Project Class: Mock Trial

Written by the Prosecution and the Defense

The Defense Attorney: Carter Woodrow, Class of 2025

The mock trial is my personal favorite project class at Jesse Remington. I have participated in the mock trial both my junior year and this year (my senior year) as the defense lawyer. The mock trial has helped me grow in public speaking abilities and it has influenced my plan for a future career. 

For the trial, I had to give an opening statement, examine witnesses, and give a closing statement. These various aspects of my role in the mock trial develop various skills in the realm of public speaking. Our teacher, working attorney Mr. Thomas Philbrick (Class of 2011), always emphasizes speaking slowly and clearly to deliver solid opening and closing statements. This is a skill that I have further developed through Mock Trial. Another key thing that I have learned through Mock Trial is the appropriate use of a script when public speaking. The opening and closing statements are scripted, whereas the examinations are partially or not scripted at all, requiring that I grow in my ability to speak publicly with and without scripts. With this experience, I have gained an appreciation for the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Lastly, doing the Mock trial the last two years has shaped my current plan for a future career. I plan to have a career in law because of my experiences in Mock Trial, Debate, and Government classes at Jesse Remington. One of the school’s expected student outcomes is personal and professional development, and Mock Trial class has revealed to me what kind of work I want to do. Mock Trial has helped me to grow not only in crucial skills for life such as researching, developing arguments, and public speaking, but also has given me a vision for my future after high school.

The Prosecuting Attorney: Aidan Manuse, Class of 2025

This year I had the privilege and opportunity to be a lawyer for the Mock Trial class. To build my arguments, I had to scour the affidavits as well as applicable laws involved. I had to perform in-depth analysis to understand varying perspectives of the case. Developing my critical thinking skills are foundational for long-term success in my life and help strengthen other skills such as strong communication, effective problem-solving, and most importantly, edifying Bible reading. 

The case we undertook in Mock Trial reminded me of the Bible in terms of how people relay their versions of the same event. In Mock Trial, the descriptions of the event told by the defendant Linda LePuck and the plaintiff Kevin Dunn, while similar, had several discrepancies and contradictions. It is quite common for people who experience the same event to describe it differently because they have different perspectives both internally and externally. In the Bible, the gospel (first four books of the NT) is four accounts of the same story – Jesus’ birth, life, death, resurrection, and calling to everyone on Earth to follow in His footsteps. Many see contradictions in these accounts, but what it really shows is different perspectives of the same thing. One gospel wrote “Prophecy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck you?” when He was being persecuted before His crucifixion (Matthew 26:68), which makes no sense without the context of another gospel, which clarified that He was blindfolded (Mark 14:65). J. Warner Wallace, a cold case detective, wrote a book called Cold Case Christianity, which is where he discusses that some facts omitted or not in some eyewitness accounts of the Bible, as he called “unintended eyewitness support statements” that fill details that the other account left out, proves the reliability of the Bible and the gospel accounts. 

Comparing the varying accounts of the defendant and plaintiff in our Mock Trial, Mr. Dunn and Ms. LePuck’s accounts have supporting details for each other, but unlike the Bible, they also have very large contradictions. One of those is when Ms. LePuck states “he deliberately tripped me” but Mr. Dunn says “I accidentally got my stick tangled in her skates.” LePuck perceived intentionality behind Dunn’s actions and then undertook a retaliatory action. Dunn, on the other hand, specifically said he didn’t mean to trip her and mentioned he was waiting for the penalty to be called. At that time LePuck tripped him back, which LePuck unintentionally supported when she said while she was laying on the ice, she reached out her stick and pulled his feet out from under him. If he hadn’t waited around for the penalty and had skated away instead, she would not have been close enough to trip him back. 

I want to make an important distinction between the trial and the Bible – the Bible is infallible, and there are no contradictions. Some may discern contradictions in the Bible but only when verses are taken out of context and not scrutinized with the whole of Scripture. The deep analysis I had to do with my case in the Mock Trial, we all need to do with the Bible in order to be sure we understand what God is telling us. In life, there is plenty of room for apparent and actual contradictions, but in the Bible there are none. 

In conclusion, I think this trial has both helped with literary skills and my faith as a whole, even though it was not directly related to the Bible. I think it’s incredibly interesting that something as simple as a made-up story of negligence can be related to something as real, exciting, and extremely important as the Bible. 

God bless!