General Mock Trial

I think if you stack your program, then having coaches do it certainly makes sense and avoids a lot of mess. If you aren't into stacking, though, it's great to give students the opportunity to choose their own teams and balance them fairly. Of course, if you have no coach (as we don't) then that pretty much answers who has to do it...

Have one cohesive team, then one team with a few more experienced members. If you have a third team, make sure their captains don't blow

Putting your best attorneys on one team doesn't do much good. Say you have two closers and an opener on a side. The two closers are going to be tools whenever they're not closing. The opener will be fine. So you need 1 closer, 1 opener, and 1 person who may be a double mid, or just a mid on a side. Look for your best at those positions.

Stacking witnesses is different.
You need to put all like personalities together. If you have people that get into the character put them all on one team. If you have people that just know technical stuff, put them on one team. You build your teams around witnesses. Building them around attorney parts is stupid. Like personalities will flow better. If you have a ridiculous francis, you need a ridiculous montana, and then a ridiculous dritz. Connect their stories. Don't let the theme of Campbell sux0rs to be the only thing that connects the witnesses.


You don't need coaches to stack, however have someone who has experience do it.

If you have people that get into the character put them all on one team. If you have people that just know technical stuff, put them on one team. You build your teams around witnesses. Building them around attorney parts is stupid. Like personalities will flow better. If you have a ridiculous francis, you need a ridiculous montana, and then a ridiculous dritz.

Here at Morris, we've never had the need to worry about who's stacked on which team, so I have little experience on this matter, but regardless, everything above seems completely backwards. A crazy Montana will come off as really weird -- it would not flow with a team of witnesses who specialize only in character. Instead, it's important to have a balance. Let the crazy people play crazy witnesses, and let the technical people play technical witnesses. It's really that simple, and it shouldn't cause much trouble with your theme.

For an example, look to the 2006 championship round. Virginia played a super quirky human resources manager, a passionate liquor store owner, and a very professional and technical investigative auditor. It worked beautifully.

If you have one witness who is out there, then if your other ones are not that witness stands out and if their testimony is something remotely helping the case instead of a main factor, then its just dumb. However, if all of your witnesses are out there, judges remember that. Remember how witnesses get point too?

I guess at Morris you may overlook that. Build your attorney table around your witneses is what I say.

"For an example, look to the 2006 championship round. Virginia played a super quirky human resources manager, a passionate liquor store owner, and a very professional and technical investigative auditor. It worked beautifully." from Nur Rauch's post

Proves exactly what I was getting at. The witness needs to PLAY the character. Get your witnesses that play interesting parts, on the same team.

If you have one witness who is out there, then if your other ones are not that witness stands out and if their testimony is something remotely helping the case instead of a main factor, then its just dumb. However, if all of your witnesses are out there, judges remember that. Remember how witnesses get point too?

I guess at Morris you may overlook that. Build your attorney table around your witneses is what I say.

"For an example, look to the 2006 championship round. Virginia played a super quirky human resources manager, a passionate liquor store owner, and a very professional and technical investigative auditor. It worked beautifully." from Nur Rauch's post

Proves exactly what I was getting at. The witness needs to PLAY the character. Get your witnesses that play interesting parts, on the same team.

I guess I just don't see a good Montana as "interesting" so much as knowledgeable. You can play a character two different ways. You can be wild and entertaining or you can be knowledgeable and straightforward. A good expert witness should emphasize knowledge and technical finesse before entertainment regardless of the makeup of the team.

Traditionally, our team's top two witnesses have been polar opposites: a crazy character witness and a know-it-all expert. They battle each other for the top witness award in nearly every trial even though they portray witnesses in manners that aren't similar in any respect other than the effort they give to the part.

It seems to me that any mock trial witness ought to be interesting, in the sense that uninteresting (i.e., boring) witnesses aren't likely to keep the attention of a judge or jury. But there's a wide range of "interesting," and different types of witnesses generally demand different interpretations of the word. An expert can be interesting simply with enthusiasm for his or her field/profession, good voice inflection, and strong knowledge of the facts.

Of course, a well-structured direct can also do wonders for making any witness more interesting, simply because it makes the direct easier to understand.