iRubric: Mock Trial Research & Proceedings Rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Mock Trial Research & Proceedings Rubric

Research real-world historical case in detail including individual roles, from judge, attorneys, witnesses, bailiff/court clerk, & accused. Legal terms & objections are understood. Socratic Questioning Techniques is employed to generate questions. Students complete self & peer evaluations, Everyone participates in the verdict & sentencing electronically based on a majority not a unanimous finding. Post class discussion on how & why our results differed from the original case occurs.

Rubric Code: LXABA7X

By dwisniewski

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: English

Type: Assessment

Grade Levels: 6-8

Famous Mock Trial Research of the Case Reserarch in Depth Assigned Role Trial Comportment Concise notes & Index Card Use of Socratic Questioning to exhaust all potential questions
	Superior Knows the case thoroughly Not only knows everything about their role/character but knows how they interacted with others in the case, what they saw and how it all fits together. 4 pts	Good Knows the case and their role. May have not discovered additional details about the individual they portray in the case. 3 pts	Fair Has a good understanding of the overview of the case and what it refers to in a court of law. Has not researched their part beyond the information distributed initially by the instructor at the onset of the process. 2 pts	Poor Did not complete or lost index card with succinct points about their role in the trial, their point of view, and their personality, attitude and relationship with others in the case. 1 pts
Character Research Research and Preparation	Superior Evidence and research of the case and individual role in the case are flawless. Answers given were historically consistent. Able to answer all of the attorneys' questions with accuracy and detailed responses. Attorneys exhausted all potential and relevant questions. The judge handled objections appropriately and bailiff knew his part thoroughly and kept the trial moving forward.	Good Evidence and research of the case and individual role accurate. Attorneys asked relevant questions and provided sufficient evidence and charges to make a determination in the case. The judge was fairly adept at handling objections. The bailiff kept the proceedings moving forward without much prompting.	Fair Evidence of research for case and individual role is questionable because when asked questions by the attorneys the person was unable to answer questions by transferring what they did know into new situations. Attorneys did not ask sufficient questions to obtain all the info they needed to know to get a conviction or a dismissal in the case. The judge was confused as to how to handle objections. The bailiff had to be prompted on a number of occasions.	Poor Lack of research about the case and individual role was evident. False witness statements were given that ensured perjury occurred under oath. It made it difficult for the jury to make a fair verdict. The attorneys and or the judge were ill prepared which held up progress on a daily basis in the case. Process was not smooth, frustrated classmates and produced inaccurate assumptions put forth as truths.
Trial Format Opening Statements by Attorneys Prosecution always goes first Direct Examination always precedes Cross Examination or Redirects Judge's decisions prevail Closing Arguments	Superior Students understood their position in the trial, in the case, and in the crime and is well-prepared to answer all questions in depth.	Good Students understood their position in the trial, the case, and the crime and is prepared to answer questions but could not respond with reliability, making connections or give in depth responses.	Fair The student understood their role, the case, and the crime but did little to prepare for questions beyond the traditional surface direct examination background information.	Poor The student did little to understand their position in the trial, the case and the crime. They did not delve into the individual they portrayed in the trial and based all of their answers on the intial affidavit provided them the first week of the process. No connections were made.
Oral Presentation Follows Public Speaking Skills	Superior Displayed excellent speaking voice, made eye contact and stayed in character the entire time, portrayed both historical accuracy and depth of character.	Good Portrayed character with a good speaking voice, made eye contact, stayed in character and was able to provide details that were historically accurate.	Fair Student answered questions presented by the attorneys but did not appear to be convincing and lacked definitive depth of knowledge.	Poor Student mumbled and was unsure of their answers. They mixed up their role, did not connect themselves to the crime or other witnesses.
Cooperation	Superior Student took a leadership role in the trial, and helped coordinate with other members to deliver a great performance that was true to the case and delivered an appropriate verdict and sentencing.	Good Student added to the proceedings by being prepared individually, and coordinating with other witnesses to discover connections between individuals in the case.	Fair Student cooperated and listened to the trial proceedings throughout but did not transfer what they heard to be better prepared as a member of the team that either convicted or helped to find the accused innocent.	Poor The student did not work with others to better their personal performance nor did they listen to the proceedings so that they could see the importance their character played in the trial and the crime.
After Trial Reflection Element Journal Entries Self and Peer Evaluations Verdict & Sentencing Legal Quiz	Superior Answers questions and evaluations that determine whether or not the outcome of the trial was accurate. Did the re-telling of events portray the culture and historical period of the original case.	Good Completes self and peer evaluations with fidelity. Students document legal terms, procedures and objections with a sound understanding of how a trial functions. The role of the judge, the attorneys and the value of the witnesses and accused statements. Notes whether or not the trial followed true information from the original case and that the determination in the case only changed based on cultural changes that have taken place in society since the original trial.	Fair Journal entries on how a trial functions. Some legal terms are described. Some self and Peer Evaluations are submitted. The verdict & sentencing is questionable based on individual lack of understanding of terms of sentencing or finding someone guilty or innocent.	Poor Journal Entries not evidenced. Self and or Peer Evaluations incomplete. Legal Quiz not completed. Verdict & Sentencing not substantiated by evidence presented in trial.

Subjects:

English

Types:

Discuss this rubric