General Mock Trial

[Rule 7.13 Necessity of a timekeeper. Each party is expected to supply a timekeeper for each trial. The timekeeper is an officer of the court while keeping time during a round. Although it is preferable for a team to supply a timekeeper other than those who are serving as witnesses or attorneys, a team does not violate this rule by using its witnesses or a rostered team member of the team in that round as a timekeeper. A team does violate this rule by using a coach, another spectator, or a team member from the same institution, but who is not a member on the roster of the team competing in that round.]

Director Lyons moves to Amend Rule 7.13 to read as follows:
Rule 7.13 Necessity of a timekeeper. Each party is expected to supply a timekeeper for each trial. The timekeeper is an officer of the court while keeping time during a round. Although it is preferable for a team to supply a timekeeper other than those who are serving as witnesses or attorneys, a team does not violate this rule by using its witnesses or a rostered team member of the team in that round as a timekeeper.  A team does violate this rule by using a coach, another spectator, or a team member from the same institution, but who is not a member on the roster of the team competing in that round.

The Rules/Sanctions Committee makes no recommendation on this Motion.

The question for the perjuries.com community is on adoption of Motion RS-2.

The question for the perjuries.com community is on adoption of Motion RS-2.

I did the coach/timekeeper thing way back when, and I strongly believe it should NOT be allowed.  The timekeeper has the opportunity (at least to an extent) to communicate with both the judge and the competitors in the course of a round, the exact type of thing that non-team members are NOT supposed to be doing. 

I did the coach/timekeeper thing way back when, and I strongly believe it should NOT be allowed.  The timekeeper has the opportunity (at least to an extent) to communicate with both the judge and the competitors in the course of a round, the exact type of thing that non-team members are NOT supposed to be doing. 

My problem with this Motion is that many teams I've worked with/on don't have a lot of spare participants. Back when I was in college, one of my team's alternates (aka our timekeeper) didn't show up at Regionals. Competitively, we weren't affected -- but we didn't want the appearance of one of our witnesses acting as a timekeeper. Thankfully, another student from our school who was not competing that weekend agreed to fill the gap. Adoption of this Rule would prohibit that sort of assistance.

I agree that timekeepers necessarily have to communicate with the judge(s) and participants, but their communication is limited to stating times in open court. I do not think (and have not seen) a situation where a non-roster timekeeper actively coaches or otherwise violates the "No Communication" rule. Maybe others have....but, if so, I think there could be better ways to remedy the issue.

For many larger teams, I suspect that finding a timekeeper isn't difficult. But for smaller programs or those that do not keep many extra participants around, this Rule could pose problems.

I don't agree with the rule change...Why is it so bad for a person who isn't on the roster, with the exception of a coach, as long as that person is a mocker?

For instance, many programs like to bring along younger team members who didn't make the team going to golds, to come and timekeep in order for them to gain experience. This would now be disallowed?

Its also really "mocky" for a witness to go on the stand and be in character the whole time, except when he has to keep time for his team? That always seemed awkward to me.

There are already rules against a coach coaching in a round, even if they're serving a time-keeper.  By necessity, they do have to communicate, but the only necessary form of communication is via cards or the pre-rebuttal prompt. 

I hate the idea of one of our teams losing their time keeper due to a last minute emergency and then being forced to rely on another teams time keeper.

Does it really matter?  Let the time keepers be...

Can't rosters be changed between Regionals and Nationals?  If you want to have someone (i.e. a younger team member) come along as a timekeeper, just put them on the roster.  Timekeepers need to know what they are doing, need to not be coaches, and need to ensure each team's time is done fairly.  The only way to ensure this is to count them as a participant in the competition and make sure they are on the roster.  It is the only way to keep track of who was involved in each round, which can be important for the filing of complaints, etc...

What about (during Golds, for instance) a team brings along a younger member just to timekeep and watch, is that person counted against their 10 (or 8) person limit? If that is the case then this would seem to more directly affect teams competitively than the mere danger of a non-mocker simply keeping time for each team.

My guess would be that this is something Kris drafted in response to a tab room issue that occurred at one of the tournaments, just like the cellphone rule.

[no]

This motion is gross overkill where the AMTA Board has already overkilled. Coaches should take offense to Lyons' message that any of us would adulterate a mock trial and deny our teams their win on a level playing field by PUBLICLY messing around with the menial task of monitoring a stopwatch WITH ANOTHER REPRESENTING THE OPPOSING TEAM doing the same as those Siamese twins together flip time cards.

Instead, the Board ought to revisit the standard it passed - on the very thinnest of margins - that created the farce-to-enforce standard  that coaches (or anyone else) may not communicate during trials.  The premise that any trial - real or mock - is some kind of antiseptic environment is folly and our students hardly learn "real-to-life" trial practice in what the neurotic proponents of the existing rule have tried to create. After all, what we attempt to model is a system where there is most typically a constitutional right to an open and public courtroom.  With some 300+ jury trials under my belt, I have no idea how one can learn to be an effective trial advocate without also learning how to deal with all the diversions that attend the open and public courtroom.

Those more newcomer than I to AMTA ought to know that our Association long conducted perfectly fine trials and fair competitions with absolutely no rules prohibiting communication in or out of courtrooms. Indeed, there was a time when AMTA's most public and most importantly competitive trials, those that crowned the AMTA National Champion, had as their habit a half-time break where the coaches were not only allowed to coach their teams but were effectively directed by the Court's bailiff to accompany their teams so that they would coach their teams!

My position has been well-known for decades. I need an extraordinarily special reason to even be near one of my teams' mock courtrooms.  Without me or any coach surrogate, I very much hoped that opposing coaches would be so imprudent or so lacking in confidence that they would coach away against my team. I will never agree that it is AMTA's role to prohibit stupid coaching and I can think of little more stupid than a coach telling a prepared team how it should adapt. If that coaching message is anything but a diversion of where the student's mind should be focused, the coaching message should have been communicated at practice back home. The "adapt-my-way" need is by definition a concession that the team or at least one of its members is in fact not sufficiently prepared to compete.

To be clear, I completely endorse the habits of some of my coaching colleagues of always observing their teams in mock trials.  I don't care if they sit in the gallery, sit at counsel table or man the stopwatch. If they choose to burden their mockers with the ever-present (as in inherent) prospect of being second-guessed by their coach, my teams look forward to meeting them as often as possible in the future. Why should I lose a coaching advantage as a result of AMTA-as-governor fiat?

The other side of the policy coin is that the mindless "no communication" rule has been likely the single most frequent viral parasite to true professional collegiality in AMTA. There has been no rule that has come close to accumulating the number of groundless, baseless, mindless accusations by out-of-contentin whiners that the "no-comm" rule has generated.  I alone have dealt with hundreds of dumb complaints of these violations where there has been utterly zero to support the accusation. I have seen teams nearly come to blows. I have heard testimony that a (nice) mocker "was completely out of control" over that mocker's wierd idea that because an opposing team had an older adult undergraduate student on its roster who had no assigned role in the trial based on side assignment and was observing her teammates in trial, her half-time communication with her teammates blew the (nice) mocker's cork.

At the Milwaukee regional of 2007, I was assigned to preside in a Round 4 trial where an 0-6 team met a 1-5 team. One of my alumni coaches was the second judge. Knowing that neither team would survive the qualifier, I took a "let's educate" philosophy into my presiding. Throughout the trial, one team's assistant coach was in the gallery. I have known him for many years first as a mocker and since as a coach. He sat at a common student desk, the kind where my shirts get soiled by the little desks designed for students who weigh no more than 100 pounds. My view of him was otherwise unobstructed. 

During the break before closing argument, one the mock attorneys for the other team approached me in the hallway and asserted that the assistant coach was repeatedly signalling and sending post-its to his team. My immediate response was that the complainant had to address his concern to the AMTA reps, a role I often fill but did not fill at that tournament.

The trial was completed. The blue ballots were delivered. We did what I hope was a helpful criticque so that the two teams could be contenders in future seasons.  Eventually I popped in the tab room and the AMTA rep held up final tabulations in order to adjudicate the complaint of coach communication. I reported that I thought I had excellent perspective to observe any such violation and saw absolutely nothing of the kind. I had to contact my assistant coach on our cells in order to confirm that she too observed no such communication.  The entire field (waiting to manage a nasty sleetstorm) was delayed so that the complaint of an 0-8 team that lost its final trial by double digits on each ballot (despite friendly scoring) could be adjudicated with absolutely no corroborative support.  My last word with the AMTA rep was his report of intent to formally and orally "reprimand" the 3-5 team and its assistant coach on bases of which I still cannot possibly imagine.

I do not think that AMTA is well-served by setting behavioral rules that it is utterly unable to fairly enforce.  It is even less well-served by adopting motions like the one Lyons has advanced that merely say AMTA knows one way that its Board can fuel the neurotics' fears, protect through yet another rule form the evil of "mindless coaching communication" and  appease the mole hill by ignoring the mountain. I heard it all when I received a complaint that a most highly respected AMTA officer was heard in the mens room coaching his students in violation of the neurotics' rule. Since that accused official was known by me to have voted for the neurotic rule, it was my responsibility to AMTA to investigate.  The highly respected AMTA officer denied the violation. I was satisfied that I performed my role as AMTA rep. BUT I refuse to be an AMTA rep if the job necessitates that I spend my time monitoring every mens room while marshalling or "deputizing" a trusted female to similarly monitor all ladies restrooms.

If Lyons volunteers to do the potty patrol, let him and the other neurotics govern AMTA.  If our Association is unwilling or unable to fairly address the paranoic complaints, these counterproductive rules should not exist. 

I agree the rule is unnecessary overkill.  When you begin bogging an institution down with ever conceivable scenario, it makes things a lot more technical and less enjoyable.  What we need to do is trust that each team will act appropriately, and continue to have faith that there will not be inappropriate communication, or coaching through the time keepers.  There are just too many teams whose composition may fluctuate not just from tourney to tourney but from round to round, requiring a non-rostered individual to serve a timekeeper to avoid the awkward witness-timekeeper role which I despise much more than the alternative.

Seriously -- is there any activity that prohibits communication between coach and players at all times throughout a competition? Brad raised an excellent point. The only time I would not want a coach or someone interjecting is during a student's performance (ex: a coach calling a time-out during a cross examination to help their student better handle the witness). It really makes no difference to me if a coach wants to help out in-between case-in-chiefs or even witnesses.

I'm also in complete agreement with Brad when it comes to the idea that the rule should be abolished simply because it's impossible to enforce and, more importantly, know when it's even been violated. The same rule exists in high school mock trial, and let me tell you from my five years of experience that there is nothing as frightening as the opposing team accusing your own team of violating the communication rule. You would think that AMTA of all organizations would have an innocent-until-proven-guilty policy over this rule, but unfortunately, as Brad just demonstrated, it too often is not the case.

What I find most interesting about this rule is that not every program has or uses coaches.  In that case, those students really only have themselves anyway.  Not every program functions in the same manner, and so this coach rule is quite fascinating, because it doesn't effect every team in the same way.  Sometimes, if they have no coach, it doesn't effect them at all.  And there are teams that don't travel with their coach.

I know that the meeting is over or will be over tomorrow, but just chiming in one thing:

I think this rule in part penalizes smaller teams.  As someone who was previous a head of a growing program (went from one team at the beginning to three this past year and hopefully a fourth next year), we've had times where we've only had 6 members on the team.  When you have a 6 member team, it appears less professional to use one of your team members (counsel or witness) as a timekeeper, particularly when the other side is using a dedicated timekeeper.  It breaks "character" particularly if one of your witnesses is doing it.  In that kind of situation, we've always had some non-roster member do it.