2016-2017 San Diego County High School Mock Trial Competition 

Welcome to the San Diego County High School Mock Trial Program and Competition.  For information about the 2016-2017 Competition, click on the links on the left. 


During the fall mock trial competition in Los Angeles County, CRF included a stipulation regarding the Mirandized statement.  Later, they decided to take it back out. The current mock trial materials incorporate the final errata, so this inclusion/removal does not exist in the materials provided to the judges and attorney scorers.  The most recent script including errata is available on our program website and all schools should be using the revised version and not what was originally distributed in September.  As you may know, this occurs every year since Los Angeles County holds their competition prior to the calendar year end.  Since the competition in San Diego County is not held until the new year, we substitute the materials developed once the final errata have been incorporated.   
This is what CRF explained to us:
"We had added as errata item #9 and distributed/posed online in mid-October the following:
  • 9. Page 14, line 52 (after Stipulation #10): add "11. On March 7, Cameron Awbrey was read Cameron's Miranda warnings by Officer West and Cameron did not respond."
Then after several discussions among the case development team and coaches, we decided to delete the stipulation we had just added.  We included additional information in the Summary of Teacher/Attorney Coach Quetions.  
We replaced errata item #9 with:
  • 9.  *Page 14, line 52 (after Stipulation #10): (previously added) delete "11. On March 7, Cameron Awbrey was read Cameron's Miranda warnings by Officer West and Cameron did not respond." See Summary of Teacher/Attorney Coach Questions for more information." 

Re-Direct Examination

Rule 3.6(B) - "Attorneys may conduct re-direct examination when appropriate."(emphasis added.)
Unlike with direct and cross examination, there is no requirement that attorneys ask questions on re-direct examination, therefore there is no automatic point deduction for failure to ask questions on re-direct.  
As part of an individual attorney scorer's overall assessment of the witness examination, the attorney scorer may believe it was strategically advantageous to forgo re-direct thus raising the attorney scorer's assessment of the examination, or the attorney scorer may believe that skipping re-direct was a strategic mistake, thus lowering the attorney scorer's overall assessment of the examination.  
Ultimately, the score given for an examination, taking into consideration all of the factors set forth in the evaluation criteria, is up to the individual attorney scorer.  (See Rule 5.3

Ruling on the Pre-Trial Motion to Suppress

If the pre-trial motion to suppress the statement is granted, the following facts in these pages cannot be referred to or relied upon during the trial:
  • Page 13 - lines 27-36.
  • Page 32 - lines 42-50 (witness Officer Haden West).
  • Page 33 - lines 13-15 (witness Officer Haden West).
  • Page 13 - lines 27-36 (defendant Cameron Awbrey). 

REMINDER:  Mock Trial Rule 3.8 D

Rule 3.8 D -  "Running of another team's time is not allowed. One team's unreasonable running of the opposing team's time is inappropriate. If the Judge determines there has been an unreasonable running of time, the witness may be admonished by the Judge and the judge may direct the attorney scorers to deduct (1) point from the offending witness' score."
The presiding judges  and the attorney scorers will be briefed during their orientation prior to each competition round on Rule 3.8D.   The rules provide that "if there is a rule infraction, it is solely the student attorneys' responsibility to bring the matter to the judicial presider's attention before a verdict is rendered."  (Rule 4.1(A).)  If there is a specific issue during the competition, students are given time to raise any irregularities in the trial before their presiding judge.  (Rule 3.6(H).)
It would be useful for any attorney coaches / teacher sponsors concerned about the potential violation of Rule 3.8D by other teams to communicate directly with the attorney coaches / teacher sponsors for such other teams in advance of the competition and to direct them to Rule 3.8D.  All participants, attorney coaches, and teacher sponsors are provided the mock trial rules of c0mpetition, including presiding judges and attorney scorers.  Everyone is encouraged to read and know the rules.   

UPDATE:  2016-2017 Mock Trial Case Packet

Some of the case materials for the 2016-2017 Mock Trial Competition are available on the links below.  
Please also check the link for 2017 Competition Forms on the left for additional forms and updates. 

 Congratulations to Academy of Our Lady of Peace

We congratulate Academy of Our Lady of Peace on their First Place finish in the 10th Annual San Diego High School Mock Trial Competition that concluded on February 27, 2016.   OLP went on to represent San Diego County at the State Championships in Sacramento on March 18-20, 2016. 
We also congratulate Westview High School for their impressive Second Place finish in the competition.   And KUDOS to all the high school students, teachers, coaches, and parents who participated in and attended the competition. 
We also thank all the volunteer judges, attorneys, and students who presided, coached, scored, and monitored this year's competition.  We could not do this without you.
We hope to see you again for the 2016-2017 Competition! 


San Diego County High School
Mock Trial Program and Competition
E-Mail: SDMockTrial@gmail.com
First Name
Last Name