Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58

Thread: Girls Just Wanna Have Fun: ORCs 2012

  1. #1

    Girls Just Wanna Have Fun: ORCs 2012

    Hi everyone!!!


    I've decided on a few changes. First, I am going to release ORC predictions on a weekly basis. That way, you have something new each week instead of getting it all at once. Second, I've decided to rank attorneys and witnesses. Instead of my usual rankings, I wanted to break them down into tiers. I've decided to make this list all-inclusive, so a competitor's program does not have to be at ORCS for them to be counted (though, I reserve the right to factor that in).

    Finally, I'd like to echo something my brother said in his post. That is, we do these rankings obviously for p.com's entertainment and fun, but we also hope to inspire discussion and not just criticism. There is a reason, for example, I ranked Caress above Hughes. It wasn't just arbitrary. We hope you all will weigh in with your thoughts on that type of stuff too.

    So, for now, you get my tiered witness rankings (1-30 is the total order, with each broken down starting at 1).

    Tier One: Attorneys in this tier are the basically untouchable at every aspect of mock trial.
    1. Ben Wallace: Struggling the most since he broke out as a sophomore. That said, struggling for Ben Wallace is unimaginable success for most.
    2. James Caress: Has clearly hit his stride. When on his game, he is calm and relaxed enough to challenge Ben Wallace for best attorney. In all the O’Conner, Hughes, Hari lovefest, people have been quick to forget Caress remains one of the best closing attorneys in the country.
    3. Brandon Hughes: Closer to a 2b than a 3. Hughes goes one spot beneath Caress for two reasons. First, Hughes still is not as good at cross examination as Caress (though, at the level they are at, I am truly splitting hairs). Second, Hughes takes enough risks that a judge could dislike him (though, I’m not sure that has happened in close to a year).

    Overall: These three have it all. They are elite at direct and cross examination, opening statement and or closing arguments, objections, and really everything. No real identifiable weaknesses. The strength of this group is everything.



    Tier Two: These attorneys are some of the best in nation, but aren’t quite top notch at everything aspect.
    1. Thomas Cull: Clearly elite at opening statements, Cull, however, lacks the presence to be a top-tier attorney. Some judges will find his examinations lacking “pop”, though he has excellent at containing character witnesses during cross examination. He also has taken a huge stride with objections this year.
    2. Neil Thakor: Another great opening attorney. Thakor is monster with direct examination. His cross examinations are very good, but probably not elite. His big weakness is with objection arguments. Overall, Thakor can match up with AMTA’s best in most areas, and will make a strong push for tier one.
    3. Nick LoCastro: You can try telling me I’m ranking LoCastro too high all you want, but have you seen him? Seriously? He has the ability to elite in every single category. The number one thing holding him back is consistency with cross examination. Too frequently are his cross examinations overly stock, and not responsive enough for me to call him tier one. That said, everything else is great, and on the right day, he’ll go toe-to-toe with the best.
    4. Rahul Hari: After recently paying more attention, I realized how much I’ve undervalued him. Despite my crush on Thakor, I can’t ignore Hari has closed that gap in terms of talent. He gives closing arguments that rival Max Bernstein’s, and Hari has learned to control some of his aggression problems from last season. Most impressive is Hari’s grasp of evidence and objections. He very well might be better at objections than anyone else this season.
    5. Jean-Paul Jacquet: It’s the voice. Jacquet has a voice that probably scores most of 10’s for him. Behind that voice is a smooth courtroom manner, Oscar quality directs, and uncanny poise on cross examination. Jacquet is the best attorney at Harvard.

    Overall: Tier two is filled with attorneys that no one wants to hit. While they have some weaknesses or inconsistencies, as a general rule they are going to be close to untouchable. Cull and Thakor have the best chance to break into tier one, while Jacquet and LoCastro are most likely to remain in tier two for this season. One thing to consider is that this tier, as a whole, uses objection arguments much more than tier one.



    Tier Three: These attorneys are close to tier two in potential, but might be more polarizing, more inconsistent, or more prone to an off round, but they tend to be elite at some areas and very good at others.
    1. Chris Ballesteros: His closing arguments are his best weapon. Ballesteros, in my opinion, tries to do more than what he can. I often praised Resnek for his ability to carry a team with his antics, and I think Ballesteros also tries to carry the team. The problem is that, first, he is not nearly as likable as Resnek was, which is what gave Resnek the freedom he had. Second, Ballesteros is not nearly as good at cross examination. I would argue this is his weakest area. Third, even though I don’t like to admit it, Resnek’s antics could also sink the team, and the same is true with Ballesteros.
    2. Doug Haefele: Before recently seeing Hari, I would have said Haefele was the best in the country with objection arguments. Haefele has drastically improved his ability to cross examine. It seems to me he has done a better job of listening to the witness and following up. His closing arguments are very good, but fairly bland in comparison to some of the other top closing attorneys. His biggest flaw is his arrogance and ability to come across like an ass, though he has kept that in check much better this season.
    3. Paul Blair: Blair, like Haefele, can be arrogant. Frankly, he often is, and doesn’t hide that fact. His excellent skills across the board counteract that persona very well. His prosecution closing, in particular, is one of the best in the country. I’d like to see his objection arguments be a bit more clean, and his cross examinations to have more structure. All of that said, if he could just come across a bit more likable, it would go a long way.
    4. Alex Block: Great opening statements, no question. Block has two things working against him. First, he is also arrogant. Second, he is overly aggressive in the courtroom. Most attorneys and witness tremble and fall to his aggression, but the confident and smooth ones will not. In those situations, Block looks unlikable and clearly inferior. I still don’t love his direct examinations, but his cross examinations have gotten much better. As long as he kept away from the sympathy witnesses, he does very well at cross examination.
    5. Patrick O’Conner: O’Conner is an amazing attorney at closing arguments. His objection arguments work for him, and are very good. His direct examinations are very charismatic, yet still leave the witness in the spotlight, and, truthfully, it is pretty impressive. His cross examinations still remain his weak point. He so often seems to not do much better than break even with the witness. It is almost like he doesn’t quite know when it is one question too many, or one question too few.
    6. Brittany Yarbrough: Yarbrough gives some of the better opening statements in AMTA, and some pretty good closing arguments. She is actually very good at everything, especially with cross examination. She has a very polite manner to accompany very short and pointed questions. To me, she is a bit bland on direct examination and it seems just like she is going through the motions. I also would like to see a bit more presence in the courtroom from her.

    Overall: Tier three is filled with a lot of attorneys who have something they are very good at (in most cases either opening statement or closing argument), but also have a glaring flaw holding them back from breaking into the top two tiers. In many cases that flaw is being unlikeable either due to aggression or arrogance. Most of these attorneys would be top tier if the polished a few rough edges, usually in the area of cross examination. Haefele has the best chance of breaking into tier two this year. Block has a very high ceiling, but needs to change a decent amount before moving up. One interesting thing to consider is that already two of these attorneys are missing NCT.



    Tier Four: These attorneys are, at best, elite in just one area, while being very good in others.
    1. Megan O’Donnell: O’Donnell is really giving amazing closing argument(s) this year. This, of course, is not news. Most impressive has been her growth at cross examination. Last year, I felt this area was a liability for her, while this year it might be her best strength. I don’t know what caused the lightbulb to come on, but it has. She still is prone to getting ahead of herself and becoming overly wordy. I would like to see a bit more relaxed courtroom presence, and a bit more comfort during her direct and cross examinations. Ultimately, she is not elite in any category, but very good in all of them.
    2. Nick Crown: Oddly enough, Crown is best at direct examination. He is really able to tell a compelling story, often acting as a beneficial supplement to the witness’s testimony. His objection arguments and cross examinations are very good. I would like to see more out of his opening statements. I don’t think they are up to the caliber his closing arguments were last season.
    3. Ethan Treacy: Treacy is in the elite group at opening statements, and that is a large part of this ranking. He also gives very good direct examinations. Treacy does not have a particularly nuanced understanding of objection arguments, and is easily disadvantaged in this area. His cross examinations are not the liability his objection arguments can be, but they are not his best area.
    4. Alyssa Pronley: Pronley is the full-fledged embodiment of being very good at everything, but elite at nothing. There is no one area that she is weak at, but if goes up against someone elite in a particular category, she likely will lose that battle. I’d like to see a little bit more passion from her closing arguments, I think that will be the first step in taking her to an elite level.
    5. Alycia Walker: Walker, as I’ve said many times, has consistency Block does not, but a lower ceiling. Her best strength (besides being consistent) is her closing arguments. She gives very responsive closings that address the facts of each particular trial. That said, she would help herself a lot if she did the same on cross examination.
    6. Patrick Wixson: Wixson is following nicely in the line of Northwood closing attorneys. The first time I saw him, I wasn’t sure if I liked it or not, but the second time I saw him give a closing argument, I knew he was for real at them. To me, he really struggles with objection arguments. His cross examinations also often feel polished and flashy, but lack a high level of merit. While this probably is not an issue in most rounds, it is something for him to work on.
    7. Biren Bhansali: No question, his best ability, by far, is closing arguments. He also has a solid grasp on objection arguments. My primary issue with Bhansali is that he comes across very arrogant during very mediocre cross examinations. It’s like he acts like a know-it-all while crossing someone who actually does know it all. As you can imagine, this creates a weird situation where, when the judges are paying attention, they realize Bhansali is appearance on cross examination. I think his over-confidence hurts him on cross examination and precludes him from ever carrying his team with his crosses.
    8. Vinay Nayak: Nayak’s best strength is cross examination. He has a great mind for how to really set and spring a trap, and has a very creative presentation style. It often reminds me of a poor-man’s imitation of a Resnek cross examination. I find his direct examinations and ability on objection arguments to be good at best. Ultimately, he loses some credibility with judges here. I think his crosses seem like a really smart attorney getting up there and doing a great job, while his direct examinations and objections feel like an undertrained and underprepared lawyer trying to get through something. His closing arguments are fine, but they do not make him special.
    9. Amanda Swanson: Swanson has a lot going for her. Clearly her strength is with feisty closing arguments that are difficult to argue against. I find her too wordy with objection arguments. Her biggest weakness, to me, is her ability to seemingly lose concentration during a round. It’s not an inconsistency problem where she is good one round an bad the next, since she is good in every round. The problem is that she often misses some big points, or chases down points that are too small. She really needs to learn better how to focus and differentiate the important points from the less important points.

    Overall: This tier is about split between seniors and others. The biggest thing to note in tier four is how many of them struggle with the finer aspects of cross examination. I think many people in tier three had a great grasp on the procedural and technical side of mock trial, but were still working on the presentation aspect. This tier, in general, has attorneys that are better at presenting than they are at understanding what they are presenting. I see a lot of people in this tier working their way into the top 2 or 3 tiers by this point next season.



    Tier Five: These attorneys are very good in most, if not all, areas, but likely not elite in any.
    1. Patrick Diamond: I said at the outset of this season, to become elite Diamond was going to need to become consistent. Early in the year, it looked like he was, but now I don’t think so. Some rounds he comes across goofy, almost clown like. Other rounds he comes across amazing, with poise of a national finalist. Yet still in other rounds he comes across as arrogant without good reason to be. He almost always gives great direct examinations. His inconsistency is with cross examination and closing argument. On cross, Diamond gets easily flustered and when he does, he turns to a persona of arrogance and bravado to try to pull off a win. When he does, it fails usually.
    2. Elizabeth Fletcher: Fletcher is able to be so successful at direct and cross examination because she is also a great witness. She understands all the nuances very well, and most importantly she understands how to present her case in the best possible light. I find her statements quite bland with respect to the rest of her abilities. Finally, she can get flustered with objection arguments and turn unlikeable in a hurry.
    3. Kelsey Warren: Warren is the opposite of her teammate in many ways. She gives much better speeches. Not unlike Fletcher, Warren struggles with objection arguments. She has a charming courtroom presence that compensates for cross examinations that do not do enough damage. If she gets thrown off, usually be objections, her personality goes out the window and the cross score reflects the cross more accurately.
    4. Grady Lowman: Lowman has a style that is hard to describe if you haven’t seen it. He is definately a southerner, and has all the charm and accent that go with, but he has this way of being aggressive while doing so. I can’t explain how, but he is able to bully people around without ever losing credibility. He gives very good closing arguments and cross examinations. I remain less than impressed with his direct examinations and objection arguments. While I tend to like his style, I have concerns about how it will do in St. Paul.
    5. Amanda Mundell: Mundell is amazing at direct and cross examination. She has an amazing ability with cross to lure a witness into exactly what she wants. Her use of calm presence and simple conveyance of her questions is really something to watch. Imagine the way she, as an expert handles cross examination, but then being flipped and used as a way of cross examining. Her weakness is in her opening statement. She has a high ceiling, but hasn’t found her gear. She worked better as a closing attorney, but Caress was better at closing by a substantial margin.
    6. Benjamin Morrell: Morrell seems very casual at direct and cross examination to the point of unassuming. Yet, with cross examination in particular, he has an ability to seamlessly flush out whatever point he is making. Most of the time, no one sees that coming. His unassuming presentation sets up his closing arguments, which is his biggest strength. His passion and sincerity seem all the more real when contrasted to his direct and cross examination presentation style. His weakness is being too wordy with objections and trying to make distinctions that create more confusion than clarity. As you might expect, when this happens judges can turn on him.
    7. Josh Cahen: Cahen has a very known presence in the courtroom, yet he remains very likable. To me, this presence is his strongest weapon. It allows him to be very good at everything he does. I find his depth of understanding to be his weakness. He often gets caught in traps of being a bit over his head. He does an effective job of combating this by taking few risks and staying in his comfort zone. While in that zone, he is hard to rattle.

    Overall: This tier has most range. Some members of this group are on the verge of putting it all together, while others have likely peaked. There really isn’t anyone who does something that is elite. Most attorneys in this group can be challenged by lower ranked, but still very good attorneys. I would say the biggest reason I put these particular competitors in this tier over other worthy candidates is that these people seem to have the best grasp of their weaknesses and know how to best work around them.



    But Don’t Sleep On: These are attorneys that could, by the end of the year, break into the top 5 tiers.
    1. Lauren Lutton, UGA: Lutton has won quite a few awards this year. She gives great closing arguments and direct examinations. Her cross examinations lack the full force of her closing arguments. She isn’t likely to lose a lot of cross examinations, but I don’t see her as likely to win a lot either. I would argue, in some ways, UGA’s success at ORCS and NCT will turn, in large part, on her ability to rise up and be elite. She is in the spotlight now.
    2. Lydia Fuller, Vanderbilt: Fuller gives great closing arguments on prosecution and is able to balance the fine line of advocacy without too much aggression. Her cross examinations are also very effective because of her impressive courtroom presence. Her direct examinations are not as good as one would expect as she often seems concerned with her next question. Her biggest weakness is objection arguments. She often demonstrates little in the way of self control and garbles her answers too much. She will need to continue to work on her composure to make the leap into the top five tiers, but early commentary suggests she can.
    3. Andy Tran, UCI: If you follow me, you know how critical I am of Tran. I really thought Tran on UCI A was a mistake last year. He is arrogant and off-putting. I think since moving him back down a team, he has had the chance to iron out some of the rough patches. He can give very good closing arguments, though they often are heavy on antics. His biggest weakness is his personality, he makes it easy to not like him. It will be interesting to see if UCI thinks he is ready to rejoin the A team.
    4. Marilyn Robb, Columbia: I’ve seen Robb multiple times over the past few years, and I can promise you she is very good. She is one of the nicest attorneys you will encounter in AMTA. Her closing arguments have excellent structure and respectful delivery. Her direct examinations are not remarkable as she adds nothing to the direct. Her biggest weakness might be that her presence is sometimes too soft and she will be overshadowed by charismatic attorneys. I don’t know how Columbia will stack for NCT, but in my opinion Robb deserves a spot.

    Overall: These four are names that I want everyone to keep in mind. There are definitely attorneys out there better than these four, but those are four that I think could become top 5 tier attorneys this season. They all have started building nice resumes, but now they are about to be thrust onto the national stage and asked to prove themselves.


    So sorry for being a bit late with getting this posted, but you'll still get something to read! I am posting this weekend's predictions now, and I'll have the rest of the ORCs posted this weekend.

    I'm going to go through each ORC and give you my predictions. Let's hope I do better than last year.

    WHITE PLAINS

    Top 6:

    • NYU A: Lead by Patrick Diamond, NYU A should have little trouble earning a bid. I'm not too high on this team right now, because I'm troubled by the inconsistency. I find them a bit young, and, well, goofy at times. Obviously they can step up and beat almost anyone, but I'm just not ready to declare them elite. That said, they'll get a bid and have plenty of chance to prove me wrong at NCT. Look out for Jackie Newsome and Katy Akopjan as attorneys. I think both are a bit more consistent than Patrick Diamond. Diamond is clearly the best of the bunch, but I think he really loses focus. He is great at direct examination, but sometimes his cross examinations leave me wondering if he just proved anything. Meanwhile, Newsome and Akopjan are not as consistent across the board but really can give deliver some knockout blows. Bill Visone remains the best witness for NYU.
    • Tufts A: To me, Tufts is the team with the highest ceiling coming out of White Plains. LoCastro is really at another level this year. To me, he is elite at everything and has few weaknesses. I would say the same thing about Tufts. Alex Gottfried has gone too long without proper recognition for his opening statements. While he isn't up to the level of LoCastro, he is formidable. This is a team I would not want to hit.
    • Brown A: Brown is a fierce team with lots of aggression. This clearly can be a disadvantage at times, in that they will be off-putting to some judges. Overall, most teams won't know quite how to handle Brown and they will pull out rounds. Jeff Wilke leads the group and they should make it out of white plains in a dogfight.
    • Columbia A: I'm a bit higher on Columbia than most people. Maybe I give a lot to notion of "chip on your shoulder", but either way, I'm convinced this team is ready for the big time. The excellent coaching staff is something to marvel at. Harshitha Kilari is, by far, the leading talent on the team and an amazing witness. I'm not totally aware of how Columbia stacked the two teams, but the B squad has talent that could easily be on the A squad. Either way, this team should return to NCT.
    • Yale: This is my big gamble for this ORC. We all know by now about the talent of Nayak. He is very clever, and quite a lot of fun. He didn't compete last semester, and the team was trying to find their way thus far in 2012. I think they are ready. Most importantly, I believe the chip on their shoulder is enough.
    • Brandies: Brandies is peaking at the right time. Go back even to December and I don't think there was any chance I'd have them getting out. Maddie Ziff has been poised all season and been graceful under pressure. Chris Amstutz is finally providing her with some help. Maybe this is a long shot, but I like the chemistry Brandies currently has.
    Others with a shot: NYU B, Tufts B, Boston University A.

    WAUKEGAN


    Top 6:
    • Northwestern: It is my understanding the A team is competing and is stacked. Given this fact, there is no doubt they should dominate at this ORC. A fully stacked Northwestern A is a top flight threat. They have an underrated coaching staff. The team is thin at attorney, but Biren Bhansali more than makes up for that fact. Of all the breakout freshmen from last year, Bhansali has arguably grown the most from last season. Which, considering how good he was, really says something. In particular, his closing arguments have reached an elite level.
    • Northwood A: I don't buy into Northwood. Sorry. Okay, sure, they are clearly good enough to get back to NCT, but I think that is more a product of this ORC than their team. Patrick Wixon has a reputation that has gotten out of hand, if you ask me. It would not shock me to learn he ranks FAR better than he scores. Amanda Riley is probably the best person on this team. Despite my seemingly harsh comments, Northwood should cruise through this ORC. And, I think I speak for most everyone in AMTA in saying we are excited to have them back at NCT, as they are always a fun group. I think one more year before they are ready to really compete at the highest level, but they will get valuable experience this year.
    • Notre Dame A: Notre Dame is on the rise this season. After getting two teams to NCT last year and their top team doing pretty well, I'm expecting Notre Dame to make a push for top 10. I don't think they have the same depth across two teams this year, but clearly they are very good. All American Stephen Payne has returned this year and has contented dominance. Possibly the top witness at Waukegan, Notre Dame will need him at the top of his game in order to lock up the bid. Watch out for aggressive attorney play from Notre Dame, which, if you follow them, is nothing new.
    • Macalester A: I owe Macalester an apology. I've disregarded them all season and it has been plain wrong. They are the second best team at this tournament behind Northwestern. Samantha Gupta and Nathaniel Smith lead the team and do so with experience. While the team is a bit bland for my taste, they will do great in Waukegan and, subsequently, in St. Paul. Don't be surprised to see them in the top 10 at NCT.
    • Hamline A: Hamline is also a team I've underrated this season. Though flying solo, Josh Peterson remains a great competitor. Hamline is a bit thin at attorney this year, but they are just creative enough with the witness portrayals that it makes up for it. The witnesses are incredibly hard to cross, so watch out!!
    • Lewis A: This is a gamble on my part, but where the team is a bit weak on talent compared to some of the other teams here, their chemistry is excellent. Also, the talent here should not be underestimated. Michael Park receives many awards and is a very talented attorney, but the real talent Cassandra Myers. She has been the best member of this team all season and really holds them together. I expect Myers and Park can do just enough to eek out the final bid.
    Others with a shot: Michigan State A, Northwood B

    Newport


    Top 6:
    • UCLA A: I could probably write a short story about this team. You've heard almost all of it, so I'll keep it to things you have not heard or have heard less of. Iain Lampert is also an attorney this year. While he is not anywhere near as good at this as he is at being a witness, he has really progressed and has a great, casual demeanor in the courtroom. Brandon Hughes plays an excellent Foster. Amanda Mundell is an excellent attorney. James Caress has hit his stride this season, and is doing better than Hughes. I'm not sure if I'll do an attorney/ witness ranking list at the conclusion of this post, but if I did, Caress would be the number 2 attorney in the country right now.
    • UC-Irvine A: It should come as no surprise that UCLA is my early prediction to make the final round at NCT, and it should also not come as a surprise that UCI is my other early prediction. Have you seen this team? I'm not sure a weak link exists. I've sung Thakor's praises for over a year now, so I won't bore you with my infatuation with him. I'll turn now to Rahul Hari. I've always felt he was good, even very good, but it wasn't until Downtown that I became convinced he was great. He is. His closing arguments have become rivaled by few. The witnesses are probably even more impressive than the attorneys. I'm really hoping for a UCLA v UCI battle.
    • Arizona State A: Jimmy Cool and Co. should have little problem making NCT this year. Yarborough is doing as well as ever. Matt Scarvie has stepped up this year and balanced the attorney talent. Last year he showed flashes of brilliance, but hadn't put it together. Combine his increased talent and ASU's chip, and this team will be at NCT.
    • UCLA B: I'll be honest, I don't know the configuration of UCLA B. I know they are lead by Phillip Mayer, younger brother of a former favorite Stephen Mayer, who has really grown into a fine attorney this year. If UCLA ends up only qualifying one team to NCT, Philip will be vying for a spot on that team. With the huge depth in the program, I'd expect however they stack, it will be very good.
    • USC A: USC is stacked FULLY for the first time ever (and this season). They debuted this team starting in January and through two invitationals went 13-2-1. Christen Philips is not on an elite level yet, but is the most likely Trojan to do so. She is one of the more calm attorneys on the west coast. She is able to get away with a lot of the type of stuff James Caress does because of her calm manner.
    • Howard: Howard will look to return to NCT and follow up the top 10 finish. Lead by Yosef Wise, Howard has their work cut out for them in Newport. While Howard is not a trendy pick, I am confident they have what it takes. The overly dramatized style and big witnesses should play very well on the west coast. I like Howard to have a lot of success at ORCS, but I don't see them having what it takes to even break top 15 at NCT.
    Others with a shot: UCSD, UCI B

    ----

    Washington DC
    • UVA A
    • UVA B
    • George Washington
    • UPenn
    • Temple
    • Maryland
    Others: Mary Washington, Temple

    Saint Louis
    • Cal A
    • Cal B
    • WashU A
    • Loyola
    • Drake
    • WashU B
    Others: Iowa, Cornell College

    Hamilton
    • Miami A
    • Miami B
    • Bowling Green
    • Michigan
    • Chicago A
    • Ohio State A
    Others: Eastern Michigan, Cincinnati

    Commentary: First off, sorry for the lack of any comments last week. I don't have time to detail each team, so I'll just give an overview of each ORC. Hamilton is by far the weakest of the ORCS this weekend. Miami A and Chicago A are the two elite teams here. I've been sticking with Michigan since last year as a team to watch this year. I'm expecting them to get to NCT and prove me right! I like Ohio State more than most people, and think they have better depth than many would guess. A fully stacked Ohio State A team should give teams trouble. Bowling Green shouldn't have trouble at this ORC, but they will ultimately struggle on the national stage.

    Greenville
    • Harvard A
    • Duke A
    • Patrick Henry A
    • Harvard B
    • Furman A
    • Washington and Lee A
    Others: Duke B, University of Central Florida A, South Carolina

    Commentary: This ORC is incredibly deep top to bottom. Harvard A might be the only top 10 team in the country here, and definitely the only truly elite team, but you are hard pressed to find lackluster teams at this ORC. Duke A has quietly put together a very impressive season, while also, as a program, shown considerable depth. Patrick Henry A has built on the performances last season and are ready to break into NCT. The bottom half of this ORC is much tougher to predict. Home field advantage gives a fairly mediocre Furman team a nice edge at this ORC and should secure them 1 bid. Washington and Lee has probably outperformed their talent level for much of this season, but I won't argue with the totality of results. The sleeper team to me is UCF. They had 4 teams this season all have fairly impressive showings, and depending on how much stacking they do, their top team could really be a lot to handle.

    Memphis

    • Rhodes A
    • UGA A
    • Washington A
    • Texas
    • UAB A
    • Vanderbilt
    Others: Rhodes B, UGA B, MTSU

    Commentary: Rhodes A, UGA A, and Washington A will have no problem placing top 6. I echo the sentiment that Texas, on paper, is a killer team, but their results leave much to be desired. The final two spots are most compelling for me. Rhodes B and UGA B are the likely suspects to get the bids, but both have serious questions. For Rhodes, we haven't really seen impressive results, and certainly not against better competition, from any of the lower teams. We can trust the coaching staff to do their job well, but Rhodes B is too much of a question mark right now. UGA is fully stacking the top team, so the top talent, such as Lutton, is now on the A team, which leaves B a bit bare. Meanwhile, UAB and Vanderbilt have both had impressive starts to 2012, with UAB being 15-1 this calendar year and Vanderbilt's impressive 7-1 finish at a tough regional. Finally, MTSU seems to have its strongest team in recent history, and I wouldn't put it past them to sneak through to NCT.
    Last edited by Prodigal Daughter; 03-23-2012 at 10:25 AM.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12
    Karma
    11
    Dunno where you got that information on UCLA B but it's not right at all.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    113
    Karma
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodigal Daughter View Post
    Patrick Wixson has a reputation that has gotten out of hand, if you ask me.
    I can't even go out to eat without people asking me for my autograph. I mean, I WAS ranked as the 30-something best attorney in the country by an anonymous stranger on Perjuries.

  4. #4
    Senior Member a-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    554
    Karma
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnieC View Post
    I can't even go out to eat without people asking me for my autograph. I mean, I WAS ranked as the 30-something best attorney in the country by an anonymous stranger on Perjuries.
    You're Patrick Wixson? I've thought you were Dale Torbert this entire time.
    Objection ... he's making my witness look like a fool.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,836
    Karma
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by a-mac View Post
    You're Patrick Wixson? I've thought you were Dale Torbert this entire time.
    And before that I thought it was Hartsfield's revived account. The plot ever thickens.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    113
    Karma
    14
    Sorry guys, it's just me. It always has been. This is my second account with this name (long story).

  7. #7
    First round of edits to post has been made

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5
    Karma
    0
    I must say, I buy into Northwood (A & B). With South Bend being such a difficult Regional in comparison to the other two feeding into Waukegan, Northwood B beasted through it, completely altered its composition, and still made it to NCT. That is solid deliciousness regardless of which way you cut the cake.

    Also, why no love for Adam Ratliff of MSU? I'm not sure how many tournaments he was at this year, but he won awards at the invitationals hosted by Ohio State, Illinois State, Illinois, and Eastern Michigan, and did the same at both South Bend and Waukegan. 6 awards and leading MSU to its first NCT is surely worthy of some notice!

    Finally, props to Notre Dame for a solid effort despite a difficult draw. After competing against them this year, I can say that they were as talented as most (if not all) of the teams qualifying for NCT.
    "Objection... There was no question in that question"

  9. #9
    Great update Prodigal Daughter! Love reading these. I personally would move Rahul Hari and Jean-Paul Jacquet up to numbers one and two of your "second tier", respectively (four and five of a direct one through thirty listing). It's a tough call but I think Hari's mastery of evidence and objection arguments would give him the edge.

    Dare I say it, but I'd probably rearrange number one and two of "tier one" as well (gasp). All personal opinions and preferences, though.

    Great read, as usual. Thanks for putting in the time. As you said, I hope these posts will spark more discussion as the national tournament approaches.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    113
    Karma
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by AAARRRRRR View Post
    I must say, I buy into Northwood (A & B). With South Bend being such a difficult Regional in comparison to the other two feeding into Waukegan, Northwood B beasted through it, completely altered its composition, and still made it to NCT. That is solid deliciousness regardless of which way you cut the cake.

    Also, why no love for Adam Ratliff of MSU? I'm not sure how many tournaments he was at this year, but he won awards at the invitationals hosted by Ohio State, Illinois State, Illinois, and Eastern Michigan, and did the same at both South Bend and Waukegan. 6 awards and leading MSU to its first NCT is surely worthy of some notice!

    Finally, props to Notre Dame for a solid effort despite a difficult draw. After competing against them this year, I can say that they were as talented as most (if not all) of the teams qualifying for NCT.
    There is definitely a lot of talent on our B team even though they're probably one of the least experienced B teams we've had the last few years. Outside our two veteran captains (a senior and sophomore), the whole team is first year mockers (mostly freshman). I was so excited to see that they were moving on. We also have a bunch of great freshman who were on our dearly departed C team that could easily be contributing on a very successful B team. I am very excited to see what the future holds for our younger mockers.

    I haven't seen Adam Ratliff this year but we went against him at Regionals last year and he's the real deal, definitely worthy of consideration somewhere on the list.

    Notre Dame was definitely good enough to be at the NCT. They were definitely a difficult fourth round pairing for us and it was a really close round.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    113
    Karma
    14
    Also, to the OP, perhaps you could quantify your commentary on attorneys and witnesses with some kind of easy grading system. I mean you talk about great crossers and closers but it would be interesting to see how they stack up directly against each other. I know that would be time consuming and possibly difficult to complete but that's what I was thinking.

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    7
    Karma
    0

    Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker

    Man, do I have a headache. It might be the Hennessy enemas, it might be the Patron nostril shots, or it might be the sheer volume of this new set of rankings (considering that there are an equally long set of witness rankings and another five ORC predictions on the way). There’s been a lot of chatter about respect and consideration on the Perj. recently (a situation whose irony seems lost on most), so it seems like a good time for me to chime in with my always gentle and deferential ruminations.

    The hyper-stratification of these rankings is making me dizzy, so before we get into the contents of the lists, let’s look at the tiers themselves:

    Tier One: For someone who so often complains about the lack of discussion and debate, Prod. Daughter sure is working hard to stifle dissenting opinions. “Untouchable?” If that’s the case, why talk about it? Why bother competing at all? It’s the same as suggesting that you and I play a game of tag, except you can’t touch me and you have to keep your eyes closed. I wonder who’s going to win that game. And even if “untouchable” attorneys do exist, these three certainly aren’t them. If Wallace is “struggling,” he’s not invincible. If Caress is only good when he’s “on his game,” then he’s far from perfect. If Hughes puts off judges, then he's got room for improvement. On an unrelated note, an actual O’Connor, Hughes, Hari lovefest would have some fantastic dirty talk.

    Tiers Two through Five: The distinctions between these categories seem mostly interchangeable and vague. Great attorneys seem little different from very good attorneys. Sure, the attorneys in tier three have greater strength in some areas than others, but so do all the other attorneys on the list. I’m not saying that I disagree with your rankings…well, actually, I am, but we’ll get to that later. My point is that segregating the rankings within the rankings may be complex (like Inception), but it’s also needlessly convoluted (like Inception).

    OK, on to the nasty bitching:

    Hughes is the best in the country. He’s operating on a level where it hardly matters what he says anymore, since his personality alone wins ballots and ranks for him in every round. Last year, he was literally running circles around the competition and he’s had a whole year to get better since then. He does take risks, but in an activity where twenty-five percent of judges are under qualified and fifty percent of judges are idiots, I see little worth in aiming for stability. We celebrate attorneys like Hartsfield and Resnek because they’ve moved beyond the conservative point-grubbing that plagues the rest of us to something more exciting and innovative. Hughes has reached that point, striving for a ten at the expense of the nine. To lose a closing to someone with superior rhetoric may be disheartening, but having your ass handed to you by a guy who pops balloons, does cartwheels, and plays with floaty toys would drive you to drink. Just ask Patrick Diamond.

    If Caress has “hit his stride,” it’s only because he’s back to stomping around the courtroom for nine minutes. Granted, it’s been a while since I’ve seen him close (considering that he was opening back at the Downtown), but unless something significant has changed about his style, he probably still has a serious volume problem. His voice not only goes to 11, but it stays there for the whole closing. Many attorneys have a problem being over-aggressive towards witnesses or disrespectful towards the judge, but Caress seems to have something against the jury. Every time I’ve seen him close, he walks right up to the jury box and then screams his head off. Considering how many teams bring tissue boxes for their crying Dawsons and Hopsons, if Caress is indeed closing again, he should consider offering tissues to the jury members so they can wipe the spittle off their faces. A great closing attorney has tonal versatility and the ability to generate drama in the courtroom, but Caress often confuses passion with projection. Until he learns how to use his inside voice, he’s not untouchable.

    I’ve spent plenty of time on Wallace before, so I’ll leave it at this: all he ever has going for him is consistency. At his best, he’s a bowl of warm, firm porridge. If he’s lost his consistency, then he’s a bowl of cold, runny porridge.

    Neil Thakor did not earn a bid to Nationals. I sure hope Irvine’s B team can find room for him.

    Doug “Falafel” Haefele is the epitome of the calm, reserved attorney. He’s the handful of raisins to Wallace’s normally lukewarm oatmeal. If you put the two of them at the same counsel table, you’d have the human embodiment of Ambien or, alternatively, both parts of a balanced breakfast. If Wallace is elite, then so is Doug.

    Neither O’Connor nor Nayak nor Bhansali will be making a trip to Minnesota this spring. Whatever they’ve got going for them, it’s not rubbing off on their teammates. The most mature expression of skill is the ability to teach it and none of these three have reached that level. Another attorney skill that these rankings often over look is general storytelling, the capacity to weave together a coherent narrative throughout a case. Based on the success of Northwestern, Yale, and Santa Cruz, personal performance seems to have trumped team performance. That’ll earn you individual recognition, but it won’t get you to the NCT.

    Andy Tran is a man of action. Since moving down to Irvine’s B team, he has starred in 30,000 films and earned a PhD in kicking your ass. Now Dr. Tran has earned himself a bid to Nationals and if Irvine does not let him tag along to Minnesota, we will all miss the hot dickings he would otherwise pass out. Also, a double attorney award at the Bloodbath Beach ORC is nothing to scoff at. Just ask Neil Thakor.

    Finally, I would like to echo my niece and nephew in saying to all those who object to the subjectivity of these rankings, “Go fuck yourself.” Seriously, if the lack of data in these analyses keeps you up at night, especially when we’re talking about an activity scored according to the same standards of objectivity as rhythmic gymnastics and ice dancing, then chronic masturbation would clearly be a better use of your time. I know I prefer it.

    Can’t wait to shower my insight all over the witness rankings too. Till then, toodle-loo!
    Last edited by Prodigal Drunk Uncle; 03-15-2012 at 04:55 PM.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    116
    Karma
    23
    You know, no matter how I feel about the rankings themselves, or the information that went into them, or the entire sport or Mock Trial itself, Drunk Uncle's posts are my favorite things to read. Not just on this site, but in the world.
    "Calm down, Pippy."

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    190
    Karma
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodigal Drunk Uncle View Post
    My point is that segregating the rankings within the rankings may be complex (like Inception), but it’s also needlessly convoluted (like Inception).
    Hahaha. This was retarded but blew my mind (like Inception).

  15. #15
    Falafel Extraordinaire
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    235
    Karma
    23
    If you had told me 20 minutes ago that I would be favorably compared to a handful of raisins, I would not have believed you.

    Thank you? Or maybe... Cheers?
    Attorney 1: Objection!
    Presiding: Response, counselor?
    Attorney 2: I disagree!

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Athens, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    42
    Karma
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by RuHurt View Post
    You know, no matter how I feel about the rankings themselves, or the information that went into them, or the entire sport or Mock Trial itself, Drunk Uncle's posts are my favorite things to read. Not just on this site, but in the world.
    too true. I laugh the entire time. Also I couldn't agree more about his analysis of Andy Tran.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wasted away again in Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,288
    Karma
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodigal Drunk Uncle View Post
    Doug “Falafel” Haefele is the epitome of the calm, reserved attorney. He’s the handful of raisins to Wallace’s normally lukewarm oatmeal. If you put the two of them at the same counsel table, you’d have the human embodiment of Ambien or, alternatively, both parts of a balanced breakfast. If Wallace is elite, then so is Doug.
    I have never seen either Ben or Doug compete so I am not saying anything at all about their respective abilities or how accurate this is. It is, however, some damn fine writing.
    "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson

  18. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4
    Karma
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodigal Daughter View Post


    Tier Three: These attorneys are close to tier two in potential, but might be more polarizing, more inconsistent, or more prone to an off round, but they tend to be elite at some areas and very good at others.
    1. Paul Blair: Blair, like Haefele, can be arrogant. Frankly, he often is, and doesn’t hide that fact. His excellent skills across the board counteract that persona very well. His prosecution closing, in particular, is one of the best in the country. I’d like to see his objection arguments be a bit more clean, and his cross examinations to have more structure. All of that said, if he could just come across a bit more likable, it would go a long way.
    I had the opportunity to watch Mr. Blair this weekend in Washington on the Defense against UMD B 1st Round. He was absolutely amazing. He remained calm, cool, and collected throughout the entire round, from crossing the cop to directing a character and then closing. His objections are spot on and his understanding of the law and the rules (even the Daubert standard, which I believe is not included in the case materials) far surpasses many, if not all, of his peer competitors that I have ever seen in my 5 years judging and scouting tournaments nationally.

    Mr. Blair and his co-counsel are a national championship table waiting to happen. Reminding me of the 2008 GW national's team and table, this team has a lot to prove and much to prove it with. I look forward to seeing them in MN.

  19. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    21
    Karma
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by mockfolife View Post
    Mr. Blair and his co-counsel are a national championship table waiting to happen. Reminding me of the 2008 GW national's team and table, this team has a lot to prove and much to prove it with. I look forward to seeing them in MN.
    Me too.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodigal Drunk Uncle View Post
    Man, do I have a headache. It might be the Hennessy enemas, it might be the Patron nostril shots, or it might be the sheer volume of this new set of rankings (considering that there are an equally long set of witness rankings and another five ORC predictions on the way). There’s been a lot of chatter about respect and consideration on the Perj. recently (a situation whose irony seems lost on most), so it seems like a good time for me to chime in with my always gentle and deferential ruminations.

    The hyper-stratification of these rankings is making me dizzy, so before we get into the contents of the lists, let’s look at the tiers themselves:

    Tier One: For someone who so often complains about the lack of discussion and debate, Prod. Daughter sure is working hard to stifle dissenting opinions. “Untouchable?” If that’s the case, why talk about it? Why bother competing at all? It’s the same as suggesting that you and I play a game of tag, except you can’t touch me and you have to keep your eyes closed. I wonder who’s going to win that game. And even if “untouchable” attorneys do exist, these three certainly aren’t them. If Wallace is “struggling,” he’s not invincible. If Caress is only good when he’s “on his game,” then he’s far from perfect. If Hughes puts off judges, then he's got room for improvement. On an unrelated note, an actual O’Connor, Hughes, Hari lovefest would have some fantastic dirty talk.

    Tiers Two through Five: The distinctions between these categories seem mostly interchangeable and vague. Great attorneys seem little different from very good attorneys. Sure, the attorneys in tier three have greater strength in some areas than others, but so do all the other attorneys on the list. I’m not saying that I disagree with your rankings…well, actually, I am, but we’ll get to that later. My point is that segregating the rankings within the rankings may be complex (like Inception), but it’s also needlessly convoluted (like Inception).

    OK, on to the nasty bitching:

    Hughes is the best in the country. He’s operating on a level where it hardly matters what he says anymore, since his personality alone wins ballots and ranks for him in every round. Last year, he was literally running circles around the competition and he’s had a whole year to get better since then. He does take risks, but in an activity where twenty-five percent of judges are under qualified and fifty percent of judges are idiots, I see little worth in aiming for stability. We celebrate attorneys like Hartsfield and Resnek because they’ve moved beyond the conservative point-grubbing that plagues the rest of us to something more exciting and innovative. Hughes has reached that point, striving for a ten at the expense of the nine. To lose a closing to someone with superior rhetoric may be disheartening, but having your ass handed to you by a guy who pops balloons, does cartwheels, and plays with floaty toys would drive you to drink. Just ask Patrick Diamond.

    If Caress has “hit his stride,” it’s only because he’s back to stomping around the courtroom for nine minutes. Granted, it’s been a while since I’ve seen him close (considering that he was opening back at the Downtown), but unless something significant has changed about his style, he probably still has a serious volume problem. His voice not only goes to 11, but it stays there for the whole closing. Many attorneys have a problem being over-aggressive towards witnesses or disrespectful towards the judge, but Caress seems to have something against the jury. Every time I’ve seen him close, he walks right up to the jury box and then screams his head off. Considering how many teams bring tissue boxes for their crying Dawsons and Hopsons, if Caress is indeed closing again, he should consider offering tissues to the jury members so they can wipe the spittle off their faces. A great closing attorney has tonal versatility and the ability to generate drama in the courtroom, but Caress often confuses passion with projection. Until he learns how to use his inside voice, he’s not untouchable.

    I’ve spent plenty of time on Wallace before, so I’ll leave it at this: all he ever has going for him is consistency. At his best, he’s a bowl of warm, firm porridge. If he’s lost his consistency, then he’s a bowl of cold, runny porridge.

    Neil Thakor did not earn a bid to Nationals. I sure hope Irvine’s B team can find room for him.

    Doug “Falafel” Haefele is the epitome of the calm, reserved attorney. He’s the handful of raisins to Wallace’s normally lukewarm oatmeal. If you put the two of them at the same counsel table, you’d have the human embodiment of Ambien or, alternatively, both parts of a balanced breakfast. If Wallace is elite, then so is Doug.

    Neither O’Connor nor Nayak nor Bhansali will be making a trip to Minnesota this spring. Whatever they’ve got going for them, it’s not rubbing off on their teammates. The most mature expression of skill is the ability to teach it and none of these three have reached that level. Another attorney skill that these rankings often over look is general storytelling, the capacity to weave together a coherent narrative throughout a case. Based on the success of Northwestern, Yale, and Santa Cruz, personal performance seems to have trumped team performance. That’ll earn you individual recognition, but it won’t get you to the NCT.

    Andy Tran is a man of action. Since moving down to Irvine’s B team, he has starred in 30,000 films and earned a PhD in kicking your ass. Now Dr. Tran has earned himself a bid to Nationals and if Irvine does not let him tag along to Minnesota, we will all miss the hot dickings he would otherwise pass out. Also, a double attorney award at the Bloodbath Beach ORC is nothing to scoff at. Just ask Neil Thakor.

    Finally, I would like to echo my niece and nephew in saying to all those who object to the subjectivity of these rankings, “Go fuck yourself.” Seriously, if the lack of data in these analyses keeps you up at night, especially when we’re talking about an activity scored according to the same standards of objectivity as rhythmic gymnastics and ice dancing, then chronic masturbation would clearly be a better use of your time. I know I prefer it.

    Can’t wait to shower my insight all over the witness rankings too. Till then, toodle-loo!
    I almost never elect to respond directly to anything in public posts, though frequently respond to people via PM. Here, however, I wanted to at least make a few points.

    The reason I made tiers is that not all rankings are made equal. What I mean is that being "top 10" isn't always the same. Take Haefele or Ballesteros. Both are in my "top ten", but, in my opinion, both are not in the same type of class as, say Wallace and Hughes. The tiers were mostly designed to provide a bit more insight into what I mean when I rank an attorney. I often, much to your dismay, heap praise on Thakor, but a post like this is designed to demonstrate that as much as I like him, I still find him performing strictly lower than Wallace, Caress, Hughes. Whereas, while he is ranked 1 spot behind Cull, I could see him out perform Cull head to head. Also, before you chime back in and point out that most anyone on this list could out perform anyone else on a given day, I know that, this is a subjective activity, I suppose my rankings are somewhere between the hypothetical where I am the judge and a projection of likelihood.

    In general, the tier distinction is based on average number of weaknesses. Tier one attorneys basically have none; tier two attorneys probably only have 1 area they are not "elite" at doing; tier three probably have 2 areas they are not elite at, and so on. Sure, it is arbitrary and vague to some degree, but the point is to bring more clarity to what it means when I say Haefele is 10 or Thakor is 5.

    Your description of Caress seems to be a description of Block. Any chance you were so drunk you mixed up the smooth talking, polite Caress with the person you previously noted would be the worst attorney in the country at cross examining Hopson?

    Wallace has much more than that going for him. His ability destroy a witness on cross examination is very impressive. He is, no question, better at cross examination than Hughes, who you hail as the best attorney in AMTA. Wallace also, unquestionably, gives amazing statements. Finally, I agree that consistency is usually a stepping stone to finding another gear, but for Wallace, his consistency is basically nothing but 9s and 10s, so unless you think he can get an 11, I'd say his "consistency" is working just fine.

    I think perjuries, and I know I, would be interested in a detailed and drunken analysis why you hate Neil Thakor or what he ever did to you?

    Andy Tran has impressed since moving down. I've been one of his biggest critics, and I conceded he could be in position to make a huge jump.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •