Post by norbrook on Oct 5, 2006 19:15:11 GMT -5
Norbrook watched as a few more of his students entered into the classroom and thought that it was about time to get his class started. “Alright everyone settle down and lets get started.” he said with a smile waiting for everyone to turn their attention up to the front of the class. After he had all of their attention, or most of their attentions he continued. “First off we are going to be learning about the muggle judicial system, specifically the American muggle judicial system. As many of you have noticed this is a combined class and there is a reason for that. Like I stated earlier, classes will go back to normal once we have finished with the judicial system. This also doesn’t mean that this isn’t N.E.W.T. level material because it is.” That should settle any objections that some may have, if not then nothing probably would.
Waving his wand up at the board he said, “I have decided to make this lesson interactive and hold a mock trail. This way we learn the information while putting it into action. I have randomly drawn names out of a hat for what group you are in. If anyone has a major objection to the group they are in I am willing to make accommodations to an extent, but for now this is how the groups stand.” Norbrook said smiling around at the class and indicating the groups that had been written up on the board.
Defense: Wentworth, Viteri, Howard and Torque
Witness for the Defense: Alverez, Roarbitz
Prosecution: Caffee, Quinn and Jones
Witness for the Prosecution: Diablo and Saunders
Judge: Crehonerex
“If there are no objection I would like you to get into groups and form a plan for what your strategy is. I will provide you with the basic information, but from there on it is up to you. To add extra incentive into taking this task seriously the side who wins will receive 20pts to each member for there house points on top of the participation points that everyone will receive for their participation.” he continued passing out a piece of paper to each of them with the procedure of a courtroom, and the set up. “We also must remember that this is a hypothetical case and it has no real impact over anything. I am also not suggesting that anything should change this topic is just the one that I thought you as students would have the most fun with and easiest time with.”
Basic Agruement
Prosecution-Arguing that perfects should be able to deduct points. Perfects should be able to deduct points and award detentions. Make up reasons, like it makes things more efficient, it gives them authority, etc.
Defense-Arguing that they shouldn’t be able to deduct points. Professors should be the only ones able to deduct points and to award detentions. Perfects must take the offender to their HOH for punishment or to another professor and may not give out the punishments themselves. Make up the reasons for this, like abuse of power, etc.
Witnesses- In this case will just act like expert witnesses and argue the side they are on through the attorney questions.
Ex. “Do you believe that a perfect should have the ability to deduct points?”-Lawyer
“Yes, because blah blah blah.”-Witness
((OMG. The post is longer than my English paper. lol))
Waving his wand up at the board he said, “I have decided to make this lesson interactive and hold a mock trail. This way we learn the information while putting it into action. I have randomly drawn names out of a hat for what group you are in. If anyone has a major objection to the group they are in I am willing to make accommodations to an extent, but for now this is how the groups stand.” Norbrook said smiling around at the class and indicating the groups that had been written up on the board.
Defense: Wentworth, Viteri, Howard and Torque
Witness for the Defense: Alverez, Roarbitz
Prosecution: Caffee, Quinn and Jones
Witness for the Prosecution: Diablo and Saunders
Judge: Crehonerex
“If there are no objection I would like you to get into groups and form a plan for what your strategy is. I will provide you with the basic information, but from there on it is up to you. To add extra incentive into taking this task seriously the side who wins will receive 20pts to each member for there house points on top of the participation points that everyone will receive for their participation.” he continued passing out a piece of paper to each of them with the procedure of a courtroom, and the set up. “We also must remember that this is a hypothetical case and it has no real impact over anything. I am also not suggesting that anything should change this topic is just the one that I thought you as students would have the most fun with and easiest time with.”
American Judicial System and Setup
Normally there are no time limits in this systems but since this isn’t a real court of law and we are restricted on time there will be some time restrictions.
Opening Arguments: a brief explanation what you hope to accomplish, what your goals are for the trail, what you intend to prove.
The prosecution goes first and then the defense.
Each side will have approximately 3 min to make there opening statement.
Prosecution presents their case with evidence, witnesses, and any other relevant information.
15 min time limit.
Defense gets a chance to rebut and cross examine any prosecution witnesses.
5 min time limit.
Prosecution gets a chance to redirect: Ask the witness to verify something or try and undo any damage that the defense has done.
5 min time limit.
Then the roles are reverses.
Defense presents their case with evidence, witnesses, and any other relevant information.
15 min time limit.
Prosecution gets a chance to rebut and cross examine any prosecution witnesses.
5 min time limit.
Defense gets a chance to redirect: Ask the witness to verify something or try and undo any damage that the defense has done.
5 min time limit.
After all of this is done then each side will have a closing argument where you sum up your arguments and give any last thoughts. 3 min each
Please remember this is simplified.
Must use your witnesses to your advantage.
Lawyers may ask the witness questions but cannot lead the witness into anything or answer the question for them. NO PREACHING. (Unless opening or closing)
Normally there are no time limits in this systems but since this isn’t a real court of law and we are restricted on time there will be some time restrictions.
Opening Arguments: a brief explanation what you hope to accomplish, what your goals are for the trail, what you intend to prove.
The prosecution goes first and then the defense.
Each side will have approximately 3 min to make there opening statement.
Prosecution presents their case with evidence, witnesses, and any other relevant information.
15 min time limit.
Defense gets a chance to rebut and cross examine any prosecution witnesses.
5 min time limit.
Prosecution gets a chance to redirect: Ask the witness to verify something or try and undo any damage that the defense has done.
5 min time limit.
Then the roles are reverses.
Defense presents their case with evidence, witnesses, and any other relevant information.
15 min time limit.
Prosecution gets a chance to rebut and cross examine any prosecution witnesses.
5 min time limit.
Defense gets a chance to redirect: Ask the witness to verify something or try and undo any damage that the defense has done.
5 min time limit.
After all of this is done then each side will have a closing argument where you sum up your arguments and give any last thoughts. 3 min each
Please remember this is simplified.
Must use your witnesses to your advantage.
Lawyers may ask the witness questions but cannot lead the witness into anything or answer the question for them. NO PREACHING. (Unless opening or closing)
Basic Agruement
Prosecution-Arguing that perfects should be able to deduct points. Perfects should be able to deduct points and award detentions. Make up reasons, like it makes things more efficient, it gives them authority, etc.
Defense-Arguing that they shouldn’t be able to deduct points. Professors should be the only ones able to deduct points and to award detentions. Perfects must take the offender to their HOH for punishment or to another professor and may not give out the punishments themselves. Make up the reasons for this, like abuse of power, etc.
Witnesses- In this case will just act like expert witnesses and argue the side they are on through the attorney questions.
Ex. “Do you believe that a perfect should have the ability to deduct points?”-Lawyer
“Yes, because blah blah blah.”-Witness
((OMG. The post is longer than my English paper. lol))