Rules

Tournament Format

A. Local Tournaments

1. Tournament Assignments: After registration closes, teams will be assigned to local tournaments based on geography and local bar association resources. Some teams may be assigned to different local tournaments to create an even number of teams for the tournament. Each local tournament will advance its fair share of teams to compete in the state tournament. Fair share will be determined by calculating the ratio of the number of teams in the state tournament to the number of teams registered in the state. Each local tournament will advance that same percentage of teams to the state tournament. For example, if there are 72 teams registered statewide and a total of 18 advances to the state tournament, then 25% of a local tournament field will advance. Thus, if a local tournament has 13 teams, that tournament will advance 25% of its field, or 3 teams (25% of 13 = 3.25 or 3 teams), to the state tournament.  The state coordinator will notify regional tournament coordinators of their advancement numbers prior to the first scheduled regional tournament.
    
2. Minimum Number of Teams: A regional tournament should have at least six teams registered with the CBA to advance a team to the state tournament. A tournament may be held with fewer than six teams at the discretion of the Committee. The CBA Public Legal Education Committee reserves the right to determine the geographical boundaries for any local tournament, as well as to determine the number of teams local tournaments may advance to the state championship tournament.
    
3. Minimum Number of Schools: A regional tournament must have at least two high schools represented to advance a team to the state tournament. A tournament may be held with only one high school involved; however, such a tournament would not be allowed to advance a team to the state tournament.
    
4. Tournament Structure: Tournament coordinators are encouraged to structure their tournaments to include the following: 
   
   
   1. Four rounds of program, with a random first-round draw and subsequent rounds paired using power-matching based on the following criteria used, in descending order: wins/losses; total number of ballots won; point-spread—margin of victory/defeat; and total points earned;
   2. An optional championship round;
   3. Keeping the results of individual rounds confidential until completion of the tournament; and
   4. State tournament procedures regarding composition of scoring panels, judging, and scoring considerations.

5. Tournaments may be scheduled over several weekdays, over a weekend, or during weeknights to take advantage of local resources (e.g., judges, courtrooms, and scoring panelists).
    
6. Regional tournaments must be scheduled to conclude no later than two weeks prior to the state tournament.
    
7. Tournament coordinators are encouraged to provide judge and scoring panelist training prior to each round in the tournament. Areas to emphasize include: scoring ranges and definitions, disputes, performance vs. merit-scoring, technical vs. performance-scoring, unfair extrapolations, witnesses bound by statements, and material omissions.
    
8. Regional tournament coordinators should restrict gallery attendance of the championship round to teams (members and coaches) that will NOT be advancing to the state tournament, and family, friends, and supporters of the competing teams.
    
9. Tournament coordinators are encouraged to send copies of score sheets to the competitors following the conclusion of their tournaments.
    
10. Tournament coordinators will notify the CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee of the teams they are advancing to the state tournament, as well as which team is their number one seed by certification.
     
11. Certification requires that the tournament coordinators collect an official team roster (submitted at the start of the local tournament) from each team competing in a local tournament. The official team rosters of those teams advancing to the state tournament must be forwarded to the State Coordinator immediately upon completion of the local tournament. This procedure will verify that only the team members listed on the local tournament roster will be allowed to compete in the state tournament.
     
12. Tournament Coordinators are encouraged to provide students with certificates of participation.
     
13. Local bar associations may deviate from these guidelines as required by limitations on local facilities and volunteer resources. Deviations from these guidelines should be approved by the CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee prior to the commencement of the local tournament.

B. State Tournament

1. Maximum Number of Teams: The number of teams advancing to the state tournament will be determined after the total number of teams competing at the local levels throughout the state has been solidified. If a school/team that has earned the chance to compete at the state tournament chooses not to advance to the state tournament, the host of the local tournament will select the team next in line of succession to advance to the state tournament.
    
2. Maximum Number of Teams from One School: No more than two teams from any one school may advance to the state tournament.
    
3. Tournament Structure: The state tournament shall be conducted as follows:
   
   
   1. Four rounds of competition, with a random first round draw (with the exception that no regional number one seed will be paired against another regional number one seed) and subsequent rounds paired using power matching based on the following criteria used in descending order: wins/losses; total number of ballots won; point spread—margin of victory/defeat; and, total points earned;
   2. A championship round;
   3. The results of individual rounds will be kept confidential until completion of the tournament;
   4. State tournament procedures regarding composition of scoring panels, judging, and scoring considerations; and
   5. The winner of the championship round will be eligible to represent Colorado at the National High School Mock Trial Tournament in May.
   
    
4. Tournament Dates: The state tournament will be a two-day tournament, preferably Friday and Saturday, with two trial rounds of competition on Friday afternoon and two rounds of competition and the championship round on Saturday.
    
5. Tournament Results: Copies of score sheets and final team standings will be mailed to the competitors following the conclusion of the competition.
    
6. Advancement to Nationals: If, for any reason, the Colorado champion cannot participate at Nationals, the second place team will be eligible. If neither of these teams can participate, the CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee may select a representative team.
    
7. Team Composition at Nationals: At the national tournament, each state is limited to eight students (six participating as witnesses and attorneys, and two alternates). The Colorado Bar Association, thanks to a grant from the Colorado Bar Foundation and the Colorado Bar Litigation Section, normally will make a financial donation to the team participating in the national championship to help defray travel expenses; however, the team and its school will be primarily responsible to raise funds as needed.

 

Rules of Competition

A. Administration

Rule 1.1  Rules

All trials will be governed by the Rules of the Colorado High School Mock Trial Competition, the Colorado High School Rules of Evidence, and the specific courtroom location rules of decorum and security.

Questions or requests for interpretation of these rules shall be submitted to the State Coordinator and the CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee at 1900 Grant St., Ste. 900, Denver, CO 80203.

Rule 1.2  Code of Ethical Conduct

The Rules of Competition, the attached Code of Ethical Conduct, as well as the rules of the specific courthouse for decorum and security, must be followed by all team participants, coaches, non-participating team members, and observers. The State Tournament Coordinator and the CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee possess discretion to impose sanctions, up to and including forfeiture of a round or disqualification from the tournament, for any disruptive behavior occurring while a team is present for the state tournament including, but not limited to: flagrant rule violations; horseplay; inappropriate comments; inappropriate reactions to judges’ rulings, team pairings or team results; other unprofessional conduct; property damage; and/or, breaches of decorum that affect the conduct of a trial or that impugn the reputation or integrity of any team, school, participant, court officer, judge, or the mock trial program.

Excessive littering of, or property damage to a courtroom will result in an automatic cleaning and/or replacement fee. Cleaning fees generally run a minimum of $250. Should the assessed team refuse to pay, an assessment of the costs will be added to the following year’s competition registration fee.

Food and beverages are not allowed in the courtrooms or in any area of the courthouse not designated as an eating area. Teams bringing food or beverages into the courtrooms or any area not designated for consuming food are subject to sanctions up to and including forfeiture of a round or disqualification from the tournament. Additionally, any offending team may be charged a cleaning fee as described above.

Rule 1.2.1 Team Conduct

Team members are bound by the Rules of Competition, the Code of Ethical Conduct, and the rules of the specific location courthouse. Students also shall strive to model the highest standards of sportsmanship and ethical conduct at all times.

Rule 1.2.2  Coach’s Conduct

Attorney and teacher coaches shall uphold the Rules of Competition, the Code of Ethical Conduct and the rules of the specific courthouse. Additionally, coaches shall comply with their own employment professional codes, rules, and ethical standards. Finally, coaches shall instill in their student team members, team parents, and other team gallery observers the highest standards of sportsmanship and ethical behavior.

Rule 1.2.3 Gallery Conduct

Gallery observers shall uphold the Code of Ethical Conduct and the rules of the specific location courthouse.

B. Teams

Rule 2.1 Team Composition

Each team shall consist of a minimum of six students and a maximum of twelve students. Only six students on a team may compete in any given round (three attorneys and three witnesses). Each team member shall be listed on the official team roster submitted at the local tournament level. The team roster will become official at the time of its submission at the local tournament level, and thereafter remain fixed throughout the state and national tournaments. At no time will a student who is not listed on the local tournament team roster be allowed to compete at the state or national tournaments. 

Rule 2.1.1  Student Eligibility

Students must be currently enrolled as full-time students in their schools in order to participate in the state and national tournaments. There is one exception to this rule: students who have graduated from their schools early. To be eligible under this exception, the student must have graduated in good standing within one semester of the mock trial competition and have been a full-time student of the current senior class at the beginning of the current school year.

Teams must be comprised of students from the same high school.
Requests for exceptions to this rule must be submitted to the CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee.

Rule 2.1.2  Timekeeper

Each team shall provide a timekeeper. The timekeeper may not be a participating team member, a team teacher coach or a team attorney coach.

Rule 2.2  General Team Duties

Teams shall present both sides of the case. For each trial round, teams shall use three students as attorneys and three students as witnesses.
In the event that a team is missing one of its participating team members in a trial round, for example, due to illness or failure to appear, the missing participating team member will receive a “0” point score for each performance part he/she misses in that trial round and the opposing team member(s) impacted by the missing person will receive a “10” point score for their role(s). This rule applies even if another participating team member stands-in for the missing member. A non-participating member may fill in for the missing participating member with no penalty. See Rule 8.1.2 for more details.

Team members shall evenly divide their duties. Each of the three attorneys will conduct one direct examination and one cross-examination. In addition, one attorney will present the opening statement and another attorney will present the closing argument.

The attorney who examines a particular witness on direct examination is the only team member who may make objections to the opposing attorney’s cross-examination questions. The attorney who cross-examines a witness will be the only team member permitted to make objections during the direct examination of that witness.

Each team shall call all of its witnesses. The order of the witnesses being called to the stand is at the discretion of the team. Witnesses may be called to the stand only by their own team attorney conducting that witness’s direct examination (case-in-chief). Once direct examination is completed, the opposing team may cross-examine the witness. Re-direct and re-cross will be permitted only at the discretion of the presiding judge. Witnesses may not be recalled by either side.

Rule 2.2.1  Code of Ethical Conduct (Team Roster)

The original Code of Ethical Conduct must be signed by each member of the team, the timekeeper(s), and coach(es), and be submitted at the time of the tournament check-in. Teams shall use the Code of Ethical Conduct Team Roster attached to these rules. Copies of the Code of Ethical Conduct should not be provided to the presiding judges or the scoring panelists during the rounds of competition.

Rule 2.2.2 Trial Rosters

Copies of the trial roster must be completed and duplicated by each team prior to arrival at the courthouse. Teams must be identified on the roster by the code assigned to them at registration. No team origin identifying comments, symbols, or pictures shall appear on the form. Before the beginning of the trial, the teams must exchange copies of the trial roster. Teams shall use the Trial Roster attached to these rules.

C. The Problem

Rule 3.1 The Problem

The problem will consist of a fact pattern that may contain any or all of the following: statement of facts, indictment, stipulations, witness statements, affidavits, jury instructions, exhibits, case law, etc.
The problem shall consist of three witnesses per side, all of whom shall have names and characteristics that would allow them to be played by either males or females (gender neutral). Each side shall call each of their three witnesses to testify during their case-in-chief. 
 

Rule 3.1.1 Stipulations

Stipulations may not be disputed at trial.

Rule 3.1.2 Witness Statements

Witness statements may not be altered.

D. Trial Logistics

Rule 4.1  Scoring Panel Composition

The scoring panel shall consist of at least three individuals. The composition of the panel and the role of the presiding judge will be set at the discretion of the State Tournament Coordinator. The State Tournament Coordinator is encouraged to integrate educators and community representatives onto scoring panels. However, each panel shall have at least one attorney as a scoring judge. The following are examples of potential scoring panels. One presiding judge and three attorneys as scoring judges. One presiding judge, two attorneys, and one educator/community representative as scoring judges. One presiding/scoring judge and two attorneys as scoring judges. One presiding/scoring judge, one attorney, and one educator/community representative as scoring judges

Rule 4.2  Videotaping/Photography

Any team has the option to refuse participation in videotaping, audio recording, and still photography by opposing teams. However, videotaping, audio recording, and still photography by the media and the Colorado Bar Association will be allowed. 

If either competing team videotapes or audio tapes a trial round, the trial tapes are only to be used by the two competing teams. These audio tapes shall not be given to, traded, exchanged, or sold to another team under any circumstances without the express written consent of the CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee. Violations of this rule may result in sanctions up to and including disqualification. 

Rule 4.3   Viewing a Trial

Non-participating team members (team members outside the bar), alternates, coaches, teacher-sponsors, parents, siblings, and any other persons directly associated with a mock trial team are not allowed to view another team’s performance, even if the team is from the same school, so long as the individual’s team remains in the competition. There are two exceptions to this rule.  See Rule 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.

Rule 4.3.1 Exception 1: Teacher coaches or attorney coaches who are the parents of students competing on a team other than the team the teacher or attorney is coaching may watch their his/her child during the fourth round and the championship round of competition.

Rule 4.3.2 Exception 2: Any attorney coach, teacher-sponsor, parent, sibling, or other spectator associated with the school of a mock trial team may observe another team’s round if they obtain permission from each team participating in that round.  This exception must be disclosed to the presiding judge during preliminary matters.

Rule 4.4  Trial Communication

Coaches, teachers, non-participating team members, and observers shall not talk to, signal, hand notes to, communicate with, or coach their teams during trial.  This rule remains enforced during any recess taken.  Participating team members (those inside the bar) may, among themselves, communicate during the trial only verbally or through notes; however, no disruptive communication is allowed.  No one (including, but not limited to, team members, coaches, teachers, and observers) shall communicate during trial by using any device capable of communicating (including, but not limited to, laptops, computers, pagers, beepers, phones, PDAs, organizers, radios, headsets, tape players, MP3 players, and portable fax machines); during trial any and all devices capable of communicating shall be turned “off” completely so they cannot, and will not, be used in any way during trial.  Coaches, teachers, non-participating team members (those outside the bar), and observers must remain outside the bar in the gallery of the courtroom at all times during the trial, even if an emergency recess is taken. 

If the CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee does not provide a timekeeper and a team chooses to use its own timekeeper, the team may place the timekeeper inside the bar. Signaling of time by the team’s timekeeper shall not be considered a violation of this rule.

Unauthorized communication or signals between the participating team members and their student timekeeper is prohibited.  The exception to this rule is when the participating team member requests permission from the court to inquire about their time with their student timekeeper.

Rule 4.5  Courtroom Seating

The Plaintiff/Prosecution shall be seated closest to the jury box. No team shall rearrange the courtroom without prior permission of the presiding judge or courtroom monitor. Each team shall have all three witnesses and three attorneys seated inside the bar. It is up to the Defense Team whether the Defendant sits at the counsel table during the trial.

Rule 4.6 Jury Trial

The case will be tried to a jury. Presentations are to be made to the presiding judge and scoring panelists. Teams may address the scoring panel as the jury.

Rule 4.7  Precursory Documents

Copies of the trial roster shall be provided to the presiding judge and the scoring panelists at the commencement of the trial. Additionally, the Prosecution/Plaintiff’s attorney presenting the opening statement shall provide a copy of the stipulations to the presiding judge and the scoring panelists just prior to beginning the opening statement.

Team members may collect these documents at the end of the trial for use in subsequent rounds. 

The stipulations, indictment, or the charge to the jury shall not be read into the record. Stipulations shall be considered part of the trial record and can be discussed accordingly throughout the trial.

The teams shall not provide copies of the Code of Ethical Conduct (Team Roster) to the presiding judge or the scoring panelists.

Rule 4.8  Supplemental Material/Costuming

Teams may refer only to material provided in the trial packet. No illustrative aids of any kind may be used, unless provided in the case packet. No enlargements of the case materials will be permitted. Absolutely no props or costumes are permitted, unless specifically authorized in the case materials. Costuming is defined as hairstyles, clothing, accessories (example: hats, pins, gloves, scarves, etc.), and make-up that are case specific.

The only documents that teams may present to the presiding judge or scoring panelists are the trial rosters and the individual exhibits provided in the case material. These exhibits may be tendered to the presiding judge and scoring panelists at the discretion of the team. Exhibit notebooks are not permitted.

In the event a team member appears at trial in costume or uses a prop, the team may be disqualified at the presiding judge’s discretion.  If the presiding judge decides to proceed with the trial, the presiding judge will meet with the scoring panel to discuss the penalty assessed against the team. The minimum penalty imposed for use of costumes or props is two ballots (not points).

Rule 4.9  Courtroom Decorum

All team members will act in a polite and professional manner at all times. 

Rule 4.9.1 Attorney Demeanor
Unless excused by the presiding judge, attorneys will stand during opening statements, direct and cross-examinations, objections, and closing arguments.  

Rule 4.9.2  Addressing Opposing Counsel
Attorneys should not address opposing counsel directly during the trial. 

Rule 4.9.3 Addressing the Presiding Judge
Attorneys shall address the presiding judge as “Your Honor” or “Judge ____.”

Rule 4.9.4  Witness Demeanor
Witnesses are not permitted to read their statements/affidavits verbatim in the trial. Additionally, the witnesses are not permitted to refer to their written statements/affidavits during the trial, except to refresh recollection (direct) or impeach (cross). If asked questions outside the scope of their statements/affidavits, they may respond in accordance with Rule 6.5. Testimony must not be inconsistent with facts set forth in the witness’ statements/affidavits.

E. Presiding Judge Pre-Trial Procedures

At the beginning of the trial, the presiding judge will handle the following pretrial matters:

1. Ask each side if it is ready for trial.    
2. Ask each side to provide the judge and scoring panelists with copies of its trial roster with the team’s code. No words, symbols, or other marks that identify the team by its school shall be on the trial roster.  
3. that if video recorders are present and being used, that both teams have approved the taping of the round. (Coaches/gallery are not permitted to tape the trials without permission.)  
4. Inform teams, as well as gallery members, that the Colorado Bar Association may be taking photographs of the competition during the round, and that team participation in the state tournament grants automatic permission and the use of these photos by the Colorado Bar Association.  
5. Ask anyone in the gallery who is connected with teams not competing in that round (student members and coaches of other schools or of the same school but a different team) to leave the courtroom. There are two exceptions to this rule.   See Rule 4.3.  
6. Remind the teams that no recesses will be allowed, with the exception of those granted for a health emergency, and especially not between the end of witness examination and the beginning of closing arguments.  
7. Ask the scoring panelists if they recognize either team or any of the team members. If any panelist recognizes a team or a team member, the judge will notify the courtroom monitor, the State Tournament Coordinator, or a CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee member, and arrangements may be made to replace the panelist. (Team members and team coaches may raise an objection regarding a particular scoring panelist at this time as a preliminary matter. The objection is deemed waived if it is not made as a preliminary matter.)  
8. Remind the teams and coaches that any disputes arising out of this competition must be reported in accordance with the competition rules.  
9. Remind the teams that their compliance with time requirements will be considered in scoring individual performances.  
10. Confirm that no coach or team member (other than a timekeeper, if a timekeeper is not provided by the competition committee) is seated in the jury box.  
11. Ask each side to introduce the participating team members (attorneys and witnesses).  
12. Swear in the team members, the gallery, the scoring panelists, and the witnesses.
      
    The presiding judge will ask all members in the courtroom to stand for the swearing in and explain that, in an effort to maintain a level of professionalism and to uphold the Code of Ethical Conduct during and after these mock trial proceedings, all members of the gallery, scoring panels, and teams shall stand for the swearing in to the oath of the Code of Ethical Conduct.  

    “Team members, please raise your right hands. Team members, do you promise that the presentation you are about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition?”

     “Gallery members, including teacher and attorney coaches, family members and friends, please raise your right hands. Do you promise to represent yourselves as positive role models, and to behave in a manner that exemplifies ethical and professional sportsmanship during and after this mock trial round?”

     “Scoring Panelists, please raise your right hands. Do you promise to adjudicate the mock trial competition as fairly and objectively as possible in accordance with the facts, procedures and rules of the mock trial competition?”

    Once all have been sworn to the Code of Ethical Conduct, the presiding judge will ask all but the witnesses to sit. Then the witnesses shall be sworn in as follows:

    “Witnesses, do you promise that the testimony you are about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts, procedures, and rules of the mock trial competition?”

F. General Trial Information

Rule 5.1  Sequestration

The teams may not invoke the rule of witness sequestration. Rule 5.2  Bench Conferences
Teams should not request bench conferences. However, if a bench conference is requested and granted by the presiding judge, it shall be held in open court for educational and scoring purposes. Time will stop for bench conferences. The timekeeper shall resume time upon the presiding judge’s order to proceed.

Rule 5.3  Motions

No motions may be made except a motion for an emergency recess.

Rule 5.3.1  Emergencies
A motion for a recess may be used only in the event of a health emergency. Should the recess be granted, to the greatest extent possible, the team members are to remain in place. Teams are not to communicate with anyone outside the bar during the recess.

Rule 5.4  Offers of Proof

No offers of proof may be requested or tendered.

Rule 5.5  Voir Dire

Voir dire examination of a lay witness is not permitted. The presiding judge may allow brief voir dire of an expert witness regarding the witness’s qualifications. Time used for voir dire is chargeable time, i.e., counts toward total time limit of the team’s direct and cross-examinations.

Rule 5.6  Use of Notes

Attorneys are not restricted from the use of notes while presenting any segment of their case. Additionally, participating attorneys and witnesses may communicate during the trial with each other verbally or through the use of notes.

G. Trial   

Rule 6.1  Trial Sequence

The trial sequence is as follows:

1.  Plaintiff/Prosecution Opening Statement

2.  Defense Opening Statement

3.  Plaintiff/Prosecution Case-in-Chief 

a.  Plaintiff/Prosecution direct examination of their first witness.
b. Defense cross-examination of the first witness.
c.  Plaintiff/Prosecution re-direct examination of first witness (optional and only with permission of presiding judge).
d.  Defense re-cross-examination of the first witness (optional and only if re-direct has occurred). Re-cross will be limited to the scope of re-direct.
e.  Same process as steps a-d for the second witness.
f.  Same process as steps a-d for the third witness.

4.  Defense Case-in-Chief

a.  Defense direct examination of its first witness.
b. Plaintiff/Prosecution cross-examination of the first witness.
c.  Defense re-direct examination of first witness (optional and only with permission of presiding judge).
d.  Plaintiff/Prosecution re-cross-examination of the first witness (optional and only if re-direct has occurred). Re-cross will be limited to the scope of re-direct.
e.  Same process as steps a-d for the second witness.
f.  Same process as steps a-d for the third witness.

5.  Prosecution/Plaintiff Closing Argument

6.  Defense Closing Argument

7.  Prosecution/Plaintiff Rebuttal Argument if properly reserved (optional)

If the Prosecution/Plaintiff reserved a portion of its closing time for a rebuttal, the rebuttal argument shall be limited to the scope of the Defense’s closing argument.
Attorneys are not required to use the entire time allotted to each part of the trial.
Time remaining in one part of the trial may not be transferred to another part of the trial. 

Rule 6.2  Re-Direct and Re-Cross-Examinations

Re-direct and re-cross-examinations are permitted at the discretion of the presiding judges. If re-direct examination is permitted, the scope of the re-cross-examination will be limited to the scope of the re-direct examination.

Rule 6.3  Scope of Closing Arguments

Closing arguments must be based on the actual evidence and testimony presented at trial.

Rule 6.4  Time Keeping

Time limits are mandatory and will be strictly enforced.  Only non-participating student timekeepers are allowed to keep time for teams.

When a student timekeeper displays the time remaining to a student performer, the student timekeeper also shall display the time remaining to the presiding judge.  Both student timekeepers should track time for both sides and show their time cards during the trial round.  Both student timekeepers should confer with each other after each trial segment to ascertain time discrepancies.  If student timekeepers have a time discrepancy greater than 15 seconds, they should notify the presiding judge.  When time runs out for a specific segment of the trial, the student timekeepers must stand and say "STOP" in a voice loud enough be heard by the performing student, the presiding judge and the scoring panelists. Failure to do so may subject the violating team to disqualification. The following time limits shall be used.

 

Opening statement	5 minutes per side
Direct examination and optional re-direct	25 minutes per side
Cross examination and optional re-cross	20 minutes per side
Plaintiff/Prosecution closing argument and Optional rebuttal argument	5 minutes
Defense closing argument	5 minutes

Rule 6.4.1  Time Extensions
The presiding judge shall not grant time extensions.
If time for a specific segment of the trial has expired and an attorney continues, the scoring panelists will determine individually the impact on the individual's performance score.

Rule 6.4.2  Timing Objections, Delays or Bench Conferences
Time for objections, extensive questioning by the presiding judge or administering of the oaths will not be counted as part of the allotted time during examination of witnesses, opening statements or closing arguments. 

Time does not stop for introduction of exhibits.

Time shall stop for bench conferences.  Please see Rule 5.2.

Rule 6.4.3 Time Keeping Aids
Student timekeepers should use time keeping place cards.  These cards may not exceed 8 1/2 X 11" in size.  Additionally, student timekeepers should use a stopwatch or similar timing device.    All timekeepers should have time keeping place cards in the following increments: 20 minutes, 15 minutes, 10 minutes, 5 minutes, 4 minutes, 3 minutes, 2 minutes, 1 minute, 40 seconds, and 20 seconds.  Teams may use additional place cards at different increments at their discretion.  Please see attachment for additional timekeeping tools for use at each team’s discretion.

Rule 6.4.4    Discrepancies in Time Between Team Timekeepers
If timing variations of 15 seconds or more occur at the completion of any segment of the trial, timekeepers are to notify the presiding judge that a time discrepancy has occurred.

The presiding judge will rule on any time discrepancy before the trial continues. Timekeepers will synchronize stopwatches to match the presiding judge’s ruling (for example if the Plaintiff/Prosecution stopwatch indicates 2 minutes left on a direct examination and the Defense stopwatch indicates time is expired, the presiding judge might decide to split the difference in the timing variation and give Plaintiff/Prosecution 1 minute to conclude the direct examination. Defense would adjust timing to allow for the 1 minute timing decision.)

Any discrepancies between timekeepers less than 15 seconds will not be considered a violation.

Timekeepers may raise time discrepancies only at the end of each segment of the trial presentation.  No time disputes will be entertained after the trial concludes.  The decisions of the presiding judge regarding the resolution of timing disputes are final.

Rule 6.5  Witnesses Bound by Statements

Each witness is bound by the facts contained in his/her own statement/affidavit, the Statement of Facts if the witness was present during the event described in the Statement of Facts, and/or any necessary documentation relevant to his/her testimony.

A witness is not bound by facts contained in other witness statements.

Rule 6.5.1  Unfair Extrapolations
Unfair extrapolations are not permitted. Unfair extrapolations are best addressed through impeachment and/or closing arguments.

Specifically, unfair extrapolations are:

a.  statements made by a witness that are not contained in the witness’s statement/affidavit but touch on a pivotal issue in the case; or

b.  statements made by a witness that are not contained in the Statement of Facts or covered by an event in the Statement of Facts that the witness was present for but touch on a pivotal issue in the case; or

c.  statements made by a witness that are not contained in any necessary documentation relevant to the witness’s testimony but touch on a pivotal issue in the case; or

d.  statements made by a witness that are not a reasonable inference from the witness’s statement, affidavit, Statement of Facts or necessary documentation relevant to the witness’s testimony, but touch on a pivotal issue in the case.

It shall not be considered an unfair extrapolation for a witness to testify that he/she agrees or disagrees with what is contained in another witness’s statement/affidavit.

If a witness is asked a question that calls for an inference, for information that the other side believes to be admissible, or for any information not in the witness’s statement, the following response may be used: “I’m sorry, that information is not in the case materials. I cannot respond to your question.” In the alternative, the witness may respond to the question with a creative, reasonable answer, as long as the response is not considered an unfair extrapolation. The creative answers must not be inconsistent with the facts contained in the witness’s statement/affidavit. 
   
Rule 6.5.2  Unfair Extrapolation Objection
No unfair extrapolation objections are permitted.  Unfair extrapolations are best addressed through impeachment and/or in closing arguments.  See Rule 6.5.1 and Rule 6.6.3.

Rule 6.6  Objections

Attorneys shall state their objections loudly enough to be heard by the presiding judge, scoring panelists, and opposing counsel. Objections should begin by stating, “Objection, your honor.” Once an attorney has the attention of the presiding judge, the attorney should state the basis for the objection.

Rule 6.6.1 List of Objections
The following is a list of objections that may be used. This is not an exhaustive list. Teams are not precluded from raising additional objections that are available under the Colorado High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence.

a.  Ambiguous or Unintelligible
b.  Argumentative 
c.  Asked and Answered
d.  Assuming Facts Not in Evidence
e.  Compound Question
f.  Cumulative
g.  Hearsay
h.  Improper Foundation
i.  Improper Lay Opinion
j.  Lack of Foundation
k.  Lack of Personal Knowledge
l.  Leading
m.  Narrative
n.  Relevant
o.  Speculative 

Rule 6.6.2  Opening Statement or Closing Argument Objections
No objections shall be raised during opening statements or during closing arguments. If a team believes that an objection would have been proper during the opposing team’s opening statement or closing argument, the team member presenting the same segment of the trial may, following the opening statement or closing argument, stand to be recognized by the presiding judge and once recognized, state, “If I had been permitted to object during the [opening statement/closing argument] I would have objected to ________.” The presiding judge will not rule on this “objection.” The presiding judge and scoring panelists will weigh the “objection” individually. No rebuttal by the opposing team will be heard.

Rule 6.6.3 Unfair Extrapolation Objection
No unfair extrapolation objections are permitted.  Unfair extrapolations are best addressed through impeachment and/or in closing arguments.  See Rule 6.5.1 and 6.5.2
 

Rule 6.7  Exhibits

Exhibits can be admitted into evidence only when a sequence of proper procedural steps has been followed. These steps are part of a litany that should be smoothly and efficiently demonstrated by the attorney for each exhibit admitted. All evidence is pre-marked as exhibits.

Rule 6.7.1 Steps for Exhibit Admission
The following are only offered as examples.

a.  Show the exhibit to opposing counsel or offer them a copy of the exhibit. “Your Honor, let the record reflect that I (am showing/have given) opposing counsel a copy of Exhibit A.”

b.  Obtain permission of the presiding judge to approach the witness. “Your honor, may I approach the witness.”

c.  Show the exhibit to the witness. “Your Honor, let the record reflect I am showing the witness a copy of Exhibit A.”

d.  Lay the proper foundation for the exhibit.

e.  Move for admission of the exhibit into evidence. “Your Honor, at this time I move for the admission of Exhibit A.”

f.  Obtain permission of the presiding judge to publish the exhibit to the jury. “Your Honor, permission to publish Exhibit A to the jury.”

g.  Publish the exhibit.

H. TRIAL CONCLUSION

Rule 7.1  Disputes
 
Allegations of rule violations that occur within the bar must be filed immediately by a participating team member following the conclusion of that trial round with the presiding judge. Allegations of rule violations that occur outside the bar must be brought to the attention of the State Tournament Coordinator or CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee member by the team’s Teacher or Attorney coach as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after the tournament, or within 48 hours of the time the team knew or should have known that rules violation occurred.  Any disputes received after this time will not be considered.

Rule 7.1.1  Reporting an Inside the Bar Dispute
If any participating team member believes that a substantial rules violation has occurred, a student attorney must indicate to the presiding judge at the conclusion of the trial that the team intends to file a dispute. The student attorney will record the nature of the dispute on the attached dispute form. The student may communicate with participating team members (counsel and/or student witnesses) before lodging the notice of dispute or in preparing the form.

At no time in this process may team sponsors, coaches, or non-participating team members communicate or consult with the student attorneys. Only student attorneys may invoke the dispute procedure.

Rule 7.1.2  Dispute Resolution Procedure
The presiding judge will review the written dispute form and determine whether the dispute should be heard or denied. If the dispute is denied, the judge will record his/her reasons on the form, announce her/his decision to the court, retire to complete his/her score sheet (if applicable), and turn the dispute form into the State Tournament Coordinator. If the judge feels the grounds for the dispute merit a hearing, the form will be shown to opposing counsel for its written response. After the team has recorded its response and transmitted it to the judge, the judge will ask each team to designate a spokesperson. After the spokespersons have had time (not to exceed three minutes) to prepare their arguments, the judge will conduct a hearing on the dispute, allotting each team’s spokesperson three minutes for a presentation. The spokespersons may be questioned by the judge. At no time in this process may team sponsors or coaches communicate or consult with the student attorneys. After the hearing, the presiding judge will enter her/his ruling on the dispute on the dispute form. The presiding judge may take a recess to consult with the State Tournament Coordinator and/or CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee members.

If the presiding judge determines that a substantial rules violation has occurred, the scoring panelists will consider the dispute before reaching their final decisions. The dispute may or may not affect the final decision, but the matter will be left to the discretion of the scoring panelists on individual performance scores.

Rule 7.1.3  Reporting an Outside-the-Bar Dispute
If any participating team member believes that a substantial rules violation has occurred outside the bar, a teacher or attorney coach must indicate to the State Tournament Coordinator or a CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee member the nature of the dispute on the attached dispute form. The form will be taken to the tournament’s communications center, whereupon a dispute resolution panel will (a) notify all pertinent parties of the dispute; (b) allow time for a response, if appropriate; (c) conduct a hearing, if needed; and (d) rule on the charge. The dispute resolution panel may notify the scoring panelists of the affected courtroom of the ruling on the charge in case they want to reflect the findings on individual performance scores, or the dispute resolution panel may assess an appropriate penalty.

The dispute resolution panel will be designated by the State Tournament Coordinator and CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee members.

Rule 7.1.4  Code of Ethical Conduct Violations
Allegations of Code of Ethical Conduct violations must be reported immediately to the State Tournament Coordinator or a CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee member. A student, Teacher coach, or Attorney coach may report an alleged violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct. The State Tournament Coordinator or a dispute resolution panel will (a) notify all pertinent parties of the alleged violation; (b) allow time for a response, if appropriate; (c) conduct a hearing, if needed; and (d) rule on the charge. The dispute resolution panel may assess an appropriate penalty.

The dispute resolution panel will be designated by the State Tournament Coordinator and CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee members.

I. Judging and Team Advancement

Rule 8.1  Scoring Guidelines

The scoring sheets must be completed prior to the beginning of any student performance critique. Scoring panelists should use the attached scoring criteria during the mock trial to determine the performance level of each student as attorney or witness. This scoring criteria outline will be provided to each scoring panelist as a reference during the adjudication of the mock trial.

Rule 8.1.1  Completing the Scoring Sheets
The score sheets are to be completed individually by each scoring panelist.

The scoring panelists will score participants on a scale of 1-10, according to the performance of their roles during the trial. The panelists then will total these individual performance scores and shall place the sum in the “totals box.” The team that earned the highest point value on the individual judge’s score sheet is the winner of that judge’s ballot. The scoring panelists shall then circle the team’s role (Prosecution/Plaintiff or Defense) with the highest total points. The team that receives the majority of the three ballots wins the round.

In the event of a scoring panelist having the same total team performance point scores for both teams, the scoring panelists shall circle the team’s role (Prosecution/Plaintiff or Defense) that he/she deems the trial round winner of his/her ballot.

Rule 8.1.2  Team Role Assignments
Teams have options concerning attorney/witness role assignment, order of calling witnesses, and selecting who presents opening and closing arguments, which are explained in the mock trial rules. Scoring panelists are not to pass judgment or impact a point score on how teams make assignments.

In the event that a “team” is missing one of its participating team members in a trial round, for example, due to illness or failure to appear, you shall give the missing participating team a “0” point score for each performance part he/she misses in that trial round and make a notation in the remarks section of the ballot. Additionally, you shall score the opposing team member(s) impacted by the missing person with “10” points for each performance in that trial round impacted and make a notation in the remarks section of the ballot. This rule applies even if another participating team member stands in for the missing member. A non-participating member may fill in for the missing participating member with no penalty.

Example 1, Missing Witness: A team does not have one of its three witnesses during a round.

If a witness role is not conducted, both the witness role and the attorney who would have conducted the direct-examination of the witness will receive “0” point scores. Additionally, the opposing attorney who would have cross-examined the witness will receive a “10” point score.

Example 2, Substituted Witness, Participating Team Member: A team does not have one of its witnesses, and a participating team member steps into a second role.

If a participating team member steps into that role, that role portrayal will be scored with “0” points. The attorney from the opposing team who conducted the cross-examination of the substitute participating team member will be scored “10” points.

Example 3, Substituted Witness, Non-Participating Team member: A team does not have one of its witnesses and a non-participating team member fills the role.

If a non-participating team member steps into a witness role, points for all students impacted will be scored as they are earned. No penalties will be assessed.

Example 4, Missing Attorney: A team does not have one of its attorneys during a round.

If an attorney does not conduct a direct examination of a witness, both that attorney role and the witness he/she was to direct will receive “0” point scores. Additionally, the opposing attorney who would have cross-examined the witness will receive a “10” point score.

If the same attorney does not conduct a cross-examination of a witness, that attorney will receive a “0” point score. The opposing team’s witness and the attorney who conducted the direct-examination will both receive “10” point scores.

Example 5, Substituted Attorney, Participating Team Member: A team does not have one of its attorneys during a round, and a participating team member steps into a second role (i.e., doubles).

If a participating team member steps into an attorney role, that team member shall receive a “0” point score for both the direct examination and the cross-examination impacted by the substitution. The opposing team’s witness who is being cross-examined and impacted by the substitution will receive a “10” point score.

Example 6, Substituted Attorney, Non-Participating Team Member: A team does not have one of its attorneys during a round, and a non-participating team member fills the role.

If a non-participating team member fills into an attorney role, points for all students impacted will be scored as they are earned. No penalties will be assessed.

Rule 8.1.3  Merits of the Case
The responsibility of the scoring panelists is to score the student performance for each element of the trial round, not the merits of the legal case and applicable law. In other words, the scoring panelists are scoring the performance of each of the students as attorneys and witnesses to determine the winning team.

Rule 8.1.4 Mathematical Errors
In the event of a mathematical error in tabulation by a scoring panelist that, when corrected, changes the results of the team with the highest point total, such correction will be made by the State Tournament Coordinator or CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee member.

Rule 8.2  Student Critique

The scoring panelists are allowed fifteen minutes total for debriefing. The timekeeper will monitor the critique allowing individual scoring panelists five minutes each. The scoring panelists shall not inform the students of individual performance scores, total team points earned, or ballot decisions.  Scoring panelists shall be reminded during their orientation by tournament coordinators of the need to be sensitive to student diversity and age when making their remarks.

Rule 8.3  Team Advancement   

Rule 8.3.1  Team Rankings
The teams will be ranked at the end of each round based on the following criteria in the order listed:

a.  Win/loss record

b.  Total number of ballots

c.  Total number of points spread between a team and their opponents

d.  Total number of points accumulated by the team

Rule 8.3.2 Team Matching
The teams are matched randomly in the first round of competition, with the exception that teams emerging from their regional tournament as the number one seeds will not be paired against each other. Additionally, two teams from the same region will not be paired against each other in the first round. Teams will be matched in all subsequent rounds by power matching.

Power matching provides that two brackets will be established: a winners bracket and a losers bracket. Team assignments in rounds two, three, four, and the championship round will be determined by the following criteria in the order listed:

a.  Win/loss record
b.  Total number of ballots
c.  Total number of points spread between a team and their opponents
d.  Total number of points accumulated by the team

The team ranked highest in the bracket will be paired against the team ranked lowest in the bracket. The next highest ranked team will be paired against the next lowest and so on until all teams are paired. Adjustments may be made at the discretion of the State Tournament Coordinator or CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee for the following situations:

a.  An odd number of teams are participating in the tournament
b. An odd number of teams are in one or both of the brackets
c.  Two teams already have competed against each other in an earlier round
d.  A team is due to present the other side of the case. To the greatest extent possible, teams will equally present both sides of the case. However, bracket integrity in power matching will supersede alternative side presentation.

Rule 8.3.3 Bye Round Assignments
A “bye” becomes necessary when an odd number of teams are present for any given round of the tournament. It is the intent of the CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee to avoid “bye” round assignments where possible. However, in the event of a circumstance resulting in an odd number of competing teams, the following procedure will be followed:

a.  The team drawing the “bye” in the first round will receive a win and three ballots for that round. For the purpose of power matching, the team will receive the average of the points spread and points earned by all round one winning teams.

b.  The team drawing the “bye” in the second through fourth rounds will receive a win and three ballots for that round. For the purpose of power matching, the team will receive the average of its points earned in its preceding trials.

Rule 8.4  Championship Round

At the end of four rounds of competition, the top two teams will be announced to compete in the championship round. The following procedure will be followed to determine which team will represent which side of the case for the championship round:

a.  The team with the letter/numerical code that comes first alphabetically/numerically will be considered the “designated team.”

b.  A coin will be tossed and allowed to drop on the floor unimpeded by the State Tournament Coordinator or designee.

c.  If the coin lands heads up, the designated team will represent the Plaintiff/Prosecution. If the coin lands tails up, the designated team will represent the Defense.

The championship round may have a larger scoring panel than described in Rule 4.1.  Teams participating in the state tournament need to plan on having an additional seven copies of all round materials for this round.  If the tournament schedule allows, both teams will have approximately thirty minutes from the coin toss to regroup and prepare for the championship round.  When possible and resources are available, teams will each be provided a private area to confer prior to the round.  Teams will be advised as to their report time to the Championship Round Courtroom.

J. Review of Decisions

 Rule 9.1  Finality

 All decisions of the State Tournament Coordinator and the Colorado Mock Trial Committee are final and not subject to appeal.

 

Mock Trial Rules of Evidence

In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof, i.e., oral or physical evidence. These rules are designed to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing and to exclude evidence deemed irrelevant, incompetent, untrustworthy, unduly prejudicial, or otherwise improper. If it appears that a Rule of Evidence is being violated, an attorney may raise an objection to the judge. The judge then decides whether the rule has been violated and whether the evidence must be excluded from the record of the trial. In the absence of a properly made objection, however, the evidence probably will be allowed by the judge. The burden is on the mock trial team to know the Mock Trial Rules of Evidence and to be able to use them to protect the client and fairly limit the actions of opposing counsel and its witnesses.

For purposes of mock trial competition, the Rules of Evidence have been modified and simplified. They are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence and its numbering system. Where rule numbers or letters are skipped, those rules were not deemed applicable to mock trial procedure. Text in italics or underlined represents simplified or modified language.

Not all judges will interpret the Rules of Evidence (or procedure) the same way, and mock trial attorneys should be prepared to point out specific rules (quoting, if necessary) and to argue persuasively for the interpretation and application of the rule they think appropriate.

The Mock Trial Rules of Competition and these Mock Trial Rules of Evidence govern the competition.

Article I. General Provisions

Rule 101. Scope
These Mock Trial Rules of Evidence govern the trial proceedings of local and state tournaments in Colorado.

Rule 102. Purpose and Construction
These Rules are intended to secure fairness in administration of the trials, eliminate unjust delay, and promote the laws of evidence so that the facts of the case may be ascertained.

Article II. Judicial Notice-Not applicable.

Article III. Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings-Not applicable.

Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits

Rule 401. Definition of “Relevant Evidence”
“Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible
Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible—Relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided in these Rules. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; if it confuses the issues; if it is misleading; or if it causes undue delay, wastes time, or is a needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes

(a) Character Evidence—Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove action regarding a particular occasion, except:

 (1)  Character of accused—Evidence of a pertinent character trait offered by an accused or by the prosecution to rebut same;

 (2)  Character of victim—Evidence of a pertinent character trait of the victim of the crime offered by an accused or by the prosecution to  rebut same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the  victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor;

 (3)  Character of witness—Evidence of the character of a witness as provided in Rules 607, 608, and 609.

(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts—Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character of a person to show an action conforms to character. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

Rule 405. Methods of Proving Character

(a) Reputation or Opinion—In all cases where evidence of character or a character trait is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, questions may be asked regarding relevant, specific conduct.

(b) Specific Instances of Conduct—In cases where character or a character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof also may be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct.

Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eye-witnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization, on a particular occasion, was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.

Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures
When measures are taken after an event that, if taken before, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This Rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.

Rule 410. Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements
Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against a defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions:

(1)  a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn;

(2)  a plea of nolo contendere;

(3)  any statement made in the course of any proceeding under Rule 11 of the Mock Trial Rules of Criminal Procedure or comparable state procedure regarding either of the forgoing pleas; or

(4)  any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority that do not result in a plea of guilty or that results in a plea of guilty that is later withdrawn.

However, such a statement is admissible (i) in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought, in fairness, be considered with it, or (ii) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the statement was made by the Defendant under oath, on the record, and in the presence of counsel.

Rule 411. Liability Insurance (civil case only)
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible concerning the issue of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This Rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.

Article V. Privileges

Rule 501. General Rule
There are certain admissions and communications excluded from evidence on grounds of public policy. Among these are:

(1) communications between husband and wife;

(2) communications between attorney and client;

(3) communications among grand jurors;

(4) secrets of state; and

(5) communications between psychiatrist and patient.

Article VI. Witnesses

Rule 601. General Rule of Competency
Every person is competent to be a witness.

Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
A witness may not testify to a matter unless the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony. This Rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, related to opinion testimony by expert witnesses. (See Rule 3.1.2)

Rule 607. Who may Impeach
The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.

Rule 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness
(a) Opinion and reputation evidence of character —The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations:

(1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and;

(2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.

(b) Specific instances of conduct — Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’ credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the Court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be asked on cross-examination of the witness

(1) concerning the witness’ character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or

(2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.

Testimony, whether by an accused or by any other witness, does not operate as a waiver of the accused or the witness’ privilege against self-incrimination with respect to matters related only to credibility.

Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime (this Rule applies only to witnesses with prior convictions)
(a) General Rule—For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that a witness other than the accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record during cross-examination, but only if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, and the Court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused. Evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.

(b) Time Limit—Evidence of a conviction under this Rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the Court determines that the value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However, evidence of a conviction more than ten years old as calculated herein is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

(c) Effect of Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation—Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if

(1) The conviction has been the subject of a pardon or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted of a subsequent crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, or

(2) The conviction has been the subject of a pardon or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.

(d) Juvenile Adjudications—Evidence of juvenile adjudications generally is not admissible under this rule. The Court may, however, in a criminal case allow evidence of a juvenile adjudication of a witness other than the accused, if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and the Court is satisfied that admission in evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence.

(e) Not Applicable.

Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions
Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness’ credibility is impaired or enhanced.

Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
(a)  Control by Court—The Court shall exercise reasonable control over questioning of witnesses and presenting evidence so as to:

(1)  make the questioning and presentation of evidence effective for
 ascertaining the truth,

(2)  avoid needless waste of time, and

(3)  protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

(b)  Scope of Cross-Examination — The scope of cross-examination shall not be limited to the scope of the direct examination but may inquire into any relevant facts or matters contained in the witness’ statement.

(c) Leading Questions — Leading questions should not be used on direct examination of a witness (except as may be necessary to develop the witness’ testimony). Ordinarily, leading questions are permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, leading questions may be used.

(d)  Redirect/Re-cross—After cross-examination, additional questions may be asked by the direct examining attorney, but questions must be limited to matters raised by the attorney on cross-examination. Likewise, additional questions may be asked by the cross-examining attorney on re-cross, but such questions must be limited to matters raised on redirect examination and should avoid repetition.

Rule 612. Writing Used to Refresh Memory
If a written statement is used to refresh the memory of a witness either while or before testifying, the Court shall determine that the adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced for inspection. The adverse party may cross-examine the witness on the material and introduce into evidence those portions that relate to the testimony of the witness.

Rule 613. Prior Statements of Witnesses
Examining Witness Concerning Prior Statement—In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.

Extrinsic Evidence of Prior Inconsistent Statement of Witness—Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate.

Article VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences that are

(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and

(b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts
The facts or data on which an expert bases an opinion may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.

Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue
(a)  Opinion or inference testimony otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an issue to be decided by the trier of fact.

(b) In a criminal case, an expert witness shall not express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion
The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefore without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the Court requires otherwise. The expert may, in any event, be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.

Article VIII. Hearsay

Rule 801. Definitions
The following definitions apply under this Article:

(a)  Statement—A “statement” is an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person if it is intended by the person as an assertion.

(b)  Declarant—A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement.

(c) Hearsay—“Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

(d)  Statements that are not hearsay—A statement is not hearsay if:

(1) Prior statement by witness—The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and  was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or

(2) Admission by a party-opponent—The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or, made during the existence of the relationship, or (E) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Rule 802. Hearsay Rule
Hearsay is not admissible, except as provided by these rules.

Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions. Availability of Declarant Immaterial
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:

(1)  Present Sense Impression—A statement describing or explaining  an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, immediately thereafter.

(2)  Excited Utterance—A statement relating to a startling event or  condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

(3)  Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Conditions—A  statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation,  or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant’s will.

(4)  Statements For Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment —  Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.

(5)  Recorded Recollection—A memorandum or record concerning a  matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has  insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’ memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly.

(6) Business Records—Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of the information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term “business” as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.

(18)  Learned Treatises — To the extent called to the attention of an  expert witness upon cross-examination or relied upon by the expert witness  in a direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice.

(21)  Reputation as to Character—Reputation of a person’s character  among associates or in the community.

(22)  Judgment of Previous Conviction—Evidence of a judgment finding  a person guilty of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess  of one year, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment, but not including, when offered by the Government in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused.

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable
(a) Definition of unavailability. “Unavailability as a witness” includes situations in which the declarant—

(1) is exempted by ruling of the Court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement; or

(2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the Court to do so; or

(3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant’s statement; or

(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or

(5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant’s attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b)(2), (3), or (4), the declarant’s attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means.

 A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

(b) Hearsay exceptions-The following are not excluded by the hearsay Rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

(1) Former testimony-Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

(2) Statement under belief of impending death-In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death is imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.

(3) Statement against interest-A statement that was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offering to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

(4) Statement of personal or family history-(A) A statement concerning the declarant’s own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; (B) a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other’s family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.

(5) Forfeiture by wrongdoing-A statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.

Rule 805. Hearsay within Hearsay
Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule, if each part of the combined statement conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these Rules.