What were the final scores in your scenario for prosecution and defense? What side were you on? What primarily helped your win or lose?

Transcription

1 Quiz name: Make Your Case Debrief Activity ( ) Date: 01/27/2016 Question with Most Correct Answers: #0 Total Questions: 8 Question with Fewest Correct Answers: #0 1. What were the final scores in your scenario for prosecution and defense? What side were you on? What primarily helped your win or lose? The final scores were 125 for the defendant and 133 for the plaintiff. I was on the plaintiff side. The process, explanations, and walk through helped a lot Defense its because i objected a statement incorrectly The final scores were 49 and 79, the defendant scored 49 and the plantiff scored 79. I was on the defendant side and I believe the questions that I've asked were not helping me win. I believe that I needed more evidence to back up my claim. 67 to 67 i was on the defense team. we were both at fault 151 to 130 i was for the prosecution what helped me lost was the objections and my defense closing argument Prosecution, 113, and the Defense was 125. I was on the defense. The objections and the questions I asked helped me win. The prosecution side had a score of 121 and the defense was 113. I was on the defense side. I believe that some of the questions I asked also some objections that I made throughout the trial. 115 on defense and 83 for prosecution. I was prosecution. What made me lose was that some of the options that they gave me both looked right to both of us but they turned out to not be the right choices. 1. Prosecution Defense to 92, i was on the defendents side,not enough evidence The score was 110 and 96.I was the defendant.i choiced the best questiones thats what made me win The final score for prosecution was 109 points and the defendants had 102 points. Therefore apparently, the plaintiff had one. I was sided with the defendant. What primarily led me to lose was the final argument sadly. Page 1 of 12

2 the final scores were 94 to 88 i was on the counsel for the plaintiff. Defense 102 Prosecution 109. I was on prosecution and I was behind by one point, but my closing argument allowed me to win , prosecution, that he wasnt paying attention to the road we both got 67. I played prosecution we were both at fault 88 defense,prosecution 95 I was the defense the thing that made me lose was the fact that she was on a bike. Prosecution 97 and Defense 80. I was on Prosecution and the evidence that the defendant gave to my questions helped me win i was on the defense side. asking him about his speed limit made me win plantiff the case facts Yang,Alan The final score was 86 for prosecution and 93 for defense. I was on the prosecution side. What made me loss was because I asked the wrong questions. Dan Lee The final for defense was 93 and the prosecution was 86. I was the defense side. I won because I was correctly look for the information and listening to the witnesses. The final scores were 151 by the defense to 130 by the plaintiff, I was on the defendants side and choosing the correct questions to ask and correct objections to object with. 115 on defense and 83 for prosecution. I was on the defense side. Remember the facts, asking trick questions and having her repeat her statement helped me win the case because in court she was giving different answers then she gave today in court. prosecution won the case, i was on the defense, i lost by the objections the defense was 88 and the counsel for plaintiff was Who is the most important person in the courtroom? Why? The most important person in the courtroom is the witness because the witness sees more than the plaintiff and defendant and they aren't being biased. The judge is the most important in the courtroom because he decides everything. Page 2 of 12

3 The most important person in the courtroom is the jury because they're the ones that makes the decision. They hear both side of the story and discuss which one is guilty or not. Both plantiff and defendant should convince the jury to believe their story. the jury because the decide what the verdict The most important person in the court room is the witnesses they tell the story of the case The witnesses are the most important, because you never know if they are lying, or if they have been paid off. The most important person in the courtroom is the attorneys because there job is to persuade the jury why their client if not guilty. The judged is the most important because they are the ones who know the law more then everyone else in the courtroom. I was because I was the one defending the defendant from a negligent cyclist the jury cause they decide who wins the case I think its the defendant because its weather he is lying or saying the true I think the most important person in the courtroom is the judge due to the fact that he/she is the one who chooses who wins the case and who has shown and brought more evidence into the courtroom. the most important person in the courtroom is jury because the jury decides whether the defendant or plaintiff is wrong at the end of the trial. I think the most important PEOPLE in a court room are the jury because they are the ones who decide if your guilty or not guilty plaintiff there would be no case without her the jury is the most important people because the pick the verdict Plaintiff because she was the one that got ran over. Defendant because he answered all questions truthfully. the jury because they choose who they know is innocent the Dan Lee Page 3 of 12

4 The juror because it's their job to decide who win the court case. The most important person in the courtroom is the key witness like the defendant or the the plaintiff that can make them selves sound guilty or the other person. The judge is more important. judge because he has to be fair The judge is because he is the one the one that has ultimate power. 3. Describe the strategies (plans of action) used by each legal team. They attacked the simplest thing to capture the jury. Also the questions asked were all simple that caused more clarification when the opponent answered. Defense tries to answer question from the plaintiff. The actions used by each legal team is by asking questions to the plantiff and the defendant, backing it up with evidence to prove their claim. Then ask any witnesses that were around the scene and try to convince the jury to believe their story. they were a lot of strategies on the case Call up a witness and question them read their statement and see how they react to the questioning be sure to make the witness strengthen their side They both had to ask the right questions, use objections, and ultimately confuse the witness. Each legal team had a great opening statement and each of them had questions when re-directing a witness that caused doubt in the witnesses To persuade the jury to your side of the argument and to take down everything that the other side says. Truthfully I think my strategy of objecting to almost everything my strategies was to make them be on the defendents side I am not to sure about this The strategies used by each legal team was to try and confuse the witness in order for them to testify something they weren't suppose to say or admit. Page 4 of 12

5 we both read the questions and listened to the whole trial carefully. The defense mostly rode on the defendants speeding and him not keeping his eyes on the road. The prosecution mostly rode on how the plaintiff was not wearing reflective gear and how she didn't stop at the stop sign. defense tried to make it the plaintiffs fault, prosecution focused on how the defendant took his eyes off the road asked trick questions were you can tell both teams were getting a little upset Picked the right questions to ask the opponent. My strategy was to try to turn everything around against the defendant. my plan of action was to make him admit that he was speeding and not paying attention. defense tried to prove innocence the plantiff tried to prove guilty Dan Lee We both try very hard on this case and we did good or okay on this case. The defendants side tried to make the plaintiff sound negligent and that it was her fault by not wearing safety clothing and not stopping at the stop sign. The prosecution side tried to make the defendant extremely distracted. To persuade the jury to your side of the argument and to break down anything the other side says. objections I tried to give evidence from the plaintiffs side 4. Is there other evidence that would have been useful for the lawyers to present? What would it have been and how would it have been useful? I think the lawyers presented everything possible. more eye witnesses Well I think one evidence would be that if there were any cameras around the scene that happened between Winter's and Ramirez besides the witnesses that were around. That would of been very useful for the lawyers to present. no. no Page 5 of 12

6 the other witness who seen the accident, but she did not show up to the court nor did they know who she was No, the evidence provided was good enough and helped me win the case. I believe that some evidence that could've been used to in court would've been camera surveillance tapes to show exactly what happened without anyone lying. If the apartment across the streets have a camera that could be useful. The other person that was there could of been used as a witness. Lastly, how much damage the car and the bike had. the missing witness who left the scene without permission evidence proving that she caused the accident many things she said she thought of it and wasnt sure what she was saying.for example when she said she stop for 2 seconds but she said she waved and looked for cars and that doesnt take 2 seconds I think it would have been a bright idea if would have had the other lady who had left to be another witness against the plaintiff because Oshima did mention that the lady was sided with the defendant. other witnesses would be a lot more useful. I think the prosecution could have said something about how the neighbors statement could have been bias considering she knew the plaintiff, and if they would have gotten the unknown witnesses name, her statement could have been more valid since she did not know neither the defendant nor the plaintiff the other witness would have been useful no If Ms.Plaintiff stopped and checked both sides she shouldn't had got ran over. The other witness that was not shown. She/he would've helped because they seen no there was no other evidence that would have been useful. any other eye witnesses The missing witness would have been very useful because she would have much clearer accounts of what actually happened. Page 6 of 12

7 The fact that her witness happens to be her neighbor and she says that she seen her stop at the stop sign then says she didnt see her put her feet down off the peddles you cant stop at a stop sign and not take your feet down. Not only that she stated that she's not sure if she made a complete stop at the stop sign. No not really the case was fine If the defendant was paying attention and was "going the speed limit" like he claim he was, why didn't he slow down?? 5. Are there other questions you would have asked the witnesses who testified? What other question (questions) would you have asked the witnesses who testified? I would have asked the defendant why he kept getting so defensive What was the plaintiff wearing on the bicycle to get hit. No there would be no further questions. no i would of ask the neighbor where did she see the car stop and the guy if he was more concern about his date than driving safe No, the questions were fine. No I have no other questions that I would've asked the witnesses that testified. Did the defendant see you? Were there any cameras around? Why Didn't you stop at the stop sign Mrs. Winters no all the questions that was asked was good Did she see her do a complete stop on the stop on sign If I were to ask several to other questions to the witness, I would have asked Ms. Winters if when she had stopped at the stop light did she look left, right, and then left? Was she paying attention to her surroundings when she saw Oshima and said hi to her? in the game the questions were accurate. The neighbor if her statement was based on the person she was actually familiar of, I would have kept pressing the defendant on his being late to his date, and I would have kept asking about why the plaintiff lied under oath Page 7 of 12

8 there are no questions that i would have asked no Did she see the car, was he going in a high speed in a road of 25 speed? Honestly, I wouldn't really ask anymore questions but to the person that was the other witness too. No. There are no other questions i wanted to ask the witness. Was Mr. Ramirez speeding? what was the plantiff wearing during the accident I would have asked did she come to a complete stop or not ans if she said she did then i would have asked her why did the witness say she didn't. Another question I would have asked the defendant is did he feel safe before coming up upon the accident. No, I wouldn't have asked any other questions. why didnt she wait a little longer at the stop sign i would've asked Mrs. Oshima if the defendant tried to slow down. 6. What part did you play in the trial? Explain how you felt about this role. I plaid the lawyer of the plaintiff. I feet like I'm familiar with the role now Defendant I felt nervous when i was the defendant The part that I played in the trial is the defendant, being the defendant was kind of interesting at first in the beginning as I was playing but then as the case went on I kind of felt that the plantiff had more good evidence to prove her story to be true and being the defendant was a challenging role to play. i played s the defendant lawyer. it was a good role prosecution my role was to help her pay for the damage but did not win i did not like my role I played the defense lawyer. It was easy to defend someone that did not do anything wrong. I played the plaintiff and I felt like I now understand more clearly the point in creating doubt with the witnesses. Page 8 of 12

9 I plaid the prosecutor. I felt strongly on the role at first, but after they gave me trick questions that both me and my partner thought i should of got point on, i started to dislike my role. I was the defense attorney defendent,and i felt good about playing defendent cause i was able to make the charge go down 30% The defendant it was great I played the defendant in the trial and I felt that it was the plaintiff's fault. I felt that Ramirez had the right-a-way since he didn't have a stop sign ahead of him. i played the counsel for the plaintiff. I was the prosecution attorney, I liked it because that is what I want to be when I get older i was prosecution i like being on prosecution defendant and i felt like her argument was reasonable if the guy wouldnt of been in a hurry or on his phone and payed attention to the road nothing would of happened I was the defendant I like that role because you get to find clues on how to bring the prosecution down. I played on the Prosecution side and i felt confident that I was going to win because i M. i felt like i was a real lawyer arguing the case for my client. plantiff. i felt good because i knew he was innocent from the start I played the defendants lawyer and I felt like this role was very important to the outcome and that I played an honest role in finding the truth and rightful outcome. I played the defense role. I felt very confident about my role, because i had a lot of facts and knew how to use them against the other side and take down anything the other side had to say. defense i felt good trying to help someone not get acused of something that was not truly all there fault I played the Counsel for the Defendant, I liked it because there was a lot of evidence that showed the defendant was neglected. 7. What is the most important thing you learned by participating in the Mock Trial? Page 9 of 12

10 The most important thing is to think through how you are going to answer your questions because its hard to not contradict yourself and often its going to happen. Learning all the steps in the trial. By participating in the Mock Trial I've learned that many things are going on in the courtroom for instance like talking and backing it up with some evidence also arguing against the opponent to prove that you're right also convincing the jury as well. that it take a lot of hard skills to be a lawyer know your objection it helps with opposing your opponent I learned that it takes forever, and people talk to much, and I couldn't do it in real life. The most important thing that I have learned in participating in the Mock Trial is that you have to persuade the jury to think in favor of the person you are defending. The most important thing i learner was that using objections is really hard to do. I learned how to use the other sides evidence against them i been learning a lot about court very fun I think that the most important thing by participating in the Mock Trial was that I gained more knowledge of it and what is going on. I think it gave me a more understanding of the term "objection" and how to use it. to listen carefully and to answer in complete sentences and accurately. To listen to every little detail because it will help you that confusing witnesses is they key have questions that make the other team think twice and if they get upset is because your doing something right I learned to object at some times to bring the prosecution down. How it actually is in court during a trial. one of the most important thing i learned was if you are organized you will win. Page 10 of 12

11 you have to pay attention to the case facts The most important thing I learned was getting familiar with the type of objections. That you need to focus on the facts and not opinions. that questions can make or break you You have to gather all the evidence in order to show if he's guilty or not, so you're not wasting your time or anyone else 8. Discuss the verdict in the case: Do you think it was fair? Why or why not? I think the verdict was fair and it was thoroughly analyzed. Yes it was because i obviously hit her I believe that it was fair because it proved that it was an accident they were both side distracted and it was very dark at the time. the verdict said we were both at fault. yes because we they both did see if people or cars were crossing no i dont think it was fair i could of ask for more questions Yes, the verdict was fair. The defense deserved to win. I believe the verdict was fair because both of them were responsible for the accident that happened. They were both careless and negligent on the road and them getting blamed for the irresponsibility of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant is fair. I think is was fair because the plaintiff didn't do a good job at selling her story. I think it was fair the man only had to pay 20% less i dont think it was fair because t was more evidence on how the plaintiff caused the accident yes because I was right on everything I don't think that their final result was fair. I think that they should have discussed more about it due to the fact that Ms. Winters did look suspicious when she was up for witness. She kept admitting some stuff however she would repeatedly say "I think" or "I guess." Page 11 of 12

12 i don't think it was fair because the jury gave their own comments because they said "i think" before they gave the jury's opinion. Yes, since I feel they were both some what at fault, his fine should have been reduced so she isn't just getting the benefits i believe the verdict is fair i dont feel it was fair he as a driver of many years like he said should have not been on the phone or in z hurry since he said he is only on time to things that matter to him The defendant has to pay 40% of the damaged made which was $400+ something I think it seemed pretty fair because like they said before, the defendant was talking on the phone and was speeding when the accident occurred. Yes i do think it was fair. the driver of the car was not paying attention also while speeding.. yes he obviously hit her I don't think it was fair, the defendant shouldn't have paid any money to the plaintiff. Yes, I think the verdict case is fair because there was a lot of things the plaintiff did wrong. She wasn't following the rules and she clearly did not stop at the stop sign. No because we didnt have the other witness that said winter did not stop at the stop sign I think taking off 40% was not fair because the money she was getting was not enough for the expenses. Page 12 of 12