Sample of opening statement mock trials

The purpose of your opening statement is to highlight the key facts of the case and circumstances surrounding it, summarize critical evidence and identify the request for relief that your client is seeking jail time for criminal cases or money for civil cases. Yours is the last thing the jury will hear before the questioning begins.

A good opening statement is one in which you provide a complete and compelling narrative of events that supports the side you represent without going into too much detail or making specific arguments.

Strong opening statements make it easy for a jury to understand and remember by providing a roadmap of the case such as key facts you will try to prove and a summary of the witness testimony or other evidence that will help you prove those facts. Do write a compelling opening statement that clearly identifies the most important aspects of the case as it relates to your side. Lay out how you expect the trial to proceed and how you expect witnesses to testify. Memorize your opening statement.

Knowing it by heart will make a better impression on the jury than if you read from a paper. Use proper body language and tone of voice to make a favorable impression as you deliver your opening statement. Search this site. Become a member! About Us. Membership Information. National Competition Teams.

Mock Trial Competitions. Executive Board. Mock Trial Competitions and Events. Past Winners. Meeting Minutes. Membership Application. Past Events. Competition Finalists. Opening Statements. Introducing Evidence. Direct Examination. Cross Examination. Closing Argument. Tampa Bay Events. Our Mission. Community Service is an aspect that MTB continues to encourage their members to participate in. Navigation Auburn Hills. West Michigan - Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo. Tampa Bay. A good opening statement is a map and diary rolled into one;it anticipates where the trial path will go and highlights the testimony and evidence that will be presented by the witnesses.

Grab the Opening Moment. This moment is crucial. If you can place a mental image in the minds of the judge or jury, you can directly influence the way they interpret the evidence at trial. A pool hall, however, is more likely to be pictured as smoky, dark, perhaps slightly threatening, and probably a little seedy.

Along with the contrasting images, the fact-finder will make different inferences about events occurring in these two places. In general, things seem to happen differently in pool halls than they do in billiard parlors. Visibility is better in a billiard parlor, whereas things happen more furtively in a pool hall. A stranger might be questioned in a billiard parlor, but a confrontation is more likely in a pool hall. In other words, the initial mental image dictates, or at least suggests, a variety of assumptions about the nature, context, and likelihood of events.

Explain the Anticipated Evidence. The legal function of an opening statement is to assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence to be presented at trial. While we hope the evidence will be self-explanatory, even in the best-organized trials evidence is often developed in a disjointed manner.

To reduce this confusion, the courts developed the concept of the opening statement. The opening statement gives the parties the opportunity to present an overview of the case at the beginning of the trial so as to better equip the fact-finder to make sense of the evidence as it is presented.

This chance to give an overview of the expected testimony, however, is not an invitation to argue about it. This limitation results in a highly stylized set of rules for the presentation of opening statements, as lawyers strive to influence the fact-finder without crossing the line into prohibited argument. Advocate for Your Client. Your goal in presenting an opening statement should be to use it as an opportunity to advance your theory of the case.

This is not as easy nor as obvious as it may sound. The trick is to consider the relationship between the expected evidence and the conclusions that you want the judge or jury to reach. In the fire truck case, the expected evidence is tat a fire truck approached the intersection and that the defendant did not stop his car.

It is only when the expected evidence is combined with a case theory that the opening statement becomes persuasive. So long as you avoid lapsing into argumentative form you may develop your theory of the case. While you may not urge the trier of fact to reach certain conclusions, you may arrange your discussion of the facts so that the conclusions are inevitable.

Many tools are available to accomplish this goal. In brief, a well-developed opening statement will take advantage of some or all of the following concepts:. Choice of facts: In every opening statement you must decide which facts to include and which to leave out. While you will obviously want to emphasize the facts that you find helpful, there is also considerable risk to telling an incomplete or illogical story.

Sequencing: The order of the facts may be as important as the nature of the facts. Clarity of description: It is one thing to mention a fact, but it is better to describe it with sufficient detail and clarity that you engage the finder of fact in your own mental portrait. Common sense: Common sense is used both to judge and predict outcomes. An opening statement cannot be successful if its story does not resonate with everyday experience.

Moral attraction An opening statement can be made more attractive when it tells a story that people want to accept. In the final analysis, the most successful opening statements are those that explain exactly how you intend to win your case. The rules of evidence used in your mock trial govern what evidence is admitted at trial.

Since the admission of a piece of evidence is left to the discretion of the presiding judge, you may not know exactly what facts will come out at trial when you are preparing your opening statement. To complicate matters, opening statements are limited to admissible evidence. The best method, then, is to use only those facts for which you have a reasonable theory of admissibility.

In addition to limiting your opening to only the facts that you believe will be admissible at trial, there are other specific rules that set forth the manner in which you may present your opening statement. Once you understand these rules, you can begin to plan exactly what you will say. Before we address these rules, however, we will briefly summarize the techniques you should follow when delivering your opening statement.

First, if you have had weeks or even months to prepare for your mock trial, you should memorize your opening statement. When you have had less time, we recommend that you write out your opening statement and then divide it into sections. At trial, you can use an outline that lists the sections or headings. By triggering your memory section by section, you can avoid reading your opening statement. Reading is your enemy during openings since it introduces you to the fact-finder as stilted, labored, or unprepared.

Movement about the courtroom can also add considerable force to your opening statement; it can be usedto make the transition from one topic to another or to emphasize a particular point. You should begin your opening statement standing directly in front of the fact-finder.

Then, to signal transition, take a step or two to one side or the other whenever you change topics. By using your body in this manner you signal to the finder of fact that one subject has ended and another is about to begin.

The motion, in turn, will have the effect of reinitiating primacy. Most judges will allow you to move freely about the courtroom during opening statements. Even so, you might encounter a judge who prefers that you argue your case from the podium or behind counsel table.

If you are unsure about which policy the judge follows, ask her before the trial begins. Do Not Argue. As we noted above, argument is improper during opening statements. Defining argument. As with many other rules we have discussed, application of this rule will vary by competition and by presiding judge. To help you through the uncertainty involved in determining whether a statement is an argument, ask yourself the following questions:.

Am I urging the fact-finder to draw inferences from the facts? To illustrate to the application of our test, consider the following portions of opening statements that are based on a personal injury case:.

Just before the accident the plaintiff was sitting in a bar. In less than an hour and a half he. He bought a round for the house and then he left. He left in his car. The accident occurred within the next twenty minutes. The plaintiff was obviously drunk. No person could drink four shots of Everclear in that. Only an alcoholic or a liar would claim to have been.

The first examplepasses our test since the bartender will testify to the facts contained un the first three sentences and the police will verify the remainder of the information. The second example is more problematic. Thus, the second example fails our test and is therefore improper. Other considerations. In addition to the words you speak, a variety of other considerations may lead a judge to conclude that your opening statement has crossed the line into argument.

A statement can be transformed into an argument simply by the way in which it is spoken, including the use of sarcasm, volume, or vocal caricature. In addition, the use of rhetorical questions is inherently argumentative. Likewise, although an excellent persuasive device when used elsewhere in a trial, repetition an lead an opening statement into the forbidden territory of argument.

Even the most innocent of facts can become provocative when repeated as many as three times, each with greater emphasis. Do Not Comment on the Law. Closely related to the rule against argument is the general proscription against discussing the law at length during opening statements. Since it is virtually impossible for counsel to avoid some discussion of the law during any but the simplest opening statement, we recommend that you do so quickly and only to the extent necessary.

Remember when you do this, however, that it is never acceptable to advocate that the fact-finder follow a particular interpretation or construction of the law. Your most important task when giving an opening statement is to tell the fact-finder your theory and theme of the case. State your theory clearly. The most important rule concerning opening statements is to present a coherent theory of the case. You will, of course, have developed such a theory in your pretrial preparation since no case can be won without one.

The challenge now is to communicate it clearly, succinctly, and persuasively. Recall that a trial theory is the adaptation of a factual story to the legal issues of the case. Your theory must contain a simple, logical, provable account of facts which, when viewed in light of the controlling law, will lead to the conclusion that your client should win.

In short, you will want to use the opening statement to explain to the trier of fact why the verdict should be in your favor. A successful theory will be built around a persuasive story.

Ideally, such a story will be told about people who have reasons for the way they act; it will explain all of the known or undeniable facts; it will be told by credible witnesses; it will be supported by details; and it will accord with common sense. Thus, your opening statement should, at some point and in some manner, address all of these statements:. What happened? Describe the crucial events in your story. The crucial events are those that speak to the legal elements of your claim or defense.

For instance, if your client is charged with murder and is claiming self-defense, you will want to describe those events that led your client to believe that his life was threatened by the deceased. Why did it happen? It is not sufficient to list the facts. A story is most persuasive when it explains why events occurred as they did, since a compelling reason for an action will tend to rule out alternatives.

For example, you may state that the defendant in a collision case was driving slowly and carefully just before the accident. Even so, your explanation will be more persuasive if it is supported by the fact that the defendant was returning from an antique auction, carrying an expensive and fragile chandelier in the back seat of her car.

Which witnesses should be believed? For example:. Two experts will testify as to the cause of the fire. The plaintiff will call Fire Chief Barry. Roberts, who will testify that he investigated the fire as part of his normal professional.

Chief Roberts concluded that the fire was accidental. He was not paid by either. He was simply doing his job. She does not work for the city or the state; she is a private investigator.

All of her income. She was hired by the defendant to reach an opinion about. How can we be sure? As should be apparent from the example above, the persuasiveness of an opening statement, indeed the persuasiveness of virtually any aspect of a trial, is often established through the use of details. Johnson, his lawyer, who was known for his expensive watch collection. So, Philip went to that house, broke in, stole the watches, and left.

Johnson while he was there. Johnson was not a well man. He was elderly, he had heart problems, he had lung problems, he was obese. In fact, he rarely left his house.

Johnson mostly stayed upstairs in his bedroom and his housekeeper would bring him meals up there. She saw signs of a break-in and called the police. They just assumed that whoever robbed Mr. Johnson also killed him. Johnson was killed by anyone. Yes, Philip said he strangled Mr. You see, Stephanie drove Philip to Mr.