Mastering Competitive Debate

Introduction—Debate in School and Society. . . . . . . . . v

Unit 1—Debate BasicsChapter 1 Introduction to Competitive Debate . . . . . . 4Chapter 2 Debate Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Chapter 3 Where to Begin . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Chapter 4 Traditional Research Fundamentals . . . . . . 29Chapter 5 Electronic Research Fundamentals . . . . . . . 41Chapter 6 Recording and Filing Evidence . . . . . . . . 47Chapter 7 Argumentation Strategies . . . . . . . . . 59Chapter 8 Flowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Chapter 9 Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Unit 2—Understanding the AffirmativeChapter 10 Affirmative Debate Terms . . . . . . . . . 84Chapter 11 Preliminary Steps in Affirmative Case Construction . . 94Chapter 12 The Affirmative Need-Plan Case . . . . . . . 99Chapter 13 The Affirmative Comparative Advantage Case . . . 105Chapter 14 Miscellaneous Affirmative Case Types . . . . . 114Chapter 15 Writing the Affirmative Case . . . . . . . . 119

Unit 3—Understanding the NegativeChapter 16 Negative Debate Terms . . . . . . . . . . 136Chapter 17 Attacking the Affirmative Case:

Stock Issues Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 139Chapter 18 Attacking the Affirmative Plan . . . . . . . . 148Chapter 19 Developing a Negative Position . . . . . . . 157Chapter 20 Negative Adaptation to Affirmative Case Structures . . 162Chapter 21 The Negative Counterplan . . . . . . . . . 166

Unit 4—Defending Your PositionChapter 22 Basic Steps in Defending the Affirmative Case . . . 172Chapter 23 Advanced Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . 180Chapter 24 Negative Rebuttals . . . . . . . . . . . 188Chapter 25 Cross-Examination Techniques . . . . . . . . 191

Table of Contents

Mastering Competitive Debate Chapter 28—Mock Trial 221

Mock TrialAfter completing this chapter debaters will be able to:

1. Explain what a mock trial is.

2. Identify and describe the basic general rules of evidence and trialprocedure.

3. Demonstrate how to conduct a mock trial.

New Words and Phrases

affidavit direct examination mock trialcivil trial discovery overruledcriminal trial exhibit plaintiffcross-examination hearsay evidence redirect examinationdefendant interrogatories sustaineddepositions litigants

IntroductionThe role of public speaking and debate in courts of law can’t be overem-phasized. Virtually every skill and strategy used in competitive debate isapplicable to a trial. As a result, many students interested in competitivedebate and the law also participate in mock trial competitions. Manystates have such competitions, often associated with Law Day activities.In 1985, an annual national Mock Trial Tournament began and is held inMay each year. Mock trial cases for students of all ages are available.

A mock trial resembles an actual trial. It begins with a conflict or adispute that the parties are unable to resolve. Students are organized intoteams and take the role of either a witness or an attorney. Some mocktrials are reenactments of historical trials, and the students rely heavilyon scripts (see the American Bar Association’s “The Trial of John PeterZenger” as an example). In other instances, teams are given a hypothet-ical case that includes a set of stipulated facts, witness affidavits, and

Chapter

28

The training of lawyers

is a training in logic.

~Oliver Wendell

Holmes, Jr.

36510.MCD.Unit5.ins 4/7/04 10:06 AM Page 221

222 Chapter 28—Mock Trial Mastering Competitive Debate

exhibits related to the case. A statute related tothe dispute is also part of the case.Occasionally decisions about related courtcases are included. Cases for elementarystudents are based on fairy tales with charac-ters such as “Golden Locks” being sued by thethree bears for bad manners.

Most mock trials rely on basic rules ofevidence and procedure. One important featureof mock trial is that when you arrive at theactual stage of competition, only the materialsyou are given to start with will be used in thetrial. Unlike policy or Lincoln-Douglas debate,mock trials force you to concentrate on thespecific facts of a case and the given legalprecedents. It is from these sources alone thatyou must make your case.

Students compose opening statements andclosing arguments and prepare for direct exam-ination and cross-examination of witnesses.Participants learn the procedures for objectingto questions or testimony that violate the stan-dards for a fair trial. Judges offer decisionsbased on performance. Teachers, law students,lawyers, or actual judges serve as judges formock trials. Just as with other forms of debate,there are time limits for the competition. Thefollowing is one example of a format that takesapproximately two hours.

Opening Statements . . 4 min. for each side

Direct & Redirect Examinations . . 30 min.for three witnesses

Cross-Examinations . . . . 15 min. forthree witnesses

Re-cross is allowed

Closing Arguments. . 6 min. for each side

The purpose of this chapter is to provide anoverview of mock trial competition proce-dures. The first step is to develop anunderstanding of the unique vocabulary andbasic concepts used in a trial.

Who Are the Participants? Rather than the affirmative and negative, thetwo sides arguing against each other in a civilmock trial are called the plaintiff and thedefendant. The plaintiff is the personbringing the action or filing the lawsuit; thedefendant is the person being sued. Both arefrequently referred to as the litigants. In acriminal trial, the government, represented bya prosecutor, brings the action against adefendant, who has been accused of a crime.Each side in a mock trial is composed of ateam of attorneys and a set number ofwitnesses (usually three on each side). Theteams present their arguments to a judge or apanel of judges. A sample judging form isincluded in Appendix C. Judges may beasked to render two decisions: one on themerits of the case, declaring a winning side;the other on the way the cases were argued bydeclaring a winning team.

Civil and Criminal CasesA mock trial case can be either civil or crim-inal. There is an important differencebetween the two. In civil cases, a plaintiffwins by convincing a judge or by a “prepon-derance of evidence.” If the jury or judge is51% sure the plaintiff’s claim is true, theplaintiff wins. In a criminal case, the prose-cution must prove a defendant’s guilt“beyond a reasonable doubt.”



Discoveries, Interrogatories,Depositions, and Affidavits

Discovery is the name for the formal investiga-tion about the facts of a case. Interrogatoriesare the written questions that the litigants mustanswer under oath. Depositions are oral ques-tions asked under oath. The affidavit is thewritten statement of facts made under oath.

Conducting a Mock TrialMock trials follow an established procedure,beginning with opening statements and movingthrough direct examination, cross-examination,and ending with closing arguments.

Opening StatementsAfter the bailiff calls the case, the prosecutor ina criminal case or the plaintiff’s attorney in acivil case begins the mock trial by presenting anopening statement. This statement explains theissues, what the evidence will be, and what youhope to prove. The opening statement is impor-tant because it is your first opportunity topreview the case. Such a road map is important.

Defendants may choose to make an openingstatement immediately following the plaintiff’sor may wait until after the plaintiff haspresented all evidence and the defendant hascross-examined. It must be made before anydefense witnesses are called.

To begin an opening statement, say, “May itplease the court?” then introduce yourself,client, co-counsel, and witnesses. The openingstatement should set forth the issue, detail whatoccurred, summarize your evidence, and statethe relevant statute. You should also tell thejudge(s) specifically what you want in the wayof a decision.

The opening statement and the closing state-ment are the only two times during the trialyou will be allowed to make real speeches.Taken together, these 10 minutes are the mostimportant in the trial. It is at the beginningand the end of your presentation of the casethat you will have the most power to frametestimony, cast doubt, and challenge the otherside to overcome any obstacles to the deci-sion they want.

It is important to follow a general rule in youropening statement (and in your summation).M. Donna Ross, a coach of many championmock trial teams, calls the rule simply KISSfor “Keep it Simple Stupid” (Ross, An Openand Shut Case 13). Try to boil down complexstatutory and case-based facts into an easy tounderstand story. Just as in a policy ofLincoln-Douglas debate round, you must puteverything together in a cohesive and conciseway. Your arguments may be independentlystrong, but they mean nothing if they are notwell articulated and clearly explained.

Ross points out some common themes thatappear in both sides’ opening statements (AnOpen and Shut Case 13):

Prosecution—

1. MOM—The defendant had means,opportunity, and motive.

2. The defendant was the only one whocould have done it.

3. The preponderance of evidence points tothe accused.

4. The defendant is guilty beyond reason-able doubt.



Defense—

1. [My client is a] Victim of circumstance.

2. [My client was] Set up by others.

3. The real culprit could have beenanybody.

4. No credible evidence [exists].

In addition, Ross suggests a method for layingout your case in light of the above themes (AnOpen and Shut Case 13):

…Tease them—that is—T’s ’em. As youwalk through the…opening, tick off these t’s.

Theme

Timeline

Testimony

Target

Tie up

This simple approach is excellent in that it givesyou a way to present your case to anyone,regardless of how well versed they are in actuallaw or mock trial. You should try to “tease” thejudge(s) by introducing the important themespresented above and then by laying out thetimeline of factual events in your case. Makesure to forecast the important ways in whichyour witnesses’ testimonies will help proveyour case. You should then give the judge(s) atarget—tell what you want done. Then, tie it alltogether in a neat and easily digestible package.

Direct ExaminationFollowing the opening statements, witnessesare called to testify in direct examination.Other physical evidence is also introduced.Direct examination is your main opportunity toexplain your client’s version of events. It

consists of your client’s own testimony and thetestimony of your witnesses. A plaintiff callsthe first witness, asks questions, and then thedefendant cross-examines the witness. All ofthe plaintiff’s witnesses are called and cross-examined by the defendant’s attorneys beforethe defense calls any of the defense witnesses.The plaintiff has the opportunity to cross-examine all defense witnesses.

Advance preparation is necessary for effectivedirect examination. Outline your questionsand then rehearse each witness’s testimony.Like cross-examination in debate, this is not atime to make speeches. The story must unfoldfrom questions. It is usually advisable tobegin with background questions, and it isimportant to establish a witness’s personalknowledge of the facts.

Witnesses may not be asked leading questionsby the attorneys who call them. A leadingquestion suggests the answer to the witness.Direct questions should be phrased to elicit aset of facts. For example, “Ms. North, whendid you become acquainted with the defen-dant?” is an acceptable question. An exampleof a leading question might be, “Ms. North,you haven’t known the defendant for very long,have you?”

While the purpose is to get the witness to tell astory, questions must be specific and witnessesare not allowed to narrate. Narrative questionsare objectionable. An example of a narrativequestion might be: “Ms. Lane, what wentwrong with your job at the bank?”

Direct examination may cover only relevantfacts of which the witness has first-handknowledge. As a general rule, witnesses are notallowed to give opinions unless they are quali-



fied as “experts” or unless the opinion is basedon the common experience of laypersons in thecommunity. A witness must have personalknowledge about all to which he or she testifies.For mock trial purposes, evidence about awitness’s character may not be introduced unlessthe person’s character is an issue in the case.

If a witness is unable to recall a statementmade in the affidavit, the attorney may intro-duce the portion of the affidavit into evidencethat will help the witness remember. Anyfactual areas covered in direct examinationmay be subject to cross-examination.

There are some important things to take intoaccount when considering your witnesses.Ross puts witnesses into three categories(listed from most to least important) (Ross,Who Goes Where 17):

1. Big Yahoo (that’s the defendant orrespondent on defense and the keywitness or plaintiff on the other side).

2. Big Mouth (that’s the expert witness or atleast the one that seems to know it all).

3. Little Sidekick (that’s often a characterwitness and many times may be aliability to the side he’s supposed to betestifying for).

While being cast as a witness may not seem tobe as interesting or as challenging as being anattorney, witnesses play a crucial role in themock trial. Ross and others point out that sincemost of your judges will themselves be actualattorneys, “they tend to be overly impressedwith good witnesses—probably because theyare burdened by their own clients’ lack ofacceptable looks and speech” (Who GoesWhere 17).

It is important to treat witnesses in ways thatwill build on your case and diminish the otherside’s. To build credibility, always be sure tomake the court understand how qualified awitness is and therefore how solid their testi-mony is. Use formal titles to buildcredibility—if you have a highly qualifiedexpert, such as a scientist or a doctor, addressthem as such. Ross notes that if you wish tomake a colder, factual witness seem friendlieror accessible, you may want to downplay theircredentials and use first names or even nick-names (Getting Down to Cases 9).

Introducing Exhibits andPhysical EvidenceExhibits are the tangible objects that arepresented to establish your case. The physicalevidence must be relevant to the case, and youmust be able to defend its use on that basis.Procedurally, follow these steps:

A. “Your honor, I ask that this knife be marked for identification as Plaintiff’sExhibit A.” Show the article and hand itto the bailiff for marking.

B. Show the knife to the opposing counsel,who may object to its offering.

C. Show the knife to the witness and proceed to have the witness identify it.

D. If you wish to place it into evidence, say, “Your honor, I offer this knife foradmission into evidence as Plaintiff’sExhibit A, and ask the court to soadmit it.”

E. The judge then rules on its admissibility.Hand the knife to the judge.



Cross-ExaminationOnce your adversary has no further questions,the judge tells you that it is time for cross-examination. Cross-examination questionsmust pertain to topics explored on direct exam-ination. The first goal of cross-examination is topursue questions to produce evidence thatsupports your version of the case. This isusually fairly easy. Seldom does a witness’stestimony support only one version. Explore thepart of the testimony that supports your case.

The second goal of cross-examination is toimpeach adverse witnesses. Impeaching anadverse witness is accomplished in several ways.

A. Showing that the witness is biased in favor of your adversary.

B. Showing that the witness is prejudiced against you.

C. Asking questions about prior conduct that makes the witness’s credibilitysuspect.

D. Asking about evidence of prior criminal convictions.

E. Introducing affidavits that prove that the witness has made inconsistent state-ments.

To avoid giving a witness a chance to retell astory during cross-examination, ask leadingquestions. Remember, questions are leadingwhen they suggest the desired answer. Whilethey are improper during direct examination,they are permissible during cross-examination.It is appropriate to prompt nonresponsivewitnesses and interrupt hostile witnesses.

It is advisable to ask only questions to whichyou feel you know the answers. You don’t wantto inadvertently hurt your case in the course of

your cross-examination. At the same time,never bully witnesses. That is simply notnecessary. Asking a series of questions thatwill elicit yes/no answers will get you whereyou want to go without a lot of pushing. Don’ttry to summarize what the witness has saidduring your cross-examination. Summarizingis saved for your closing remarks. You can askquestions in a way that will paint the pictureyou want the judge(s) to see and draw out thefacts you want them to understand. Let themmake the necessary connections. Watch andadapt to their responses in just the same wayyou would do during a policy debate round.

Redirect ExaminationIf the credibility of your witness has beenattacked on cross-examination, you may askseveral more questions. These questions must belimited to issues raised during cross-examinationand should be limited to the damage you thinkhas been done. Questions should be phrased totry to reestablish the witness’s truthfulness.

Closing ArgumentsAn attorney for each side reviews theevidence and asks for a favorable decision. Itis your opportunity to tell the judge(s) whyyou should win. While you shouldn’t argueduring the opening statement, it is importantto make the strongest case possible duringclosing arguments.

Prepare and rehearse your closing argument.Make introductory comments, identify theissues to be resolved and marshal the evidencefor each element you must prove. Discuss thecredibility of your witnesses and evidence.Explain the plaintiff’s burden of proof. Useexhibits and other visual aids and always tellthe judges what you want. Show why youshould prevail on the merits.



It is important to return to the “tease” methodmentioned in the section on opening remarks.Instead of forecasting what will happen, nowyou are summarizing what has happened. In thevery same way the rebuttals in a policy debateround are used for summarizing and succinctlyshutting off issues, your closing remarks are thefinal opportunity you have to cast argumentsand witnesses as you want them to be remem-bered by the judges. Your closing statementshould also lay out any of the burden you wantthe other side to meet. Depending upon the typeof trial you are in, civil or criminal, the stan-dards you apply will be different. In a criminaltrial, both sides will try to contend that eithertheir client is innocent beyond reasonable doubtor that, in the prosecution’s case, the defendantis guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In a civilcase, both sides will rely on the preponderanceof evidence to prove their sides. Just as in apolicy round you must give the judge(s) in amock trial tools with which to evaluate the keyissues at stake. Don’t count on good memories.Instead, use the tease method and, as always,remember KISS. Keep whatever you saysimple to make it understandable.

ObjectionsIt is the attorney’s responsibility to object toimportant inadmissible evidence or statements.An objection should be made anytime youbelieve that the opposing attorney has violatedthe rules of evidence. The judge may consideranything you don’t object to. Use the followingprocedures when making an objection.

1. Stand up to make the objection.

2. Speak only to the judge.

3. State your objection succinctly andexplain the reason for the objection.

It is important to object promptly, but don’targue the merits of the objection. An objectioncan be sustained (upheld) or overruled(denied). If the objection is sustained, ask thejudge to strike improper evidence.

The two most common objections are:

1. Objections to the form of question. Is itleading and thus improper? Is it vagueor argumentative?

2. Objections to the content of testimony.Regardless of the question, this objec-tion argues that the testimony isimproper. It may be improper becauseof a lack of a witness’s personal knowl-edge or requires speculation on the partof the witness. It may also be objection-able because it is irrelevant or ishearsay. Hearsay is any evidence of astatement made by someone who is notpresent in the court and is offered toprove a fact, piece of evidence, or awitness’s testimony. Hearsay evidence isnot permitted.

ResourcesThe Internet has numerous resources to assiststudents and coaches in learning more aboutthis activity. The American Mock TrialAssociation’s site at www.collegemocktrial.orghas valuable information that underscores andenhances the material in this chapter. The Website for high school competitions also includesaccess to a newsletter (www.nationalmock-trial.org). It provides valuable information onhow to get started including state coordinatorcontact information. A source of practice casesis found at www.andersonkill.com/titanic/facts.htm. Street Law, an organization of lawteachers and students, has long supported the



mock trial movement by preparing scenariosfor competition and practice. Their Web site atwww.streetlaw.org/mockt2.html is an excellentsource of material.

SummaryA mock trial provides an opportunity to gainuseful knowledge about the law and to honeargumentation and communication skills.

It follows the pattern of an actual trial but withsimplified rules of evidence and procedure.Many of the same strategies employed inpolicy and Lincoln-Douglas debate are alsoeffective in a mock trial. Scenarios areprovided to students who play the roles ofattorneys and witnesses. At the conclusion, ajudge renders a decision.

NotesRoss, M. Donna, “Mock Trial Part V, An Open and Shut Case, That is — How to Open and Howto Shut,” The Rostrum, (January, 1998), p. 13. (debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlibmocktrial.html).

Ross, M. Donna, “Try Mock Trial: Part III – Who Goes Where?” The Rostrum, (June, 1997), p. 17. (debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlibmocktrial.html).

Ross, M. Donna, “Try Mock Trial: Part IV – Getting Down to Cases,” The Rostrum, (October,1997), p. 9. (debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlibmocktrial.html).

ActivitiesStarting Out

1. Review the mock trial scenarios available from the American Bar Association and selecta trial suggested for elementary students. Use this trial as a way of learning the proce-dures in a mock trial before preparing for a more realistic case.

2. Reenact a famous local trial. Using facts researched by examining the court transcriptsin the public record at the courthouse, prepare your own scenario for the trial. Whileeach side may get ideas from the way the trial was actually conducted, develop yourown strategies.

3. Using the Midland v. Pence, et al. case scenario on pages 229–231, conduct a mock trialas a class. Have class members participate as jurors and complete the observation formfound in appendix C.

4. Attend a trial in a city, county, state, or federal court. Observe how the attorneysapproach each stage of the trial. What did you learn that can benefit you? What prac-tices did you see that were not successful?

continued



Activities continued

Experience Counts

1. With a partner, review the comment sheets you receive from a competition and work onthe areas most in need of improvement. Assist one another through drills, revisingopening statements, or reviewing your questioning techniques.

Web Savvy

1. Go to the college division mock trial Web site at www.collegemocktrial.org and selectsome of the old cases to use for practice.

2. Hone your skills online by going to British online mock trial site atwww.abc.net.au/mocktrial/default.htm. How do trial procedures in Britain differ fromAmerican procedures? How are they similar?

Midland v. Pence, et al.

FACTS

A number of Midland citizens had become dissatisfied with the Superintendent of Prisons,John Sharp, because he was not dealing with such problems as overcrowding, unsanitaryconditions, and guard brutality. Since the group believed that the mayor, Herbert Umbard,could fire Sharp, they organized a demonstration designed to force the Mayor to act. In thelate afternoon, about 80 protestors began a march from the city hall to the Mayor’s home,about five miles away. They were accompanied by a police lieutenant, four police sergeants,and about 40 policemen, in addition to their own attorney and an assistant city counsel. Theyarrived at the Mayor’s home at 8:00 p.m.

They immediately began to march around his block, chanting phrases such as: “TheSuperintendent must go, snake Umbard also”; “We are going to the home of the snake, thesnakepit is down the street”; “Hey, hey, what do you know, John Sharp must go.” Theycarried signs which read, “Umbard Fire Sharp!” and “Sharp Must Go—Now.” They alsosang civil rights songs such as “We Shall Overcome” and “We Shall Not Be Moved.”

During this time, protest leader Jim Pence instructed everyone to keep marching, but not to“answer anyone back.” He also told them, “Don’t worry about anything that is going to besaid to you. Just keep marching. If anyone hits you or anything, try to remember what theylook like, but above all, do not hit them back. Keep the lines straight and keep them tight.”

As the marchers continued around the block, neighbors began coming out of their homes.Some of them placed lawn sprinklers onto the sidewalk, forcing the demonstrators to walkinto the streets. Others yelled out of their windows and doorways. By 9:00 p.m., 100 to 150



spectators had formed a line of march ahead of the demonstrators, and by 9:20 p.m., a groupof over 1,000 people had gathered.

There were shouts and threats, such as: “Get the hell out of here”; “Get the hell out of hereor we’ll break your ___ head open.” Rocks and eggs were thrown at the marchers from thecrowd, and there were numerous attempts by members of the crowd to break out frombehind police lines which were protecting the demonstrators. Despite Jim Pence’s instruc-tions, there was evidence of some demonstrators shouting back to counter-demonstrators,and there were reports of several fights.

About 9:30 p.m., Police Lieutenant Tom Judson told Pence that the situation was dangerousand becoming riotous. He offered a police escort for any who wished to leave. Three of themarchers did so, but the remaining demonstrators refused. After a number of unsuccessfulattempts to persuade them to leave, the police arrested the demonstrators and took themaway in police vans. They were charged with violating a Midland disorderly conduct ordi-nance which read:

All persons who shall make, aid, countenance, or assist in making any improper noise, riot,disturbance, breach of peace, or division tending to a breach of the peace, within the limitsof the city, and all persons who shall collect in bodies or crowds for unlawful purposes tothe annoyance or disturbance of other persons...shall be deemed guilty of disorderlyconduct, and upon conviction shall be fined not less than $1.00 or more than $200.00 foreach offense.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the peoplepeacefully to assemble...

WITNESSES AND THEIR AFFIDAVITS

For the Prosecution—

1. Police Lieutenant Tom Judson

2. Mary Conway, a neighbor of Mayor Umbard

For the Defense—

1. Protest leader Jim Pence

2. Diana Robinson, a demonstrator who was one of the three escorted from the scene bythe police

Judson: From the outset, we knew there would be trouble. That is why we had 45 policemenas well as attorneys on the scene. Generally speaking, the demonstrators were peaceful.However, by about 9:15 p.m., the situation was getting pretty tense. I felt that the demon-



strators had had more than ample time to voice their protest. The crowd was getting larger,darkness had descended, and there was only so much that my men could do to keep the situ-ation under control. When the demonstrators repeatedly refused to be escorted out of thearea, they left me no choice but to arrest them.

Conway: Ours is a quiet neighborhood. When the scores of demonstrators started marchingand chanting, not to mention the many police with them, it was like an invasion. Naturally,there was no way for me to relax with all this going on and I was really in fear for mypersonal safety and the safety of my family. I could see what was going on from my window,and it looked like everyone was yelling at each other, there was some pushing and shoving,and all sorts of chaos. The police were doing their best to keep the two groups separated andI was sure glad when the police finally rounded up the demonstrators and took them away.Some ugly things could have happened if they hadn’t acted as they did.

Pence: Throughout the march, the demonstrators had been peaceful and orderly. We werevery careful to avoid confrontation, but we wanted to state our opinion as clearly and effec-tively as possible. It was the Mayor’s neighbors who were violating the ordinance—theywere shouting profanities, hurling rocks and eggs, and trying to break through police lines—they’re the ones who should have been arrested. It was our right to refuse the policeescort...we had not done anything unlawful.

Robinson: Sure I was scared—it was like walking into the lion’s den. But we believed thatSharp was not carrying out the law, and that Umbard could do something about getting himto act. At no time did I see or hear any of us egging Umbard’s neighbors on. Jim had told usto turn the other cheek and we were doing that. Yes, the police protected us, but that’s whatthey’re supposed to do. We were just exercising our freedom of speech. It was the others whowere unruly and causing trouble.

JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS

“The questions posed by this case are by no means simple. On the one hand, we have theprecious right to freedom of speech, an absolute necessity in our open and democratic formof government. On the other hand, we have the need to maintain public order and insure thesafety and general welfare of our citizens. Your difficult task, members of the jury, will be todetermine whether the defendants did in fact violate the ordinance in question beyond areasonable doubt. I want to emphasize that under our law, the police do not have the right tostop a peaceful demonstration merely because a hostile crowd may not agree with the viewsof the demonstrators. However, if you decide that the police made all reasonable efforts tocontrol the situation, then an arrest for an otherwise lawful demonstration may be made. Youhave heard the arguments of both the prosecution and defense in this case. You may nowadjourn to consider the arguments presented and return to the court once a verdict is reached.”

This scenario was reprinted with permission from the Kansas Bar Association.


Documents

Mastering Competitive Debate