Name: ____________________________________ Period: _______ Date: ___________________

Handout 2A:
Steps in a Trial
1. Judge enters and takes the bench.
2. Preliminary motions are addressed by the judge (e.g., Is certain evidence admissible?).
3. Voir dire (questioning by the attorneys and judge to ensure an impartial jury) conducted of jury
pool (if jury trial). Jury selected.
4. Clerk calls the case.
5. Prosecutor/plaintiff makes an opening statement.
a. Defense makes an opening statement.
b. Prosecutor/plaintiff presents case:
c. Prosecutor/plaintiff calls first witness and conducts direct examination.
d. Defense cross examines the witness.
e. Optional – Prosecutor/plaintiff conducts a redirect examination.
f. Optional – Defense conducts a recross-examination.
g. Steps a, b, c, and d completed for each of the prosecution’s/plaintiff’s other witnesses.
h. Prosecutor/plaintiff rests case after all prosecution/plaintiff witnesses have taken the
stand.
6. Defense presents case in same manner as prosecution/plaintiff in #7 above:
a. Defense calls first witness and conducts direct examination.
b. Prosecutor/plaintiff cross examines the witness.
c. Optional – Defense conducts a redirect examination.
d. Optional – Prosecutor/plaintiff conducts a recross-examination.
e. Steps a, b, and c completed for each of the defense’s other witnesses.
f. Defense rests case after all defense witnesses have taken the stand.
7. Prosecutor/plaintiff makes closing argument.
8. Defense makes closing argument.
9. Prosecutor/plaintiff offers any rebuttal argument.
10. Jury instructions (if jury trial).
11. Jury/judge deliberations.
12. Verdict/decision/judgment.
13. Order (civil trial) issued/sentence (if found guilty in a criminal trial) imposed.

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 1 of 6

The main steps in the trial sequence above—before the judge or jury start deliberating—can
be summarized as follows:
1. Opening statements by prosecution/plaintiff and defense
2. Direct examination of prosecution’s/plaintiff’s witnesses and cross-examination of
prosecution’s/plaintiff’s witnesses by the defense
3. Direct examination of defense witnesses and cross examination of defense witnesses by
prosecution/plaintiff
4. Closing arguments by prosecution/plaintiff and defense
Note how the sides take turns. In the following sections, the most critical stages of the trial are
described.

The Opening Statement

The opening statement is the introduction to the case. It is the very first time the attorneys for each
side get to tell the judge and jury their theory about what happened in the case. The first impression
is very important; it “paints a picture” of the case that will be presented for each side. Opening
statements should include: (1) a summary of the facts according to each party; (2) a summary of the
evidence that will be presented at the trial, including how you expect the witnesses to testify; and (3)
a statement regarding what the party hopes to get out of the trial. In an opening statement, an
attorney cannot present legal arguments; instead, the attorney must limit the opening to what the
evidence will show (e.g., “In this case, the facts will prove that Dr. Taylor failed to remove a surgical
sponge from the defendant’s stomach.”).

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 2 of 6

Direct Examination
After the opening statements, the process of witness examinations begins. First, the
prosecution/plaintiff presents its witnesses, then the defense team. Each time a witness is called to
the stand, the attorney who called the witness asks a series of questions called the “direct
examination.” These questions are designed to get the witness to tell a story, reciting what they saw,
heard, experienced, or knew about the case. The questions must ask only for facts, not for opinions
(unless the witness has been declared to be an “expert” in a particular subject, such as a doctor or
fire investigator). In addition, the attorney may only ask questions and may not make any statements
about the facts, even if the witness’ answer is incorrect.

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 3 of 6

Cross-examination
When the direct examination is completed, an attorney for the other side then asks questions to
show weaknesses or inconsistencies in the witness’ testimony, a process called “cross-examination.”
The purpose of cross-examination is to demonstrate to the judge or jury that the witness is not
credible because that witness:
• cannot remember facts,
• withheld facts during direct examination,
• told a different story at some other time,
• has a reputation for lying,
• has a special relationship or bias to one of the parties (maybe a relative or close friend, or a
grudge or feud), or
• did not have an adequate opportunity to observe (low lighting, cloudy day, only caught a
glimpse, was not wearing prescribed glasses, etc.) the events at issue.

Cross-examination questions are designed to bring out one or more of the above factors. These
questions must be limited to subjects discussed in direct examination as well as issues pertaining to
credibility, or they can be objected to as “outside the scope of direct examination.” (For more
information on the rules of evidence refer to Mock Trial Lesson 7—The Rules of Evidence.)

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 4 of 6

(Optional) Redirect Examination and Recross-examination
At the close of cross-examination, the attorney who conducted the direct examination may do a
“redirect.” A redirect examination follows the same rules of evidence as direct examination;
however, the questions are limited to subjects discussed in the cross-examination. Typically, the
redirect is very brief, giving the plaintiff the chance to “undo” any damage in the cross-examination.

Likewise, after a redirect examination, the attorney who conducted cross-examination may conduct a
recross-examination and ask questions to clarify new information brought up in redirect only.

Closing Arguments
The purpose of the prosecution’s closing argument in a criminal case is to convince the trier of fact
(judge or jury) that the evidence presented is sufficient to meet their burden of proving guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt. The purpose of the defense team’s closing argument in a criminal case is to
convince the trier of fact that a reasonable doubt remains as to the guilt of the defendant. The
purpose of the plaintiff’s and defendant’s closing arguments in a civil case is to convince the judge
or jury that the evidence presented is sufficient to meet their burden of providing a preponderance
of the evidence. New information may not be introduced in the closing argument.

Closing arguments should include:

• a summary of the evidence (i.e., witness testimony including inconsistencies, documents, and
exhibits) presented that is favorable to the presenting attorney’s theory of the case,
• a summary of the case, and
• a legal argument showing how the law requires the judge or jury to interpret the facts, and
why that law requires them to rule in favor of the side for which the attorney is arguing.

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 5 of 6

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 6 of 6
Name: ____________________________________ Period: _______ Date: ___________________

Handout 7A
The Simplified Rules of Evidence
So that each party to a trial can be assured of a fair hearing, certain rules have been developed to
govern the types of evidence (including testimony) that may be introduced in a trial, as well as how
the evidence may be presented. These rules are called the “rules of evidence.” The attorneys and the
judge are responsible for enforcing these rules. Before the judge can apply a rule of evidence, an
attorney must ask the judge to do so.
Attorneys do this by making “objections” to the evidence or procedure employed by the opposing
side. To make an objection, the attorney must stand up and address the judge (not the offending
attorney). Attorneys should start their objections by saying, “Objection, Your Honor,” and then
state the objection and reason. When an objection is raised, the judge will usually give the attorney
who was the subject of the objection an opportunity to respond. A response should tell the judge
why they believe the question was not in violation of the rules of evidence.
The rules of evidence used in real trials can be very complicated. A few of the most important rules
of evidence have been adapted for mock trial purposes, and these are presented below. The example
questions and answers are based on the practice mock trial, People v. Taylor.

1. Argumentative: Argumentative questions challenge the truthfulness of a witness’ testimony

without reason or seeking new information.
Example: (Question to Taylor by prosecutor on cross-examination) “Do you expect the jury to
believe that you were not drunk at The Club?”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, counsel is being argumentative.”
• Response: “Your Honor, I’ll rephrase. How many drinks did you have that night?”

2. Asked and answered: Every question must ask for new information. An attorney cannot ask
for the same information again to emphasize a point.
Example: (Question to Taylor by prosecutor on cross-examination, after testifying that he was
drinking on direct examination) “Taylor, isn’t it true that you were drinking alcohol the night of the
incident?”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, the question has been asked and answered.”
• Response: “Your Honor, in direct the witness said he was drinking but did not specifically state that he
was drinking alcohol, therefore, this question was different.”

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 1 of 4

3. Badgering: Attorneys are said to be badgering a witness when they treat them rudely, often not
allowing time to answer questions asked before asking another. Other times the attorney might
be provoking or mocking a witness.
Example: (Question to Taylor by prosecutor on cross-examination) “Didn’t you grab Ezra by the
arm? Why would you assume she wanted to dance with a drunk like you? You threw the first punch because you
were jealous, right?”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, counsel is badgering the witness.”
• Response: “Your Honor, I’ll rephrase. Isn’t it true that you grabbed Ezra by the arm?”

4. Compound questions: Attorneys may not ask two or more questions joined together (usually
with the words and/or/also). This can confuse the witness and the jury and lead to
misunderstanding.
Example: (Question to Ezra on cross-examination) “Did Alex ask you if you knew Taylor, and is
Alex usually so jealous?"
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, counsel is asking a compound question.”
• Response: “Your Honor, I’ll rephrase. Did Alex ask you if you knew Taylor?”

5. Firsthand knowledge/speculation: Witnesses must have directly seen, heard, or experienced

the events they are testifying about. A lack of firsthand knowledge is objectionable. Often
witnesses speculate (guess or assume) about something that happens even though they did not
actually witness the behavior. Speculation is also objectionable because it is not firsthand
knowledge.
Example: (Alex’s witness testimony) “I know Ezra well enough to know that she never would have dated
a drunk like Taylor.”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, the witness has no firsthand knowledge of Ezra’s
relationship with Taylor or Taylor’s drinking habits.” OR “Objection, Your Honor,
speculation. This witness is speculating about Ezra’s dating preferences and Taylor’s
drinking habits.”
• Response: “Your Honor, the witness is just generally describing Ezra’s usual dating
preferences.”

6. Hearsay: Hearsay is a statement made outside the courtroom by a person who is not the
testifying witness and is offered to prove the truth of what is in the statement without the person
who made the statement having to testify and be cross-examined about it. Hearsay evidence is
objectionable.
There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, and if an exception applies, the court will allow
hearsay evidence to be admitted. One exception in a mock trial is permitting hearsay evidence
when the witness is repeating a statement made by one of the parties in the case (the defendant
or plaintiff). Another example of an exception is when the witness who made the statement has

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 2 of 4

 died or is otherwise unable to testify. (NOTE: For mock trials other exceptions to the hearsay
rule usually are not used, but if you are competing, check competition rules for hearsay
objections.)
Example: (Sam’s witness testimony) “A waiter told me that Ezra was flirting with Taylor earlier that
night.”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, this is hearsay.”
NOTE: If the witness’ answer was, “Taylor told me that Ezra was flirting with him earlier that night,” it
would not be objectionable because statements from the defendant are an exception to hearsay.

A question that asks someone to repeat something they heard another say is also objectionable
because it calls for hearsay.
Example: (Question to Sam) “What did you hear the other waiter say about Ezra flirting earlier that
night?”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, this question calls for hearsay.”

7. Leading question: A leading question suggests the answer desired by the questioner, usually by
stating some facts not previously discussed and then asking the witness to give a “yes” or a “no”
answer. Leading questions may not be asked on direct or redirect examination. However, leading
questions are permissible and should be used on cross-examination.
Example: (Question to prosecution witness, Alex, by prosecutor in direct examination) “Isn’t it
true that you told Taylor to, ‘get lost’ when he approached your table at the club?”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, counsel is leading the witness.”
• Response: “Your Honor, I’ll rephrase the question. What did you say to Taylor at the club?” (This
would not ask for a “yes” or “no” answer.)
NOTE: If this were cross-examination, this question would be allowed and the attorney would
respond to an objection with, “Your Honor, leading questions are permissible on cross-
examination.”

8. Narration: Narration occurs when the witness provides more information than the question
called for. Witnesses’ answers must respond to the questions, but not go beyond them. A
narrative answer is objectionable.
Example: (Question to Alex) What did you do at the club that night?”
(Alex’s response) “I was just sitting in the club with Ezra, listening to the music, when this person came up
and started bothering us. I asked Ezra if she knew him, and she said, ‘No.’ So I told him to get lost. The guy
was blind drunk, and he kept bothering my girlfriend, so I stood up and told him to leave before I called the
manager. About that time, he clenched his fists and raised them like he was going to punch me. When I turned to
walk away, he hit me.”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, the witness is narrating.”
• Response: “Your Honor, the witness is telling us a complete sequence of events.”

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 3 of 4

 Narration can also occur when an attorney’s question is very broad and invites a witness to
narrate.
Example: (Question to witness) “What did you do the night of the incident?”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, counsel’s question calls for narration.”
• Response: “Your Honor, I’ll rephrase the question. What did you do when you reached the front door of
the house that day?”

9. Opinion: Unless a witness is qualified as an expert in the appropriate field, such as medicine or
ballistics, the witness may not give an opinion about matters relating to that field.
Example: (Sam’s non-expert witness testimony) “Then I saw Taylor punch Alex, break his nose, and
deviate his septum.”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, witness is not qualified to give this opinion.”
• Response: “Your Honor, the witness may answer the question because ordinary persons can judge if a nose
is broken by looking at it.”

As an exception to this rule, a lay witness may give an opinion about something in common
experience.
For example: “He seemed to be driving pretty fast for a residential street.” or “He seemed to be pretty drunk at
the club to me.”

10. Outside the scope of direct/cross-examination: Attorneys may only ask questions on cross-
examination about testimony raised during direct examination. Likewise, attorneys may only ask
questions in redirect examination about testimony raised during cross-examination.
Questions that raise new lines of testimony in cross-examination or redirect examination are
objectionable. However, if a question or witness answer even touches on the subject (sometimes
called “opens the window”), it can be further explored.
Example: (Question to Alex on cross-examination, whose previous experience as a professional
boxer was not revealed on direct examination) “Isn’t it true you used to fight for a living?”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, the question is outside the scope of direct/cross-examination.”
• Response: “Your Honor, I’ll withdraw the question.” OR “Alex mentioned on direct that Taylor
clenched his fist and was about to punch him, I just wanted more clarity on how he knew this.”

11. Relevance: Questions and answers must relate to the subject matter of the case; this is called
relevance. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a fact that is in issue in the case more or less
likely to be true. Questions or answers that do not relate to the case are irrelevant. Irrelevant
questions or answers are objectionable.
Example: (Question to Ezra) “How many times have you been married?”
• Objection: “Objection, Your Honor, this question is irrelevant to this case.”

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 3 of 4

 • Response: “Your Honor, this series of questions will show that Taylor also punched Ezra’s former spouse
in a similar situation several years ago.”

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 4 of 4

Name: ____________________________________ Period: _______ Date: _________________

Handout 8A:
Introduction of Documents or Physical
Evidence
Step 1: Introducing the Item for Identification
1. The attorney says to the judge, “Your Honor, I wish to have this (letter, document, item) marked
for identification as (Prosecution’s/Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, Defense Exhibit A, etc.).”
2. Attorney takes the item to the clerk who makes the appropriate marking.
3. Attorney shows the item to the opposing counsel.
4. Attorney shows the item to the witness and says, “Do you recognize this item marked as Defense
Exhibit A?”

Example from People v. Taylor:

Defense attorney shows a bill to Sam who is on the witness stand: “Do you recognize this
item marked as Defense Exhibit A?”
Defense attorney shows Sam the check:

Sam, the waiter (witness): “Yes.”

Defense attorney: “Could you please identify this item?”
Witness: “This is a copy of Taylor’s check at The Club on the night of the incident. I rang it up and
handed it to him myself.”

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 1 of 2

5. Attorney may then proceed to ask the witness questions about the document or item.

Example from People v. Taylor:

Defense attorney: “According to the check you just identified, how many drinks did Taylor have at The
Club on the night of the incident?”

Step 2: Moving the Document or Item into Evidence

If the attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the document or item itself as part of the
evidence, and not just the testimony about it, the attorney must ask to move the item into evidence
at the end of the witness examination. The attorney proceeds as follows:
1. Attorney says, “Your Honor, I offer this (document/item) into evidence as Defense Exhibit A
and ask that the court so admit it.”
2. Opposing counsel may look at the evidence and make objections at this time. Common
objections are “lack of foundation” and “relevance.”
3. Judge rules on whether the item may be admitted into evidence.

© 2021 Street Law, Inc. Page 2 of 2