Trial Advocacy Self-Evaluation

Introduction: Socrates once said, the unexamined life is not worth living. This statement is especially applicable to trial advocacy. As an advocate, you should develop the habiteven in victoryof examining your performance and identifying areas for improvement. The very best advocates are their own toughest critics. Directions: Carefully and thoughtfully respond to each of the questions below. Regardless of whether you won or lost your trial, each of you did many things well, and each of you has room for improvement. Subject Area 1: Pretrial Preparation and Case Analysis For purposes of your self-evaluation, pretrial includes the following: witness interviews, case investigation and analysis, and trial preparation. Please identify your successes in this area. What strengths have you identified in your pretrial practice? Also, what was the single most significant thing YOU OR YOUR PARTNER DID pretrial that helped you at trial?

Please identify areas for improvement in pretrial. What weaknesses can you identify from your pretrial practice? Also, what was the single most significant thing YOU OR YOU PARTNER DID pretrial that hindered your trial or made proving your case more difficult?

Please identify one positive practice pointer you learned from your opponents during pretrial. Please identify one negative practice habit or technique you learned from your opponents during pretrial (something you would not want to emulate). Subject Area 2: The Trial This includes opening statements, direct (and redirect), cross (and re-cross), and closing arguments. Opening Statement (if you gave one): What went well in your opening statement? What would you improve in your opening, if given the chance to do it over?

Did you identify a theme and theory of the case? To what extent did your opening and your partners closing mesh? Direct Examination (and re-direct): Now that the trial is over, what did you think of the organization of your direct examination? What would you keep if you had to try the case again? What would you do differently? Please discuss your use of exhibits on direct examination. What went well? What did not go so well? How would you improve this area for next time? How did you respond to objections by opposing counsel? Anything you would do differently next time? If you conducted a re-direct examination, why did you do it? Did you accomplish your goals? What could you have done better on re-direct? Cross Examination (and re-cross): How well did you control the witness and advance your case theme on cross-examination? What went wrong on your cross-examination, and how would you avoid this type of error in the future? To what extent did your team use the information you gained on cross-examination in your closing argument? Closing Argument, including rebuttal (if you gave one): How well did your closing argument mesh with your partners opening? If it didnt, why not? Did you integrate points made on cross examination in your closing argument? What about jury instructions? How did you integrate them into your final argument? What did you like about your closing argument? What would you improve?

Subject Area 3: Professionalism

What went well in your trial in terms of professionalism? What could you have done to improve the overall level of professionalism in your trial? What could your opponents have done to improve the overall level of professionalism in your trial? Subject Area 4: General What did you learn about yourself as an advocate? What do you consider to be your greatest strength as an advocate? What is your greatest weakness as an advocate? If you could change one thing that you did at trial, what would it be, and why? Subject Area 5: What You Learned from Being a Witness Please describe the insights you gained into trial advocacy from being a witness. What experiences did you have as a witness on direct and cross-examination that you would like to avoid subjecting your own trial witnesses to? What positive lessons can you draw from the experience?