ILLINOIS STATE BAR ASSOCIATION HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RUBRIC. FOR TEACHER EVALUATION ASSISTANCE. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL SCORESHEET.
Team/School Team/School
PLAINTIFF DEFENSE
|
Opening Statement 5 4 3 2 1 0 Relevant, appropriate comments5 4 3 2 1 0 Delivery Style |
Opening Statement 5 4 3 2 1 0 Relevant, appropriate comments5 4 3 2 1 0 Delivery Style |
||
|
Plaintiff Witness ONE Lawyer Evaluation 5 4 3 2 1 0 Questions: Well-written (non- leading) 5 4 3 2 1 0 FOCUS of questions wasobvious. Goals of questioning were clear. 3 2 1 0 RELEVANCE of questionstowards goals. Questions were focused. 3 2 1 0 POISE of lawyer. Overallcomposure, handling of objections, preparation, etc.... |
Plaintiff Witness ONE Lawyer Evaluation on Cross Examination 5 4 3 2 1 0 Questions: Well-written (leading) 5 4 3 2 1 0 FOCUS of questions wasobvious. Goals of questioning were clear. 3 2 1 0 POISE of lawyer. Overallcomposure, handling of objections, preparation, etc.... |
||
|
WITNESS ONE 5 4 3 2 1 0 KNOWLEDGE of affadivit3 2 1 0 POISE on cross especially 3 2 1 0 OVERALL characterbelievable? Comfort level of witness, was it too staged? |
|||
|
Plaintiff Witness TWO Lawyer Evaluation 5 4 3 2 1 0 Questions: Well-written (non- leading) 5 4 3 2 1 0 FOCUS of questions wasobvious. Goals of questioning were clear. 3 2 1 0 RELEVANCE of questionstowards goals. Questions were focused. 3 2 1 0 POISE of lawyer. Overallcomposure, handling of objections, preparation, etc.... |
Plaintiff Witness TWO Lawyer Evaluation on Cross Examination 5 4 3 2 1 0 Questions: Well-written (leading) 5 4 3 2 1 0 FOCUS of questions wasobvious. Goals of questioning were clear. 3 2 1 0 POISE of lawyer. Overallcomposure, handling of objections, preparation, etc.... |
||
|
WITNESS TWO 5 4 3 2 1 0 KNOWLEDGE of affadivit3 2 1 0 POISE on cross especially 3 2 1 0 OVERALL characterbelievable? Comfort level of witness, was it too staged? |
ILLINOIS STATE BAR ASSOCIATION HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RUBRIC. FOR TEACHER EVALUATION ASSISTANCE. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL SCORESHEET.
Team/School Team/School
PLAINTIFF DEFENSE
|
Defense Witness ONE Lawyer Evaluation on Cross Examination 5 4 3 2 1 0 Questions: Well-written (leading) 5 4 3 2 1 0 FOCUS of questions wasobvious. Goals of questioning were clear. 3 2 1 0 POISE of lawyer. Overallcomposure, handling of objections, preparation, etc.... |
Defense Witness ONE Lawyer Evaluation 5 4 3 2 1 0 Questions: Well-written (non- leading) 5 4 3 2 1 0 FOCUS of questions wasobvious. Goals of questioning were clear. 3 2 1 0 RELEVANCE of questionstowards goals. Questions were focused. 3 2 1 0 POISE of lawyer. Overallcomposure, handling of objections, preparation, etc.... |
||
|
WITNESS ONE 5 4 3 2 1 0 KNOWLEDGE of affadivit3 2 1 0 POISE on cross especially 3 2 1 0 OVERALL characterbelievable? Comfort level of witness, was it too staged? |
|||
|
Defense Witness TWO Lawyer Evaluation on Cross Examination 5 4 3 2 1 0 Questions: Well-written (leading) 5 4 3 2 1 0 FOCUS of questions wasobvious. Goals of questioning were clear. 3 2 1 0 POISE of lawyer. Overallcomposure, handling of objections, preparation, etc.... |
Defense Witness TWO Lawyer Evaluation 5 4 3 2 1 0 Questions: Well-written (non- leading) 5 4 3 2 1 0 FOCUS of questions wasobvious. Goals of questioning were clear. 3 2 1 0 RELEVANCE of questions towards goals. Questions were focused. 3 2 1 0 POISE of lawyer. Overallcomposure, handling of objections, preparation, etc.... |
||
|
WITNESS TWO 5 4 3 2 1 0 KNOWLEDGE of affadivit3 2 1 0 POISE on cross especially 3 2 1 0 OVERALL characterbelievable? Comfort level of witness, was it too staged? |
|||
|
CLOSING Argument 5 4 3 2 1 0 Relevant, appropriatecomments, use of testimony 5 4 3 2 1 0 Delivery Style, poise |
CLOSING Argument 5 4 3 2 1 0 Relevant, appropriatecomments, use of testimony 5 4 3 2 1 0 Delivery Style, poise |
TOTAL FOR PLAINTIFF:____________ TOTAL FOR DEFENSE:_______
___________________________
Signature of Judge or Attorney