Character Witnesses

[JackKennedy]

I'm not sure how people will respond to this, but I've been thinking along these lines: I think that, in many ways, character witnesses detract from the true mock trial spirit.  

Allow me to explain---the real purpose of witnesses is to get testimony on the record.  Witness aid the lawyers in making their case-in-chief.  I've found the more bloisterious witnesses to detract from the experience.  Loaded with one-liners and offering little real testimony, these character witnesses 'seduce' the judges and receive high marks.  This, in turn, lowers the scores of more substantial witnesses as they are compared to the more exciting characters.  Judges find themselves grading performance of witnesses over content--which in turn leads to teams selecting witnesses because of their scoring potential, instead of their testimony.  Case-in-chiefs get away from the law and become muddled.

What does the rest of perjuries.com think?

[The Dutch]

I think you are entirely incorrect.  In mock trial, witnesses can't choose their affidavits.  Instead, they have to do their best to perform the roles that they are given.

If anything, character witnesses help mock trial because mock trial is, after all, about performance.  Are you saying that character witnesses should automatically receive lower marks than doctors, even though the witnesses who play character roles might perform those roles better than the doctors themselves.  These aren't real trials.  Don't punish the character witnesses for all of their hard work, and reward the people who play doctors for the simple fact that the characters they were assigned had more information in their affidavits than everyone else.

[Abogado]

Yeah, JK is nuts  

Character witnesses make these boring trials worth sitting through. Man, if you're just watching a round, it's rough.

[SkySoldierEbG]

Well, that's what happens in real life, too. People get up onto the stand, and their charisma or character aids in getting their message across more effectively, and the jury may be "seduced," may not.

That being said, I agree...in mock trial, a witness can't choose the affidavit, and if they choose to make the best of what's put in front of them, good for them!

[candacejuliana]

i was a witness for three years...and i disagree with Jack Kennedy wholeheartedly.  mock trial is not necessarily the same thing as a real trial.  there is an acting component...it's not like we're calling an actual doctor/author/whatever to take the stand, it's college students acting the roles.  i'd have to be a convincing (insert role here) as opposed to being...a geeky college kid.  the affidavit is a suggestion, and the character is up to me...even doctors (not traditionally "character witnesses") still take some measure of acting, in order to get the mannerisms of being qualified down.

[Quotequeen]

I don't think bloisterious is a word.  I'm not even entirely sure what it would mean.

[MizzouMock]

There's an element of truth to both sides here.  Character without substance doesn't advance the educational goals (damn, I sound like a principal) of mock trial.  You can pull any kid out of your theatre department who can play a good doctor, but that's not going to help you if they don't know what to emphasize, when to pick a battle with the CXer and when to gloss over, what specific wording to use to avoid objections, and so forth.  

Like SkySoldierEbG says, there's no reason to stifle creativity on the stand, or do anything else to prevent witnesses from being memorable.  At the same time, character for character's sake and nothing more can be cliché and annoying.  I've been doing this for 10 years, and I just might lose it if I hear a British-accented physician for the fiftieth gabillionth time.  

Candace (as usual) hits it squarely....mock isn't the same as real.  There are plenty of things AMTA could do to make it more real, the question is do we really want to go there?  We could make all of these jury trials (at least in name and procedure, not necessarily with an actual jury...that I support), we could have motion in limine hearings before each round, we could stop scoring witnesses altogether and place the focus squarely on the legal elements (not something I support.)  I think on the whole most people are pretty content with where things are right now (except perhaps for The Elusive Third Bid   )

[gabi37avsfan]

I will concur that playing doctors and other experts does get recognition if done correctly.  I know of many people who won awards at regionals and nationals (myself included) for playing doctors.

Here's another question though, do you think lack of crossable material in an affadavit (or lack of obvious crossable material in an affadavit) tends to hurt the crossing attorney/other witnesses more in comparision?

If I recall correctly, roles that win awards a lot tend to be the ones that have or appear to have less crossable material, like Dr. Brown in the Derrik Smith case.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm not saying that this is correctable or shoudld be correctable, I'm just curious.

[Quotequeen]

I think in large part that depends on the judge, because I, for one, am much more impressed with witnesses who handle tough crosses very well than ones who just have to sit there while the attorney makes himself look stupid.

[Golden Skull]

Mock trial may not be unlike real trial in some respects.  But it's biggest dissimilarity - the emphasis on performance - teaches a lesson that I believe will be of extreme importance to actual litigation, as well as to other fields.  Without presentation, content isn't worth anything.  You can have the best facts in the world, and if you can't communicate them, you're going to lose.  Rather than whining about the weight of witnesses in scoring, take it as a lesson in the importance of credibility and communication in getting across your facts.