April 2005 - Riverside County Bar Association

THE KIDS ARE OKby Rick LantzDo you remember the very first time youappeared in law and motion, legs shaking, stomach churning,trying desperately to memorize every single case youcited and every statute you proffered and to anticipateevery argument thrown your way by that hard-nosedjudge, not to mention feeling every pair of eyes in the audienceboring a hole between your shoulder blades, as theonlookers waited like a pack of wild dogs to jump you withtheir snickers when you failed miserably to come up withthe right answers? Well, that’s chump change comparedto the high school boys and girls who put on a mock trialin an honest-to-goodness courtroom, with an honest-togoodnessjudge, some 50 people in the audience followingtheir every move, and honest-to-goodness lawyers in thejury box all the while, actually scoring their performance.Now that’s a real leg-shaking, stomach-churning, heartpounding,dry-mouth-like-the-Sahara-Desert experience.But the kids did it! High school youngsters participatedin the annual Statewide Mock Trial Competition. I wasone of those real lawyers who did the scoring, and I hadnothing but admiration and respect for all of them – thosewho shone and the few who just got by. To me, they allshowed a fistful of courage.I arrived a half an hour before show time at LarsonJustice Center, Indio. The second floor hallway containedthe participants, coaches, teachers, and well-wishers, allquiet, aside from nervous whispers, sort of as in a library.Almost all of the high schoolers were well dressed in suitsand dresses. Black predominated; for a second, I thoughtI had stumbled into a funeral. Two courtrooms were tobe used; I drew the one presided over by CommissionerGregory Olsen, who showed kindness and understandingthroughout.One hypothetical case was used, not only by the participatingschools that night, but throughout the state,for every round. The case of People v. Kendall dealt witha homicide; an alleged two-car drag race on a city streetled to the death of one participant, with the other – thedefendant – accused of manslaughter. The trial wasdivided into five parts: a pretrial motion challenging theconstitutionality of a city ordinance; opening statements;the People’s case, via four witnesses, calling for direct andcross; and closing arguments. Each school provided stu-dents not only as attorneys, but as witnesses as well, to becross-examined by the opposition.The scoring was as follows:One: Shows lack of preparation and poor understandingof task and rationale behind legal procedure;Two, Three, Four: Inadequate preparation and understandingof task, stilted presentation, over-acting usingracial or ethnic stereotyping;Five: Fundamental understanding of task and adequatepreparation, acceptable but uninspired performance;Six, Seven, Eight: Demonstrates a more fully developedunderstanding of task and rationale behind legalprocedure;Nine, Ten: Demonstrates superior ability to thinkon her/his feet, resourceful, original and innovativeapproaches, extraordinary and realistic portrayal.Probably the most difficult part was the very first– the pretrial motion – as both sides presented argumentsdirectly to the court and then had to be prepared toanswer the court’s probing questions dealing with issuesof constitutionality. The young man of 17 who presentedthe defendant’s motion spoke slowly, distinctly, and effectively,pausing for a few seconds to collect his thoughtswhen questioned by the judge, then responding withoutfear. I gave him a nine. Unfortunately, the prosecution– a young lady – did not fare as well. After starting off, shefroze in silence for at least 20 seconds (to her, seemingly20 hours) while everyone in the courtroom held theircollective breath. She then resumed in a daze, not reallyunderstanding the judge’s questions. I gave her a two.Thereafter the process went fairly smoothly. Some“attorneys” clearly had previous experience, as they spokedistinctly and had a modicum of evidentiary understanding.The less experienced rushed through their questionsand comments with a death grip on their written material.“Hearsay” was definitely the objection du jour, witha few “nonresponsives” thrown in when the witnessesprogrammed themselves to make speeches. The key wasthe effectiveness of the witnesses, just as in a real trial.Some of the kids were darn good actors, especially the girlwho portrayed the defendant. At an opportune moment,she started crying and bemoaning the fact that her dragracingfriend had died while wrapped around a telephone(continued next page)Riverside Lawyer, March 2005 27