Witness Rubric

Beginning Developing Accomplished Exemplary

Score
1 2 3 4
Student did very little Student had to be reminded several
Student worked well but Student worked during
Class work. He/she had to be times to work. He/She had a
had to be reminded a few class at all times
Participation reminded repeatedly to continue tendency to talk instead of
times to work. without being told to.
working. working.
Notes on Trial
Notes were not taken in Notes were taken but missing very Notes were missing just a Notes were complete
Procedures and
preparation for the trial. important information. few parts. and useful.
Case

Courtroom Excellent Good Poor

Presentation 3 2 1
Student was well prepared.
Spoke loudly
and clearly.
Dressed
appropriately
Used proper courtroom
etiquette.
Followed trial procedures.

Jury Rubric
 Developing Accomplished Exemplary
Beginning Score
2 3 4
1
Student did very little Student had to be reminded
Student worked well but had to
Class work. He/she had to be several times to work. He/She Student worked during class at
be reminded a few times to
Participation reminded repeatedly to had a tendency to talk instead all times without being told to.
work.
continue working. of working.

Paper was less than Paper was satisfactory. There Paper was well written. No
Student did not put forth
Jury satisfactory. Many were several errors. All grammar, spelling and/or
any effort required for
Duty Summary errors. Questions were not questions were answered but punctuation errors. Answered
this paper.
answered appropriately. not completely. all questions completely.
Notes were useful and
Trial Notes were not taken Notes were missing a few
Notes were incomplete. complete. Useful in
Notes during the trial. parts.
determining a verdict.

Lawyer Rubric
Excellent
10 pts
Opening Excellent
Argument
Attorney is completely at ease with
the jury. Does not appear nervous;
does not use notes. Moves away from
podium. Uses easily comprehensible
language with voice inflection and eye
contact. Tells the jury what s/he
expects it to do. Thanks the jury. Very
polished.
Good
8 pts
Good
Attorney may be a bit nervous
in front of the jury or maybe
uses notes from time to time.
Stands at the podium. A bit of a
Monotonous voice, some eye
contact. Argument is
comprehensible. Mostly
polished, with a few guffaws.
Average
7 pts
Average
Very nervous in front of the
jury; perhaps because s/he
is unprepared. Heavy
dependency on notes.
Stands at podium. Voice is
very monotonous; eye
contact is rarely used.
Argument is confusing, and
the presentation in general
is flawed.
Poor
6 pts
Poor
The attorney is completely unprepared.
Notes used almost constantly.
Completely monotonous voice tone and
no eye contact. The jury seems very
confused through no fault of its own.
Direct Excellent
Examination
The attorney clearly leads (without
leading in a legal sense) witnesses
through the facts to which they
testify. Uses physical and verbal
evidence from both witnesses and
experts effectively and prudently.
Constructs a very strong case for the
jury. Easily audible. Excellent eye
contact.
Cross Excellent
Examination
Asks questions related only to
evidence introduced by opposing
counsel. By doing so, effectively
disproves at least one key piece of
evidence that opposing counsel
argues. OR appropriately does not
cross examine witnesses or experts.
Excellent voice / excellent eye
contact.
Use of Excellent
Objections
Objections are used with a high
degree of efficacy and accuracy. They
are used not only as defense to refute
opposing counsel's case, but also to
draw attention to unstated fact /
opinion. Strong voice and eye-
contact.
Closing Excellent
Argument
The attorney effectively summarizes
his/her key points AND helps to
dismantle opposing counsel's case.
Attorney charges the jury with a
responsibility. Speaks with confidence;
strong voice / strong eye contact.
Good
The attorney for the most part
leads (without leading in the
legal sense) witnesses through
the facts to which they testify
with only one or two procedural
errors. May miss the
introduction of some evidence
into the court record, though
these are minor elements that
do not blow the case. Good eye
contact, good voice.
Good
Questions stray once or twice
from testimony, facts, and
evidence. Disproves at least
one key piece of evidence but
decision to not cross-examine
may seem questionable. Good
voice / good eye contact.
Good
Objections are made with a
moderate degree of efficacy
and accuracy. However, the
attorney's may make a mistake
in two in the assignment of
causation for the objection.
Strong voice / strong eye
contact.
Good
Good summary of his/her case
but does not adequately attack
opposing counsel. Maybe
forgets to charge the jury.
Good voice / good eye contact.
Average
The attorney seems
unprepared. Fumbles over
words, seems unnecessarily
nervous. Misses introducing
key pieces of evidence, that
may or may not have
resulted in losing the case.
Voice is weak / monotonous.
Eye contact is poor.
Average
Questions mostly do not
refer to the testimony, facts,
and/or evidence previously
submitted. By not cross-
examining, key facts are left
unchallenged. Somewhat
monotonous voice / limited
eye contact.
Average
Objections seem to be made
with little legal
consideration. Or objections
are not made when they
should be - more than three
times. Good voice / good
eye contact.
Average
The attorney seems
unprepared in general and
does not use good
presentation technique and
style including voice and eye
contact.
Poor
Attorney is clearly and completely unprepared.
Attorney seems unaware of evidence and in all
likelihood loses the case for the state or his/her
client. Monotonous voice and little= to-no eye
contact.
Poor
Questions are all sustained via objection
as they attempt to introduce new evidence
that was missed during direct. Refusal to
cross-examine results in the opposing
counsel's almost assured victory. Poor
voice / poor eye contact.
Poor
The concept of the "objection" seems
completely lost on the attorney. Objections
seems to be made for the sake of making
them. Or objections are not being used
and opposing counsel is getting facts into
evidence that should not be. Poor voice /
poor eye contact.
Poor
The attorney is most clearly unprepared,
stumbling over words and/or ideas. Little
thought and planning with regards to
presentation technique. Overall, an
ineffective closing.
 Name: _______________________
Mock Trial Judge Rubric
• Superior understanding of rules and procedure is evident in rulings on objections.

100 •
•
Effective authoritative demeanor throughout.
Absolutely fair treatment of both parties.

5
• Kept good records.

94
• Verdict is clear, supported strongly by evidence, logically consistent, and
impartial.

• Competent understanding of rules and procedure is evident in rulings on

85 •
•
•
objections. Over-reliance on rule book sometimes delayed the proceed
ings.
Effective authoritative demeanor may be inconsistent.

4
• Absolutely fair treatment of both parties.
• Kept good records.
• Verdict is clear, supported strongly by evidence, logically consistent, and

78
impartial.

• Weakness in understanding of rules and procedure is evident in rulings on objections. Over-reliance on rule
book often delayed the proceedings.
• Effective authoritative demeanor was inconsistent.

71 •
•
•
Absolutely fair treatment of both parties.
Kept good records.
Verdict is mostly clear, supported by evidence, somewhat logically consistent, but impartial.

3 65
 • Serious weakness in understanding of rules and procedure is evident in rulings on objections.

• Over-reliance on rule book often delayed the proceedings.

2
• Ineffective authoritative demeanor impeded justice. May be some bias in treatment of parties.

58
• Kept good records.
• Verdict is unclear, supported weakly by evidence, may have logically in-
consistencies.
INFORMATION
There is no credit for tasks scoring below level 2. The rubric is on a five-point scale to parallel the NYS essay rubrics.

Bailiff
Excellent Above Average Average Poor
10 pts 8 pts 6 pts 4 pts
Active Excellent Above Average Average Poor
Involvement
Student is constantly engaged in Student is often engaged in trial activities. Student is often engaged in trial Student is not involved with the trial activity.
trial activity. Student does not Student could participate more in class activity. Student needs a Student needs constant reminders to get
need reminders to stay on task. activity, but is never causing a distraction. reminder to get back on task and back on task. Student is distracting to the
can be distracting to teacher and class as a whole.
classmates.

Knowledge Excellent Above Average Average Poor

Anticipates and follows courtroom Courtroom procedure is upheld. Follows standard courtroom Student does not follow standard
procedure. Student demonstrates procedures. Students courtroom procedures Student is
mastery of character demonstrates knowledge of unsure of role expected in trial process.
character.

Performance Excellent Above Average Average Poor

Student talks clearly, loud enough Student was loud enough most of the time. Student mumbled at times; spoke Student was difficult to hear. Student
for all to hear. Student has quietly some of the time. did not practice.
practiced for their part

Attitude Excellent Above Average Average Poor

Student is positive about the Student is positive about the activities Student is neutral about the Student has a negative attitude.
activities being learned in class and being done in class. activities. Student spreads mixed Student makes the experience bad
sets the example for students feelings around the class, both for others around him/her.
around him/her. positive and negative.
Work Excellent Above Average Average Poor
Product
Student clearly understands and Student needs prompting to complete trial Student is unsure as to their role Student has clearly not rehearsed or
performs role. tasks. in the trial process. engaged in learning about their role.