Mock Trial Objections '25

Including rule and stipulation numbers :)

What’s the definition of relevant evidence?

Rule 401

“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 403

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

“Relevant evidence may be excluded if its’ probative value is substantially 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 404a

Character Evidence

“Evidence of a person's character or character trait, is not admissible to prove action regarding a particular occasion”

How would you object to improper character evidence?

(Objection, Your Honor, improper character evidence)

This is evidence of a prior action taken by [witness], which is being offered to show that they acted in accordance with a character trait for ____ and is therefore being used to prove conformity therewith.

What are the three forms of character evidence?

• Opinion evidence (“I think Samantha is weird.”)

• Reputation evidence (“Everyone thinks Samantha is weird.”)

• Evidence of prior conduct (“Samantha once braided sea kelp and worm spit into her hair.”)

  All of these CANNOT be used to prove that the witness acted in accordance with that character trait on a specific occasion (aka the crime)

Exceptions to 404a

404.1 Character of the Accused

• Evidence of a pertinent character trait of the accused may be offered by the accused or by the prosecution to rebut such character evidence

• (“I listen to Taylor Swift and watch Gillmore Girls.”)

• (“Samantha only listens to Shake It Off on repeat while Fortnite dancing.”)

404.3 Character of Witness

• Evidence of the character of a witness may be provided given it follows rules 607, 608, and 609

Rule 607

Who May Impeach

“The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.” (Idk why you’d wanna attack ur own witness’s creds tho)

Rule 608

Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness

• The credibility of a witness can be attacked or supported by evidence of reputation or opinion if it…

  a) refers only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or

  b) is supportive and has been submitted after the character of the witness has been attacked on the grounds of truthfulness or untruthfulness

• Specific instances of conduct for attacking or supporting a witness’s creds can’t be proved by extrinsic evidence (evidence outside of a witness’s testimony) UNLESS if it’s being used during crosses

Rule 609

Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime or Adjudication of Delinquency

(No witnesses this year have been convicted in the past, this rule is just interesting)

Rule 404b

Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts

“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character of a person in order 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.”

What purposes is evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts admissible for?

• Proof of motive

• Opportunity

• Intent

• Preparation

• Plan

• Knowledge

• Identity

• Absence of mistake or accident

Rule 405

Methods of Proving Character

Rule 405a

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.”

Rule 405b

Specific Instances of Conduct

“In cases where character or a character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person's conduct.”

Rule 406

Habit; Routine Practice

Rule 406.1

Admissibility

“Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, 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 406.2

Method of Proof

“Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine.”

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.”

How would you object to lack of personal knowledge?

(Objection, Your Honor, lack of personal knowledge)

“[witness] lacks the personal knowledge to provide this testimony (include what they’re saying and how it’s not in their affidavit)”

Rule 703

Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts

• The facts/evidence an expert bases their opinion/inferences on can be known at or before the hearing

• If the evidence is reasonably accepted in the expert’s field, it doesn’t have to be admissible in court for the opinion/inference to be admissible in court

• Evidence that’s usually inadmissible in court can be shown (to explain opinion to the jury) if the court determines that its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect

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 701

Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

If the witness testifying is not an expert, their testimony in the form of opinions/inferences must be…

a) within the scope of rationally based perception

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

c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of an expert witness under Rule 702

What are the three requirements for an opinion/inference from a lay witness?

• Rationally based perception,

• Helps to have a clearer understanding of the witness’s testimony and/or a fact in the issue, or

• Not based on elements based within the scope of an expert witness (scientific, technical, specialized knowledge)

Rule 704

Opinion on Ultimate Issue

• Opinion/inference testimony that’s otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an issue to be decided by the trier of fact

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

What is the definition of hearsay?

Rule 801c

“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.”

Rule 802

Hearsay Rule

“Hearsay is not admissible, except as provided by these rules.”

Rule 801.1

Prior Statement by Witness

The declarant’s in-court statement may be used in crosses if the statement is…

a) inconsistent with the witness’s testimony and was given under oath (perjury)

b) consistent with the declarant's testimony but is offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive against the declarant

c) an identification of a person after perceiving said person

What is a declarant?

Rule 801b

“a person who makes a statement”

Rule 801.2

Admission by a Party-Opponent (Carne Mustard)

The statement is offered against a party and is…

a) the party's own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity;

b) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth;

c) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;

d) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship; or

e) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course of furtherance of the conspiracy.

What are the five exceptions to hearsay for a party-opponent?

Rule 801.2

• The party’s own statement;

• A statement the party believes in;

• A statement made by someone authorized by the party concerning the subject (the crime)

• A statement from the party’s agent/servant concerning a matter within the scope of agency/employment and during it; or

• A statement from a co-conspirator of the party during the furtherance of the conspiracy

Rule 803

Hearsay Exceptions, Availability of Declarant Immaterial

Rule 803.1

Present Sense Impression

“A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was observing the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.” (Similar to Statement of Recent Perception, 804.5.2)

Rule 803.2

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.”

Rule 803.3

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 remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.”

Rule 803.8

Reputation as to Character

“Reputation of a person's character among associates or in the community.”

What is the definition of unavailability as used for hearsay exceptions?

Rule 804.1

A witness is considered unavailable in situations in which the witness…

a) Is exempted by ruling of the judge on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement; or

b) Persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the judge to do so; or

c) Testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant’s statement; or

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

e) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of the declarant’s statement has been unable to procure the declarant’s attendance by a subpoena or other reasonable means.

Rule 804.5.2

Statement of Recent Perception

(Similar to Present Sense Impression, aka 803.1, but specifically for unavailable witnesses’ hearsay)

Rule 804.5.3

Statement Under Belief of Impending Death

“A statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the declarant’s impending death.”

• “You!?”

Rule 611

Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation

Rule 611a

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 effective for ascertaining the truth,

2) to avoid needless use of time, and

3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment

Rule 611c

Leading Questions

“Leading questions should not be used on direct examination of a witness (except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony).”

• Also not allowed on redirects

Rule 611d

Redirect/Recross

“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.”

• Recrosses also have to stay within the bounds of the matters discussed on redirects

What is a stipulation?

“Pre-trial rulings” or matters that both the defense and prosecution have agreed on before the actual trial.

Stipulation 1

• All of the exhibits are authentic and the authenticity of exhibits is not something to be argued

• Just because all exhibits are authentic doesn’t mean they’re necessarily admissible

Stipulation 2

• All affidavits have been properly signed and notarized

• Each witness reviewed their affidavit the morning before the trial, and there’s nothing they’ve forgotten and want to add (including exhibit content)

Stipulation 3

• Each witness is intended to be gender-neutral and should be interpreted that way

• Judges can’t be mean and bring down scores if they/them pronouns are used singularly

Stipulation 4

• The Criminal Complaint may be used as the charging document in this matter

• The Defendant was arraigned before the trial

Stipulation 5

• MJ chose to testify, and that decision is knowing, voluntary, and theirs alone

Stipulation 6

• Astor Rufflebottom died on May 17, 2024, from three stab wounds to the heart

• The ice pick (Clarice) was the murder weapon

Stipulation 7

• Clearwater Sheriffs Department found a fingerprint match for MJ Mossbridge on the murder weapon

• Blood on the ice pick was Rufflebottom’s

• Adrian Stevie Gates found a fingerprint match for Carter Billy Jobs on the murder weapon

Stipulation 8

• The State didn’t call the investigating sheriff’s deputy, medical examiner, or lab technicians as witnesses to these facts bc of the Court’s time constraints

• Called the Clearwater Sheriff’s Department’s retained consultant for the technological evidence

Stipulation 9

Police report is not admissible

Stipulation 10

The key log’s admissibility has already been stipulated, and can be brought in by either side of the case

Stipulation 11

You can’t object to any exhibits on the basis that they were improperly obtained

Stipulation 12

• MJ Mossbridge is being tried as an adult

• Can’t say the Defendant has issues with competency, mental diseases, etc.

Stipulation 13

Individuals named in the problem but not identified as witnesses aren’t unavailable witnesses, they were just not called at trial

Stipulation 14

• The Defense is entitled to present evidence that implies Carne Mustard committed the charged crime under State v. Denny

• Mustard’s statements that are used against them are admissible hearsay

Stipulation 15

• Clearwater, Nudge, and Castledusk are all part of the Mock Trial Universe

• Nudge is a social media platform where you can upload videos, stream, engage with those videos and streams, and amass followers

• Nudge usernames/handles that look like they belong to a witness do belong to that witness, not in disbute

• Castledusk is not a part of Nudge

• The origin of at least one Castledusk username is in disbute

Stipulation 16

• Both expert witnesses can offer the opinions stated in their affidavits if foundation is laid

• The opinions contained in the expert witnesses’ affidavits are made to a reasonable degree of professional certainty