant evidence may be excluded by the court if it is
unfairly prejudicial, may confuse the issues, or is a waste of time. Evidence which is not
relevant is not admissible.
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Examples
1.
Relevant evidence: In a lawsuit by Driver B for personal injuries sustained in a car
accident at an intersection, testimony that Driver A ran a red light is relevant because it
tends to
prove that Driver A was at fault in causing the accident, and fault is an issue that
is important to
the case.
2.
Relevant evidence that may be excluded because it is unfairly prejudicial: A plaintiff
presents a cola picture of himself/herself after an accident which depicts gruesome,
bloody injuries. Although the picture is relevant to show the existence and nature of the plaintiff's
injuries, it may be found to be unfairly prejudicial if it is likely to inflame feelings of anger and
sympathy to such an extent that a fair decision is jeopardized. Evidence that is extremely helpful
to one side is not the same as evidence that is unfairly prejudicial.
3.
Relevant evidence that may be excluded because a waste of time: Testimony about any
matter that has already been fully presented through other evidence.
4.
Irrelevant evidence: Testimony that Driver A has donated money to many charities when
the only issue in the case is who caused a car accident.
Form of objection: "Objection, your honor. This testimony is not relevant to the facts
of this case (or this testimony is unfairly prejudicial). I move that it be stricken from the
record," or "Objection, your honor. Counsel's question calls for irrelevant (or unfairly
prejudicial) testimony."
Rule 401: Lack of Foundation:
To establish the relevance of certain evidence, you may need to lay a foundation. Laying
a proper foundation means that, before a witness can testify to certain facts, it must be shown
that the witness was in a position to know about those facts.
Example:
If an attorney asks a witness if he saw X leave the scene of a murder in question,
opposing counsel may object for a lack of foundation. The questioning attorney should ask the
witness first if he was at or near the scene at the approximate time the murder occurred. This
lays the foundation that the witness is legally competent to testify to the underlying fact.
Rule 402: Introduction of Evidence:
Evidence must be relevant and authentic (shown to be what they appear to be) in order to
be admissible. For mock trial purposes, all: exhibits contained in the case materials have
already been stipulated as admissible evidence and should not be altered to give either side
an unfair advantage. This means that both sides have agreed that all exhibits are admissible
only so far as authenticity. Therefore, it is not necessary to demonstrate through a witness'
testimony that an exhibit is authentic, but a simple foundation in presenting the evidence
through a witness is still necessary. And all exhibits must be still be offered into evidence
through the appropriate witness during the trial before they can be used Exhibits are generally

presented to the court through witness testimony.

Steps to follow: Make sure you 1. Show the document to opposing counsel; have the
witness identify the object or document; offer it into evidence.
These steps must be taken before a witness can read from any document out loud or before
any physical object can be shown to the trier of fact or discussed by a witness. Note: This
is not the same as refreshing recollection. See Rule No. 903. As long as these steps are
followed, no objection for lack of foundation may be made. However, if one or more of
these steps are missing then an objection for lack of foundation is appropriate.
Example
Attorney:
Your honor, may we please have this marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 (or
Defendants Exhibit A)? (Exhibit is marked.) Let the record reflect that l am showing
Plaintiff's
Exhibit 1 (or Defendant's Exhibit A) to opposing counsel. (Exhibit is shown to
opposing
counsel.)
Your Honor, may l approach the witness?
The Court:
You may.
Attorney:
Witness X, I'm showing you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Do
you recognize that exhibit?
Witness:
Yes.
Attorney:
Could you explain for the Court what that is?
Witness:
It's a picture I took of the accident scene. (At this point, the attorney may
ask the
witness any additional relevant questions about the exhibit, and then give it to the
judge).
Form of Objection: "Objection your honor. There is a lack of foundation."
Rule 501: Lack of Personal Knowledge.
A witness may not testify on any matter of which the witness has no personal knowledge.
Personal knowledge means what the witness did, said, saw, heard, or otherwise perceived. Only
if the witness has directly observed an event may the witness testify about it. Witnesses
sometimes make inference from what they actually did observe. An attorney may properly
object to this type of testimony because the witness has no personal knowledge of the inferred
fact.
Examples
If Witness X did not personally see arsenic in the medicine cabinet of the decedent's wife,
he
cannot testify that she had arsenic in her medicine cabinet. (This testimony would be
based on
his assumption from other facts, based on speculation, or based on what
someone else told him,
and not upon his own personal observations).
The witness knew the victim and saw her on March 1, 2001. The witness heard on the
radio
that the victim had been shot on the night of March 3, 2001. The witness lacks
personal
knowledge of the shooting and cannot testify about it.
From around a corner, the witness heard a commotion. Upon investigating, the witness
found
the victim at the foot of the stairs, and saw the defendant on the landing, smirking.
The witness
cannot testify that the defendant had pushed the victim down the stairs,
even though this
inference seems obvious, because the witness did not
actually see that happen.
Form of objection: "Objection your honor. The witness has no personal knowledge to

answer that question." Or "Your honor I move that the witness's testimony about . . . be stricken
from the record because the witness has been shown not to have personal knowledge about the
matter." (This motion would follow cross-examination of the witness which revealed the lack of
a basis for a previous statement.)
Rule 601: Character.
Witnesses generally cannot testify about a person's character unless character is an issue.
Such evidence tends to add nothing to the crucial issues of the case. (The honesty of a witness,
however, is one aspect of character always at issue.) In criminal trials, the defense may
introduce evidence of the defendant's good character and, if relevant, show the bad character of a
person important to the prosecution's case. Once the defense introduces evidence of character,
the prosecution may try to prove the opposite. The defense has effectively "opened the door" to
character evidence. These exceptions are allowed in criminal trials as an extra protection
against erroneous guilty verdicts. Evidence about the character of a party or witness, other than
his/her character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, may not be introduced. Evidence about the
character of a party for truthfulness or untruthfulness is only admissible if the party testifies.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a persons character or character trait is not admissible to
prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply
in a criminal case:
(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendants pertinent trait, and if the evidence is
admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(B) a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victims pertinent trait, and if the evidence is
admitted, the prosecutor may:
(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and
(ii) offer evidence of the defendants same trait; and
(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victims trait of
peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a
persons character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance
with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving
motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of
accident.
Rule 602. Methods of Proving Character
(a) By Reputation or Opinion. When evidence of a persons character or character trait
is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the persons reputation or by testimony in the
form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an
inquiry into relevant specific instances of the persons conduct.
(b) By Specific Instances of Conduct. When a persons character or character trait is an
essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by
relevant specific instances of the persons conduct.

Rule 603. Habit; Routine Practice

Evidence of a persons habit or an organizations routine practice may be admitted to
prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit
or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or
whether there was an eyewitness.
Examples
Inadmissible character evidence: Testimony that a student has a reputation as a heavy drinker.
Admissible character evidence: Testimony by witness B that witness A has told lies on
several occasions.
Admissible character evidence: The defendant's minister testifies that the defendant attends
church every week and has a reputation in the community as a law-abiding person.
Inadmissible character evidence: The prosecutor calls the owner of the defendant's
apartment to testify. She testifies that the defendant often stumbled in drunk at all hours of the
night and threw wild parties. This would probably not be admissible unless the defendant had
already introduced evidence of good character. Even then, the evidence and the prejudicial
nature of the testimony would probably outweigh its probative value making it inadmissible.
Form of objection: "Objection your honor. Character is not an issue here," or "
Objection your honor. The question calls for inadmissible character evidence."
Opinion Testimony
Rule 701: Opinion Testimony by Non-Experts.
Witnesses may not normally give their opinions on the stand. Judges and juries must
draw their own conclusions from the evidence. For mock trial purposes, most witnesses are nonexperts. If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions
is limited to opinions which are rationally based on what the witness saw or heard and which are
helpful in explaining the witness' testimony. Non-experts (lay witnesses) are considered
qualified to reach certain types of conclusions or opinions based on what they see or hear.
Generally, lay witnesses may give opinions about matters which do not require experience or
knowledge beyond that of the average lay person. Note, however, that the opinion must be
rationally based on what the witness saw or heard and must be helpful in understanding the
witness' testimony. Estimates of the speed of a moving object or the source of a particular odor
are allowable opinions.
If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to
one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witnesss perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witnesss testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.
Examples
Witness X, a non-expert, may testify that the defendant appeared to be under the influence of
alcohol. However, it must be shown that this opinion is rationally based on witness X's
observations by bringing out the facts underlying the opinion, e.g., the defendant was stumbling;

his breath smelled of alcohol; his speech was slurred. If witness X thinks the defendant was
under the influence because he had a strange look in his eye, then the opinion should not be
permitted since it is not rational.
Witness X, a non-expert, may not testify that in his opinion the decedent died of arsenic
poisoning, since this is not a matter that is within the general knowledge of lay persons. Only
an expert, such as a forensic pathologist, is qualified to render such an opinion.
A taxi driver testifies that the defendant looked like the kind of guy who would shoot old
people. Counsel could object to this testimony and the judge would require the witness to state
the basis for his/her opinion.
Form of objection: "Objection your honor. The question calls for inadmissible opinion
testimony on the part of the witness. I move that the testimony be stricken from the record."
Rule 702: Opinion Testimony by Experts.
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion
or otherwise.
The attorney questioning the witness shall not ask the court to recognize the witness as an expert,
but rather must lay a proper foundation, within the scope of the materials provided, that
demonstrates the witness qualifications to answer an expert opinion question. Opposing counsel
may choose to object to the witnesss ability to answer the expert opinion question.
Only persons who are shown to be experts at trial may give opinions on questions that
require special knowledge beyond that of ordinary lay persons. An expert must be qualified by
the attorney for the party for whom the expert is testifying. This means that before the
expert witness can be asked for an expert opinion, the questioning attorney MUST bring
out the expert's qualifications and experience. This is usually accomplished by asking the
expert himself/herself about his/her background, training and experience. When the case
stipulations state that a witness is "qualifiable" as an expert this means that if the proper
foundation is laid the witness must be admitted as an expert. It does NOT mean that the
witness is already deemed an expert by the court or that the attorney does not need to lay
the proper foundation.
Example
Attorney:
Doctor, please tell the jurors about your educational background.
Witness:
I attended Harvard College and Harvard Medical School.
Attorney:
Do you practice in any particular area of medicine?
Witness:
I am a board-certified forensic pathologist. I have been a forensic
pathologist for 28 years.
Form of objection: "Objection your honor. No foundation has been laid for this witness
to be qualified as an expert." Or "Objection your honor. The question calls for an improper
opinion." Or "Objection your honor. The witness has offered an improper opinion."
Rule 703 Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
(a) In General Not Automatically Objectionable. An opinion is not objectionable
just because it embraces an ultimate issue.
(b) Exception. In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about

whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element
of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone.
Rule 801: Hearsay.
Any evidence of a statement made out of court by someone other than the witness
testifying, which is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the out-of-court statement,
is hearsay and is not admissible. This is because these statements are very unreliable.
Testimony not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is, by definition, not hearsay. For
example, testimony to show that a statement was said and heard, to show that a declarant could
speak in a certain language, or to show the statement's effect on a listener is admissible.
Therefore, if an opposing attorney objects to a statement given in testimony of your witness as
hearsay and you or your witness are not offering the statement for the truth of the matter
asserted, your proper response to the objection would be "Your honor, the statement is not
hearsay as it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted but as evidence of . . . (state
the reason for using the statement)."
Example
Witness X testifies that "Mrs. Smith said that the decedent's wife had a bottle of arsenic in her
medicine cabinet." This testimony is inadmissible if offered to prove that the deceased's wife
had a bottle of arsenic in her medicine cabinet, since it is being offered to prove the truth of the
matter asserted in the out-of-court statement by Mrs. Smith. If, however, the testimony is
offered to prove that Mrs. Smith can speak English, then the testimony is not hearsay because it
is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the out-of-court statement. However,
the testimony is only admissible if Mrs. Smith's ability to speak English is relevant to the case.
Comment: Why should the complicated and confusing condition be added that the out-ofcourt statement is only hearsay when "offered for the truth of the matter asserted"? The answer
is that hearsay is considered untrustworthy because the speaker of the out-of-court statement has
not been placed under oath and' cannot be cross-examined concerning the statement or
concerning his/her credibility. In the previous example, Mrs. Smith cannot be cross-examined
concerning her statement that the decedent's wife had a bottle of arsenic in her medicine cabinet,
since witness X, and not Mrs. Smith has been called to give this testimony. However, witness X
has been placed under oath and can be cross-examined about whether Mrs. Smith actually made
this statement, thus demonstrating that she could speak English. When offered to prove that
Mrs. Smith could speak English, witness X's testimony about her out-of-court statement is not
hearsay.
Form of objection: "Objection your honor. Counsel's question calls for hearsay." Or
"Objection your honor. This testimony is hearsay. I move that it be stricken from the record."
Rule 802: Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
(a) Statement. Statement means a persons oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal
conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.
(b) Declarant. Declarant means the person who made the statement.
(c) Hearsay. Hearsay means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not
hearsay:
(1) A Declarant-Witnesss Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to crossexamination about a prior statement, and the statement:
(A) is inconsistent with the declarants testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a
trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;
(B) is consistent with the declarants testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied
charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or
motive in so testifying; or
(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.
(2) An Opposing Partys Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;
(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;
(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;
(D) was made by the partys agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship
and while it existed; or
(E) was made by the partys coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarants authority
under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy
or participation in it under (E).
Rule 803: Hearsay Exceptions.
For reasons of necessity, a set of exceptions allows certain types of hearsay to be
introduced. Work with your attorney coach on the exceptions which may arise in this case.
The following, which would otherwise fall within the definition of hearsay, are not excluded
from evidence by the hearsay rule regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made
while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the
declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.
(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarants
then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical
condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of
memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or
terms of the declarants will.
(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:
(A) is made for and is reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment; and
(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their
general cause.
(5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:
(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully
and accurately;
(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witnesss memory; and
(C) accurately reflects the witnesss knowledge.
If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if
offered by an adverse party.

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion,
or diagnosis if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by or from information transmitted by
someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business,
organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness;
and
(E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a
lack of trustworthiness.
(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not
included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:
(A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;
(B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and
(C) neither the possible source of the information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of
trustworthiness.
(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:
(A) it sets out:
(i) the offices activities;
(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a
matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or
(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally
authorized investigation; and
(B) neither the source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(9) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a
treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:
(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on
by the expert on direct examination; and
(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the experts admission or testimony,
by another experts testimony, or by judicial notice.
If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.
(10) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a persons associates or in the
community concerning the persons character.
(11) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of conviction if:
(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea;
(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year;
(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; and
(D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the
judgment was against the defendant.

Rule 804: Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay When the Declarant Is Unavailable as
a Witness
(a) Criteria for Being Unavailable. A declarant is considered to be unavailable as a witness if
the declarant:
(1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarants statement because the
court rules that a privilege applies;
(2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so;
(3) testifies to not remembering the subject matter;
(4) cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing
infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness; or
(5) is absent from the trial or hearing and the statements proponent has not been able, by process
or other reasonable means, to procure:
(A) the declarants attendance, in the case of a hearsay exception; or
(B) the declarants attendance or testimony, in the case of a hearsay exception. But this
subdivision
(a) does not apply if the statements proponent procured or wrongfully caused the declarants
unavailability as a witness in order to prevent the declarant from attending or testifying.
(b) The Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant
is unavailable as a witness:
(1) Former Testimony. Testimony that:
(A) was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, whether given during the
current proceeding or a different one; and
(B) is now offered against a party who had or, in a civil case, whose predecessor in interest
had - an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination.
(2) Statement Under the Belief of Imminent Death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil
case, a statement that the declarant, while believing the declarants death to be imminent, made
about its cause or circumstances.
(3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:
(A) a reasonable person in the declarants position would have made only if the person believed
it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarants proprietary or pecuniary
interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarants claim against someone else or to
expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and
(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is
offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.
(4) Statement of Personal or Family History. A statement about:
(A) the declarants own birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, relationship by
blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, even though the
declarant had no way of acquiring personal knowledge about that fact; or
(B) another person concerning any of these facts, as well as death, if the declarant was related to
the person by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the persons
family that the declarants information is likely to be accurate.
(5) Statement Offered Against a Party That Wrongfully Caused the Declarants
Unavailability. A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused or acquiesced in
wrongfully causing the declarants unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.

Rule 900: Leading Questions

Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to
develop the witnesss testimony. Ordinarily, the court should allow leading questions:
(1) on cross-examination; and
(2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse
party.
Rule 901 Privilege in General
(1) communications between husband and wife;
(2) communications between attorney and client;
(3) communications among grand jurors;
(4) secrets of state; and
(5) communications between psychiatrist and patient.
Rule 902
(a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence.
A witnesss credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witnesss
reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness,
or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character
is admissible only after the witnesss character for truthfulness has been attacked.
(b) Specific Instances of Conduct.
Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, no evidence may be introduced to prove
specific instances of a witnesss conduct in order to attack or support the witnesss character for
truthfulness, except the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they
are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:
(1) the witness; or
(2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about.
Rule 903: Direct Examination
Witnesses should be asked neutral questions and may not be asked leading questions on
direct examination. Neutral questions are open-ended questions that do not suggest the answer
and that usually invite the witness to give a narrative response. A leading question is one that
suggests to the witness the answer desired by the examining attorney and often suggests a "yes"
or "no" answer.
Examples
1.
Proper direct examination questions:
a.
b.
c.

What did you see?

What happened next?
Were you speeding?

2.

Leading questions (not permitted on direct):

a.
b.

Isn't it true that you saw the defendant run into the alley?
After you saw the defendant run into the alley, you called the police, correct?

Form of objection: "Objection your honor. Counsel is leading the witness."

Rule 903a: Scope of Direct Examination.
On direct examination an attorney may inquire as to any relevant facts of which the
witness has first-hand, personal knowledge.
Rule 904: Refreshing Recollection
Any written document or statement from the case materials may be used to refresh a
witnesss recollection either while testifying or before testifying. The adverse party may crossexamine the witness on the material. If a witness is unable to recall information contained in
his/her witness statement or contradicts the witness statement, the attorney calling the witness
may use the witness statement to help the witness remember. In this case, the document that the
witness is reading does not need to be admitted as evidence. The witness will read the
document or portion of a document to himself/herself and then the attorney should take the
document away from the witness before the witness responds to any questions. In this case, the
witness may not read the document out loud unless it is already admitted as evidence.
Example
Witness cannot recall what happened after the defendant ran into the alley or contradicts witness
statement on this point:
1.
Mr./Ms. Witness, do you recall giving a sworn statement in this case?
2.
Your Honor, may I approach the witness? (Permission is granted.) I'd like to show you a
portion of the summary of your deposition, and ask you to review the first two paragraphs on
page three. (Then take the document away from the witness.)
3.
Having had an opportunity to review your statement, do you now recall what happened
after the defendant ran into the alley?
Rule 905: Cross-Examination - Form of Questions.
An attorney should usually, if not always, ask leading questions when cross-examining
the opponent's witnesses. Open-ended questions tending to evoke a narrative answer, such as
"why" or "explain" should be avoided. (Leading questions are not permitted on direct
examination because it is thought to be unfair for an attorney to suggest answers to a witness
whose testimony is already considered to favor that attorney's side of the case. Leading
questions are encouraged on cross-examination because witnesses called by the opposing side
may be reluctant to admit facts that favor the cross-examining attorney's side of the case.)
However, it is not a violation of this rule to ask a non-leading question on cross-examination.
Examples
1.
Good leading cross-examination question:
Isn't it true that it was almost completely dark outside when you say you saw the defendant run
into' the alley?
2.

Poor cross-examination question:

How dark was it outside when you saw the defendant run into the alley?
Rule 905a: Scope of Cross-Examination.
The scope of the cross examination shall not be limited to the scope of the direct
examination, but may inquire into any relevant facts or matters contained in the witness'
statement, including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts and matters,
and may inquire into any omissions from the witness statement that are otherwise material and
admissible.
Rule 906: Impeachment.
On cross-examination the cross-examining attorney may impeach the witness.
Impeachment is a cross-examination technique used to demonstrate that the witness should not
be believed. Impeachment is accomplished by asking questions which demonstrate either (1) that
the witness has now changed his/her story from statements or testimony given by the witness
prior to the trial, or (2) that the witness' trial testimony should not be believed because the
witness is a dishonest and untruthful person. It is not necessary to admit the statement into
evidence in order to use it for impeachment purposes.
Impeachment differs from the refreshing recollection technique. Refreshing recollection
is used during direct examination to steer a favorable, but forgetful, witness back onto the beaten
path. Impeachment is a cross-examination technique used to discredit a witness' testimony.
Example
1.
Impeachment with prior insistent statement:
Attorney:
Mr. Jones, you testified on direct that you saw the two cars before they
actually
collided, correct?
Witness:
Yes.
Attorney:

You gave a sworn statement in this case a few months ago, correct?

Witness:

Yes.

Attorney:
you?
Witness:

Before you gave that statement you were sworn to tell the truth, weren't
Yes.

Attorney:
Mr. Jones, in your statement, you testified that the first thing that drew
your attention to the collision was when you heard a loud crash, isn't that true?
Witness:

I don't remember ever saying that.'

Attorney:
Your Honor, may I approach the witness? (Permission is granted.) Mr.
Jones, I'm handing you your statement and I'll ask you to read along as I read the second
full paragraph on page two, "I heard a loud crash and I looked over and saw that he two

cars had just collided. This was the first time I actually saw the two cars." Did I read that
correctly?
Witness:
Yes.
Attorney:
2.

Thank you Mr. Jones. No further questions, Your Honor.

Impeachment with prior dishonest conduct:

Attorney:
Student X, isn't it true that last fall you were suspended from school for
three days for cheating on a test?
Witness:
Yes.
Rule 906a: Witnesss Prior Statement
(1) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a
witness about the witnesss prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to
the witness.
(2) Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Evidence of a witnesss prior
inconsistent statement is admissible only (1) on cross-examination of the witness; or (2) if the
witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an
opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. This subdivision (b) does
not apply to an opposing partys statement under Rule 801(d)(2).
Rule 906a: Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction.
For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he/she has been
convicted of a crime shall be admitted, but only if the crime was a felony or involved moral
turpitude, regardless of punishment, and the court determines that the value of this evidence as
reliable proof outweighs its prejudicial effect to a party. The following rules apply to attacking a
witnesss character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:
(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment
for more than one year, the evidence:
(A) must be admitted in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant;
and
(B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative
value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and
(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can
readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving or the witnesss
admitting a dishonest act or false statement.
Rule 906b: Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years
If more than 10 years have passed since the witnesss conviction or release from
confinement for it, whichever is later, then evidence of the conviction is admissible only if its
probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its
prejudicial effect.

Rule 906c: Effect of a Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation

Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if:
(1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or
other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the person has been rehabilitated, and the
person has not been convicted of a later crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more
than one year; or
(2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure
based on a finding of innocence.
Rule 906d: Juvenile Adjudications
Evidence of a juvenile adjudication is admissible under this rule only if:
(1) it is offered in a criminal case;
(2) the adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant; 10
(3) an adults conviction for that offense would be admissible to attack the adults credibility; and
(4) admitting the evidence is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence.
Rule 907: Redirect Examination.
After cross-examination, additional questions may be asked by the direct examining
attorney, but such questions are limited to matters raised by the opposing attorney on crossexamination. Just as on direct examination, leading questions are not permitted on redirect.
Comment: If the credibility or reputation for truthfulness of the witness has been
attacked successfully on cross-examination, the attorney whose witness has been damaged may
wish to ask questions on redirect which will allow the witness to "rehabilitate" himself/herself
(save the witness' truth-telling image). Redirect examination may also be used to strengthen a
positive fact that was weakened by the cross-examination. Redirect examination is not
mandatory. A good rule to follow is: if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Examples
1.
Cross-Examination of physician called by prosecution in murder case:
Attorney:
Doctor, you testified on direct that the decedent died of arsenic Witness:
poisoning, correct?
Attorney:
Isn't it true that you have a sworn statement in which you stated that you did not
know the cause of death?
Witness:
Yes, that's true.
Redirect:
Attorney:
Doctor, why did you state under oath that you did of know the decedent's cause of
death?
Witness:
I had not yet received all of the test results which allowed me to conclude that the
decedent died of arsenic poisoning.
2.

Cross Examination:

Attorney:
poisoning?

Doctor, isn't it true that the result of test X points away from a finding of arsenic

Witness:

Yes.

Redirect:
Attorney:
Doctor, why did you conclude that the decedent died of arsenic poisoning even
though test X pointed away from arsenic poisoning?
Witness:
Because all of the other test results so overwhelmingly pointed toward arsenic
poisoning, and because test X isn't always reliable.
Comment: Neither one of these redirect examinations should have been conducted
unless the attorney had a fairly good idea of what the witness' response would be. As a general
rule, it is not advisable to ask a question if you have no idea what the answer will be.
Rule 908: Re-cross-Examination.
After redirect, additional questions may be asked by the cross-examining attorney, but
such questions are limited to matters raised on redirect examination. Re-cross is not mandatory
and should not be used simply to repeat points that have already been made.
Example
Assume the cross-examination and redirect examination set forth in the example under
Rule 308 above have occurred. A good Re-cross-examination would be the following:
Attorney:
Doctor, isn't it true that when you gave your statement you had received all of the
test results except the result of text X?
Witness:

Yes, that's true.

Comment The cross-examining attorney would then argue in closing argument that the
doctor stated that he did not know the cause of death at the time of his sworn statement and that
the only test result received after having given the statement was text X, which pointed away
from arsenic poisoning.
Rule 909: Argumentative Questions:
An argumentative question challenges the witness about an inference from the facts in the case.
Example: Assume that the witness testifies on direct examination that the defendant's car was
going 80 mph just before the collision. You want to impeach the witness with a prior
inconsistent statement. On cross-examination, it would be permissible to ask, "Isn't it true that
you told your neighbor, Mrs. Ashton, at a party last Sunday that the defendant's car was going
only 50 mph?"
The cross-examiner may legitimately attempt to force the witness to concede the historical fact
of the prior inconsistent statement.
Now assume that the witness admits the statement. It would be impermissibly argumentative to
ask, "How can you reconcile that statement with your testimony on direct examination? The
cross-examiner is not seeking any additional facts; rather the cross-examiner is challenging the

witness about an inference from the facts.

Questions such as "How can you expect the judge to believe that?" are similarly argumentative
and objectionable. The attorney may argue the inferences during summation or closing
argument, but the attorney must ordinarily restrict his or her questions to those calculated to elicit
facts.
Form of objections: " Objection your honor. Counsel is being argumentative." Or "Objection
your honor. Counsel is badgering the witness."
Rule 910: Asked and Answered:
Asked and answered is just as it states, that a question which had previously been asked and
answered is being asked again. This can seriously inhibit the effectiveness of a trial.
Examples:
On direct examination: Counsel A asks B, "Did you stop for the stop sign?" B answers, "No he
did not." A then asks, " Let me get your testimony straight. Did X stop for the stop sign?"
Counsel for X correctly objects and should be sustained.
On cross-examination: Counsel X asks B, "Didn't you tell a police officer after the accident
that you weren't sure whether X failed to stop for the stop sign? B answers, " I don't
remember." Counsel for X then asks, " Do you deny telling him that?" Counsel A makes an
asked and answered objection.
The objection should be overruled. Why? It is sound
policy to permit cross-examining attorneys to ask the same question more than once in order to
conduct a searching probe of the direct examination testimony.
Form of objection: "Objection your honor. This question has been asked and
answered."
Rule 911: Compound Question:
A compound question joins two alternatives with "or" or "and" preventing the
interrogation of a witness from being as rapid, distinct or effective for finding the truth as is
reasonably possible.
Examples:
"Did you determine the point of impact from conversations with witnesses or from physical
marks such as debris in the road?
"Did you determine the point of impact from conversations with witnesses and from
physical marks such as debris in the road?
Form of objection: "Objection your honor, on the ground that this is a compound
question."
The best response if the objection is sustained on these grounds would be "Your honor, I
will rephrase the question," and then break down the question accordingly. Remember there
may be another way to make your point.
Rule 912: Narrative:
A narrative question is one that is too general and calls for the witness in essence to "tell
a story" or make a broad-based and unspecific response. The objection is based on the belief
that the question seriously inhibits the successful operation of a trial and the ultimate search for

the truth.
Example: The attorney asks A, "Please tell us all of the conversations you had with X
before X started the job." The question is objectionable and the objections should be sustained.
Form of objection: "Objection your honor. Counsel's question calls for a narrative."
Or "Objection your honor. The witness is giving a narrative."
Rule 913: Non-Responsive Answer.
A witness' answer is objectionable if it fails to respond to the question asked. Sometimes
a witness' reply is too vague and doesn't give the details the attorney is asking for, or he/she
"forgets" the event in question or gives an answer that has little or nothing to do with the
question asked. This if often purposely used by the witness as a tactic in preventing some
particular evidence to be brought forth. This is a ploy and the questioning attorney may use this
objection to "force" the witness to answer.
Example
Attorney:
Isn't it true that you hit student B?
Witness:
Student B hit me first. S/he was asking for it, acting like a jerk and humiliating me
in front of all my friends.
Attorney:
Your Honor, I move to strike the witness' answer as non-responsive and ask that
s/he be instructed to answer the question asked. (Another option is to impeach the witness with
prior testimony if s/he testified in his/her statement that s/he hit student B).
Form of Objection: "Objection your honor. The witness is being non-responsive."
Rule 914: Outside the scope of cross, or re-direct examination: Re-direct examination is
limited to issues raised by the opposing attorney on cross-examination. Re-cross is limited to
issues raised by the opposing attorney on re-direct examination. If an attorney asks a question
that goes beyond the issues raised on cross, they may be objected to as "outside the scope of
cross-examination (or re-direct)."
Rule 915: Attorney is testifying: An attorney may not make statements during examination of
witnesses. Attorneys are to pose questions to witnesses only and allow only witnesses to make
statements of fact. If an attorney makes statements during questioning, an opposing attorney
should object that "the attorney is testifying."
Rule 916: Motions to Dismiss. Motions for directed verdict or dismissal of the case are not
permitted.
Rule 917: Closing Arguments. Closing arguments must be based on the evidence and
testimony presented during the trial.