OBJECTIONS
“You saw the defendant take the money, didn't you?” (asked on direct examination)
leading
A witness who has since died told their closest friend that they saw the defendant break into a house. No one else witnessed the incident, and the circumstances suggest the witness was telling the truth. The prosecution wants the friend to repeat the statement in court. What hearsay exception might apply, and what two requirements must be met?
The statement must be NECESSARY because the original witness is unavailable and no other source can provide the evidence, and RELIABLE because the circumstances suggest the statement is trustworthy.
A witness cannot be named an expert witness if they are missing
A CV
Before beginning direct examination, what should counsel ask the judge?
“Your Honour, may I proceed?”
What is the standard of proof the Crown must meet in a criminal trial?
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The defendant must be guilty because he looked nervous.”
Speculation
A person hears a fire alarm and immediately tells another person, “The building is on fire!” At trial, the statement is offered only to explain why the listener evacuated, not to prove there was actually a fire. What principle applies?
Not for the truth of its contents / effect on the listener — the statement explains the listener's subsequent actions.
You want to introduce a photograph as an exhibit. What must you establish before it can be admitted?
A proper foundation, including identification and authentication through an appropriate witness or other admissible evidence.
You want to hand a document to a witness as a potential exhibit. What must you do before approaching the witness?
Ask the judge for permission to approach the witness and, if required, opposing counsel. Wait for permission before moving.
What does it mean for a witness to be constructively sequestered?
The witness must not listen to other witnesses’ testimony or learn about their evidence before testifying, even if they are not physically separated from the courtroom.
“The medical report proves the defendant was intoxicated.” (the witness has no medical expertise and cannot authenticate or interpret the report)
improper lay witness testimony or lack of foundation
A store's regularly maintained transaction records show that a customer purchased a specific item. A qualified records custodian verifies how the records are created and maintained. Which exception may apply?
Business records — the records were made and kept as part of a regularly conducted business activity, subject to the applicable requirements.
Your witness has a distinct personality and emotional backstory established during direct examination. During cross-examination, opposing counsel aggressively challenges their credibility and exposes a mistake in their past. How should the witness respond while maintaining their characterization, protecting their case theory, and remaining believable without becoming overly defensive, evasive, or theatrical?
The witness should remain consistent with their established personality and emotional state, acknowledge truthful or damaging facts when necessary, and explain their decisions in the context of their character's motivations. They should answer confidently and naturally, avoid arguing with counsel, and use the difficult question as an opportunity to reinforce their case theory without inventing facts or sacrificing credibility.
You have finished examining your witness. What must you ask the judge before the witness leaves the stand?
“Your Honour, may my witness please be excused?”
What are the six steps for properly introducing an exhibit into evidence, in the correct order?
Ask permission to approach the witness and opposing counsel.
Show opposing counsel an unmarked copy of the exhibit.
Hand the exhibit to the witness.
Have the witness identify and authenticate the exhibit by establishing what it is, how they recognize it, and whether it is a fair and accurate representation.
Offer the exhibit into evidence by asking the judge to admit it.
Address any objections and await the judge's ruling.
“You saw the defendant leave the building at 9 p.m., correct?” — when no evidence has established that the witness saw the defendant or that the departure occurred at 9 p.m.
creation of material fact
A witness is unavailable to testify. Before dying, the victim stated that the defendant had shot them. The case is a homicide prosecution. Which exception may apply, and what makes it potentially admissible?
Dying declaration — the statement concerns the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be imminent death, subject to the jurisdiction's requirements.
Lay out all steps of qualifying an expert witness
Establish educational background.
Establish professional experience and specialized expertise.
Connect their expertise to the case.
Tender the witness as an expert.
Allow objections and responses.
Obtain the judge’s ruling before proceeding with expert testimony.
Opposing counsel makes an argument in response to your objection that you believe misunderstands your point. The judge has not invited you to reply. What should you do?
Wait for the judge's direction or ask, “Your Honour, may I respond?” Then address the specific argument rather than repeating unrelated points.
IN R.V BANN, The Crown must prove second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. What must it establish about Bann's state of mind to distinguish murder from manslaughter?
The required intent for murder: intending to cause death, or intending to cause bodily harm known to be likely to cause death while being reckless about whether death occurs, as set out in the supplied law.
During cross-examination, opposing counsel asks a witness a long, multi-part question that references several pieces of evidence, misrepresents something the witness said earlier, and pressures the witness to agree with counsel's interpretation of events. You believe the question is improper, but you can raise only one objection at a time.
What should you do to identify the strongest objection, present it effectively to the judge, and respond if opposing counsel argues that the question is permissible?
The lawyer should identify the specific problematic part of the question, determine which objection most directly applies under the competition's rules, and state the objection clearly. They should explain why that specific part violates the relevant evidentiary rule, listen carefully to opposing counsel's response, and address that argument directly if the judge invites a reply. They should avoid listing multiple objections without justification and remain professional regardless of the ruling.
Name five exceptions to hearsay, bonus points for explaining them
Not for the Truth of Its Contents
Effect on the listener
Necessary and Reliable
Dying Declaration
Business records
Present sense impression
Excited utterance
Admission by party opponent
Walk us through a proper impeachment, (there are seven steps.)
Lock witness into the contradictory statement.
Confirm the witness’s memory of making a prior statement: "Do you recall making a sworn statement on X date?"
Would you recognize that statement if it was presented to you?
Your Honour, permission to approach the witness. Can you please read lines X of your sworn statement?”
If the witness still denies, then move to impeach them.
Your Honour, I'd like to move to impeach the witness.
A full impeachment is extremely rare in mock trials as a witness will usually concede their point after their contradiction is read out loud.
Walk us through all eight steps of properly conducting pre-trial motions, in the correct order.
Good___ your honor, my name is ________ and alongside my co-counsels __________ and __________ I will be representing the Crown/Defense in today’s proceedings. We just have a few preliminary matters to attend to before we proceed with the trial.
Firstly, for the purposes of this trial, can we confirm that all witnesses have been constructively sequestered, with the exception of the defendant ?
Would you like us to ask permission before approaching the bench or witness?
Do we have permission to move freely about the well?
Would you prefer the evidence be presented as it is pre-marked in the case packet or in the order in which it is presented in court?
How would you like us to present objections? Would you prefer us to stand up and wait for you to acknowledge us or for us just to stand up and state our objections?
And finally, we would like to introduce our witnesses and their pronouns.
With that, your honor, the Crown/Defense is ready to proceed with the trial.
Under section 34(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, a person claims they acted in self-defence and caused the other person's death. What three legal requirements must be established for the defence of self-defence to apply?
The accused reasonably believed that force was being used against them or another person, or that a threat of force was being made.
The accused committed the act for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person.
The act was reasonable in the circumstances, considering the factors listed in section 34(2).