yellowjacket2012 wrote:Trying out for moot court team tomorrow at Boalt, I would sincerely *sincerely* appreciate you guys' help . . .
1. My tendency is to basically start off pretty hesitant, because I'm essentially waiting for the inevitable question, so I am pretty hesitant, and I keep looking to stop talking and wait for the questions - if I don't do this, I tend to go by the script and get "thrown off" by the questions when they inevitably do arrive - so what is the recommended strategy here, do I just have my shtick script and stick to it - until the question hits me like a bus - or do I do this hesitant weird muttering speech waiting for a question. Not sure if you guys know what I mean, but if you do - would appreciate advice.
Don't hesitate. I generally have about two or three minutes of introductory and first main points ready to go. I've gone as long as five minutes without a single question being asked; I've also been cut off the moment after I've said "May it please the Court." The key is making it all flow together -- stilted, hesitant muttering doesn't bode well for moot court. If questions tend to throw you off, keep in mind that questions tend to be long -- so you have at least 30 seconds or so to gather your thoughts and respond. If you need to buy time (and use this SPARINGLY), and if the question was somewhat complex or confusing, use the "I apologize, Your Honor, but could you repeat the question?" card. Sometimes that will draw an acknowledgment that the question was confusing, but at the least, you buy some time. If it's a short initial question, don't hesitate to take a couple of seconds and think through your answer. Silence conveys contemplation, sputtering and muttering conveys nervousness.
Keep in mind that deference is key -- never hurts to refer to the judges as "Your Honor/Honors," even if they're a student panel. You're discussing the issue on their terms, in that they get to disrupt the course of your argument with questions, but keep in mind that you always have the opportunity to segue back. It's not uncommon for judges to ask a battery of questions (maybe 2 or 3 minutes of questions in a row), and then fall silent and expect you to pick up where you left off. Transitions are hard, but they're difficult for everyone. If you can, try to group your subject matter into different parts, so that if you're being grilled on a particular subject and the questions stop all of a sudden, you can complete whatever you need to say on the matter and move on. If you're discussing a three-part issue for example, X, Y, and Z, and two judges have been hammering at you on subject Y, and then fall silent all of a sudden, pick up where you left off. I'll try to give an example, but I'm probably not going to do very well.
JUDGE 1: Can you really say that a children's choir director is really serving a ministerial function under the expectations of Title VII and the Establishment Clause?
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Yes, Your Honor. While the nature of the instruction may be technical, the Seventh Circuit and others have fully recognized that even within the scope of this technical instruction, there is an ability to affect the spiritual welfare of parishioners. The ability to command such an effect in itself is sufficient to invoke the ministerial privileges as recognized by the sister circuits of this court.
[silence]
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: "The notion of a spiritual effect can arguably be considered the crux of the ministerial exception..."
(I'm not going to vouch for the correctness of the law or the eloquence of what I've just written here, but you get the idea...)
2. Moot Judges sometimes don't let me get to the merits of my case, and get too invested in their question - is it categorically rude to just ask them permission to move on to argue the next element of my claim, or is that equivalent to conceding that I don't have much of an argument for the prior claim? On the other hand, if I let a judge just keep at it with his line of back-and-forth, I'm done timewise with the remainder of my arguments, so whats the trick here?
Just try to naturally return to a subject you want to discuss. Say your outline is divided up into parts A, B, and C. Judge 1 has been grilling you about one minor point about something in part B. Judge 1 has stopped grilling you. A transition to part A or part C wouldn't work so well, but maybe you could fluidly transition to something else related in part B, and try to round out the subject matter. Hard to describe how to do this without a real problem, but hope this helps.
3. What about if I'm given X minutes, but I get a cold bench - do I just stop early and leave?!?!?!? This is unlikely to happen at the student-judge level because they're probably as excited to be there as I am - but what if this happens in a real competition?
I highly doubt that this will happen at a real competition. First, student judges know that newcomers work better off of hot benches. Real judges also typically ask a flurry of questions, and aren't afraid to interrupt almost immediately. That said, prepare for the possibility that you may need to FULLY flesh out your outline and give a cold bench moot -- basically giving a speech for close to the full amount of time. If the time limit is 12 minutes, and you've used up 10, I think that's perfectly fine. But again, highly unlikely to happen.
Oh, and I found this somewhat helpful when I first started mooting.
http://www.legalnut.com/option,com_fire ... 31/id,361/.
EDIT: Also, follow your competition rules to a tee. If the instructions say refer to the parties as Appellant/Appellee, don't refer to yourself as Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent. Seems simple, but people forget which "court" they're arguing in. Also, when you've got about a minute left, get ready to wrap up your arguments. If you run out of time, say "Your Honor, if I may have a brief moment to conclude?" If they say no, sit down. If they say yes, finish your line and conclude with your prayer for relief, e.g. "For the forgoing reasons, we [or the Appellant] respectfully requests that the decision of the trial court be blah blah blah."
