Test a mock trial theory against the evidence
For mock trial teams, instructors and lawyers designing a trial exercise.
How can a team tell whether its proposed opening promises more than the trial packet can prove?
For each important proposition, identify the question the factfinder must decide, the witness or exhibit that supports it, the foundation needed and the strongest competing explanation. Then trace every proposed opening sentence back to that map.
Start with the issues the exercise assigns
Use the supplied jury instructions, stipulations, witness statements, exhibit list and competition rules. Record who must establish each issue and the standard supplied by the exercise. Split a broad theory into small propositions. A record showing when a warning was sent, for example, is different from proof that the recipient read it.
Set up a row with the issue, proposition, specific packet page, witness or exhibit, expected foundation, opposing reading and status. Mark a point as stipulated, supported, disputed or currently unsupported. Include a row for an unfavorable fact so the team plans to address it.
Try to break the strongest row
Have a teammate take the other side and offer a plausible reading of the same item. Check whether the witness actually saw the event or learned of it later. Ask whether a second piece of evidence independently supports the point or simply repeats the first report. Record how far the evidence reasonably goes.
Work through how the exhibit could be introduced under the exercise rules and how an objection or unavailable witness would affect the row. Mark a backup only when it exists within the packet. If no permitted proof supports a necessary assertion, revise the theory or narrow the assertion.
Check the opening and the closing separately
In the opening, describe the evidence the team expects to present, using the particular limits of the witness and exhibit. During the trial exercise, mark which items actually came into evidence. In closing, use the admitted evidence and the supplied instructions to explain the inferences the factfinder may draw. Remove promises that the record failed to support.
Worked example
Illustrative proof row. At issue is whether the shop knew a drain was blocked before closing. A 4:10 work ticket says “slow drain” but leaves the supervisor field blank. The technician can identify the ticket and describe entering the note. That supports an observation at 4:10. To claim the supervisor read it before closing, the team still needs a receipt, testimony or other permitted evidence of notice.
Primary sources
Related work at Agentic Attorney
This trial-theory exercise is part of the shared Agentic Attorney resource collection. Its main site describes AI consulting and implementation for legal teams. Explore Agentic Attorney’s approach to AI implementation.