24 Carat Advice on Trial Advocacy Moot Courts:

Interview with the Surana Stars of the Symbiosis Team

October 18, 2013 2 comments

Neeati Narayan recently caught hold of the winning Symbiosis Pune team of the
Surana and Surana National (South) Trial Advocacy Moot Court Competition,
2013.
The team comprised of Speakers Pranav Menon and Gayatri
Pradhan and Researchers Soumo Palit and Ameya Pant.
Below are the excerpts of the interview along with some fabulous tips for first time
mooters and people to want to go for Trial Advocacy competitions apart from
Moots.
1. Hey guys, congratulations on your victory! Basic questions first, what made
you choose the moot in the first place?
I think what really attracted me to the moot is the fact that it was a ‘mock trial’ so
it was actually nothing like an ordinary moot so I thought it would be a
nice experience.
Pranav: I think what really attracted me to the moot is the fact that it was a ‘mock
trial’ so it was actually nothing like an ordinary moot so I thought It would be a
nice experience.
Also the fact that I always wanted to have a real courtroom experience by giving
closing arguments and cross examining witnesses, I felt it could be fun!
Gayatri: I think it was the challenge of trying something entirely new, like a mock
trial, as opposed to its better-known counterpart, viz a moot court.
Soumo: Thank you very much. I was doing my 3rd moot and I thought of taking
a different moot this time. I have heard from my seniors who had participated in
Trial Advocacy Competitions and I thought Surana & Surana Trail Avocacy would
be a different experience and a good option to explore.
Ameya: I chose to be a part of this moot because of the competition and the
prestige involved with it.
The second trigger was the moot problem which captivated my psyche.
2. How was the process of preparation? How did you go about the entire stage?
Pranav: When it came to the memo, we were slightly confused as to how to go
about it since all the facts of the trail are yet to be admitted into evidence.
But later we realized that the memorial would be the one place in the competition
wherein we could make our legal arguments rather than our factual arguments so
we just made it accordingly.
The most difficult thing to do above all for a Trail Advocacy Moot would be the
briefing.
You have to brief your witnesses in such a bullet proof manner so that the
opposing counsel does’t have an opportunity to poke a hole in their story, this
becomes particularly painful when briefing the Investigation Officer or the
Medical Witnesses, but if you brief the witness properly, your case becomes much
stronger.
Soumo: It was very different and quite exciting from other moots i worked earlier.
In Trial Advocacy you have to be thorough with Pre-Trial procedure…so we read
up upon almost everything that’s happens in a real trial.
Also the format of pleading was entirely different so it took us some time to
understand this.
Hardly any of us knew the proper procedure so we asked our Senior Strategists,
plus we also took help from practicing lawyers to refine our examination and
cross-examination part.
We used to take help from our friends who pose as one of the witnesses, we would
prepare them , brief them about the case and their role in it and then both Pranav
and Gayatri would examine and Cross- examine them to find any loopholes in the
story line.
Ameya: I think the process didn’t really start till 10 days after we were allotted the
moot.
Our process was planned out by our strategist “The” Ranjeet Matthew Jacob.
We split up the issues offence wise – dacoity for the researchers and Murder for
the Speakers.
Each meeting it was worked out as to what the flaws were and what was required
to be put in the memo and what wasn’t.
I think this was my first moot where the speakers were more active than the
researchers in the memo making process. Amazing guys both of them are.
Hardly any of us knew the proper procedure so we asked our Senior Strategists,
plus we also took help from practicing lawyers to refine our examination and
cross-examination part.
3. How was it like working with the team? What do you think are your team’s
fortes? What were the roadblocks?
Pranav: I think the team worked really well with one and other, we all had good
synergy.
The road blocks that came up was the times in which we were practicing when a
witness completely changed his/ her story which made the cross examination a
dead end.
We didn’t have any roadblocks as a team per se.
Gayatri: The whole team was on the same page when it came to any aspect of
preparation- especially memorials and briefings.
Small things like mock- examining and crossing the other persons’ witnesses,
really helped along the way.
Our forte was the communication between the team. It was really important,
considering the format of the competition. I was really glad of the fact that we
didn’t need to cross-check each-other’s work at every stage of the competition.
Soumo: Both Gayatri and Pranav had a good chemistry between them. Pranav was
brilliant in his closing statements and Gayatri had a very good knowledge in
Forensics Science so it helped us making a good line of questions for the opposing
counsels.
Also we had Ameya Pant as one of the two Researcher who was equally
knowledgeable his inputs was indispensable.
Ameya: Both of the speakers were extremely talented in drafting and pleadings.
Gayatri needs to relax more but as a mooter she’s sheer brilliance.
Pranav, according to me, is officially the best closer in Symbi- even headed and
confident, but most importantly a damn funny guy.
Gayatri had a very good knowledge in Forensics Science so it helped us making a
good line of questions for the opposing counsels.
4. How many teams were you up against in the competition? Which team would
you consider to be your toughest competition?
Pranav and Gayatri: Since it was a direct Prelims to Semis competition we went
up against 4 teams in total.
I think when it comes to the toughest competition, it would be hard to say since
both SASTRA School of Law (Who we went up against in the Semi’s) and ILS (who
we had gone up against in the Finals) were both equally good since they both had
strong speakers on the their team, one of the members of the SASTRA team had won
best advocate in last year’s trial advocacy.
SASTRA was excellent when it came to cracking their witnesses. They had done a
great job at briefing. I had to really pull out all tricks from the bag, so to speak, to
even create a dent in their story line.
5. How was the final round up against ILS?
Pranav: Difficult, to say the least. They briefed their witnesses really well and
made it very difficult to crack them. They also knew their Court procedure very
well, so the round could have gone either way by the end of it.
Gayatri: ILS, Pune was the Prosecution and we were the defence. They had really
briefed their witnesses like we had done ours, so it was like as going up against
yourself.
Plus, they had come up with new things in their opening, like adding a new
charge. So to come up with valid grounds for a rebuttal/objection, seconds before
our opening was a real challenge.
The humorous witnesses were another awesome aspect of the rounds. All in all, it
was a good round.
6. What message would you like to pass on to the mooters and the non-mooters?
If you didn’t like it, no harm no foul!
Pranav: As idealistic as it would sound, do your prep well and go with a positive
mind, and if you’ve really done enough work you’ll definitely do well.
And to everyone who hasn’t mooted before, you should give mooting a try at least
once in your law college life just to see whether it’s a good fit.
If you didn’t like it, no harm no foul!
Gayatri: One must try a mock trial at least once, to get a feel of what it may be
actually like to practise litigation. It is so different from a moot court and a lot of
fun.
The research involved is so different and unique in itself. Who knew that learning
basics of ballistics and forensic science could be so much fun.
The best part of it is the drama involved. Its great to see people being so dramatic
as witnesses- sarcastic/funny/ witty. And the 70′s movie-like feel of the court
room-complete with ‘Objections’ ‘Over-ruled’ ‘Sustained’ and the works! Highly
recommended for every law student!
Ameya: If you’re a mooter – strive for excellence and you’ll win one day definitely.
If you’re a non-mooter – I suggest you moot, you don’t know what you’re missing
out on, it’s great fun.
Soumo: To any non-mooters- You guys do as many moots as possible because I
think in a Law School/ College moots are the best way to enjoy as well as learn
new things.
A moot always gives you opportunity to do something out of books as it gives you
practical experience. Furthermore, it forces you to learn something that you may
not learn in ordinary course of your Syllabus and Curriculum.
A person can be a good debtor but not necessarily he would a good mooter and
that’s because Moot aims on your both Pleading Skills as well as Researching Skills
and your Drafting Skills as well.
In this I would love to quote what my seniors told me in my first moot, “And don’t
fear defeat, you do moot not just to win it, but you do it because you love to do it. Giving
your best shot you always come out knowing something new and that’s what matters in
the end and that alone is your trophy. The Experience.”
One must try a mock trial at least once, to get a feel of what it may be actually
like to practise litigation. It is so different from a moot court and a lot of fun.