iRubric: Mock Trial Rubric --- Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The concept of the "objection" seems completely lost on the attorney. Objections seem 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.

The attorney did extensive research on case, rehearsed testimony and questions with witnesses several times, prepared evidence, and studied all materials. Classroom time was extensively used in preparing.

The attorney did some research on case, rehearsed testimony and questions with witnesses briefly, did not prepare evidence well, and did not study materials given adequately. Classroom time was not used as effectively as it could to prepare.

The attorney read the case file but did little research to aid his/her case. Witnesses were not prepared adequately to anticipate opposition questions during cross-examination. Classroom time was not used effectively.

No effort was made to understand or prepare for this case.