Comments Form

Ranks Form

Scoring Instructions:

Please score the students in every category with a grade from 1-5
(with 1 = poor, 5 = excellent; scoring guide on reverse of page

a) Speaking Ability
1. Generally inarticulate (speaks too quickly, mumbles); very nervous; overly casual; ignores courtroom etiquette.
2. Significant nervousness; poor eye contact; inappropriate gestures; reads oral argument.
3. Slight nervousness; adequate eye contact; does not read or overly rely on outline; speaks at good pace; demonstrates familiarity with oral argument.
4. Articulate; few signs of nervousness; demonstrates comfort with oral argument and public speaking; observes court room decorum.
5. Confident; smooth presentation; good eye contact; very respectful; has memorized argument or uses note cards only occasionally; speaks extemporaneously; clearly at ease with public speaking.

b) Organization of Argument
1. No organization; confusing and illogical.
2. Somewhat organized, but difficult to follow outline; doesn’t include one or more of outline elements (statement of issue, legal standard, summary of facts, legal arguments, policy argument, and conclusion).
3. Basic organization; adequately discusses all outline elements.
4. Coherent with a cohesive outline and a clear presentation of points; transitions smoothly between outline elements.
5. Concise and logical with a flowing outline and outstanding presentation of points.

c) Familiarity with facts and law
1. Superficial knowledge of law and facts.
2. Vague knowledge of law and fact; appears that oral argument was prepared primarily by coach/mentor.
3. Adequate understanding of law and facts, but does not place emphasis on law/facts advantageous to position being argued.
4. Good understanding of law and facts, emphasizes law/facts that are advantageous to the position being argued, understands/addresses weaknesses of case.
5. Deep understanding of law and facts, including fine distinctions and subtleties to the argument; utilizes all facts and law available to advantage.

d) Use of Case Law & Statistics (if available) to Analogize and Distinguish from Fact Pattern
1. Does not use of the provided case law and statistics.
2. Mentions case law and statistics in passing; does not apply them to facts of case.
3. Appropriately cites case law (and statistics) but does not walk judge through argument by discussing how case/facts are analogous/distinguishable, significance for argument, and how judges should rule.
4. Demonstrates advanced use of case law (provided in booklet and cited/discussed in the cases) to derive legal standards, support/distinguish arguments and generally further argument; understands role of legal precedent and authority associated with majority and dissenting opinions; shows sophisticated grasp of statistics and uses them accordingly.
5. Same as above, but shows adaptability based on judges questions/concerns about issue, presents novel arguments, and offers persuasive analogies and arguments not derived from the case materials.

e) Answering Questions
1. Generally unable to answer questions.
2. Attempts to answer questions, but generally unresponsive; rebuts, but is not responsive to opponent’s argument.
3. Gives adequate answers and cites some precedent.
4. Very good answers, citing precedent advantageously, uses questions as an opportunity to further argument.
5. Gives clear, concise and direct answers, citing precedent effectively and steering questions to discuss own argument; makes original arguments.

f) Overall Persuasiveness, etc.
1. Conveys no sense of belief in position argued; reads prepared materials.
2. Adequately persuasive, but overly argumentative, defensive, or confrontational.
3. Persuasively frames issue; summarizes facts and presents arguments; not overly reliant on prepared materials.
4. Persuasive and sincere; uses note cards and/or speaks from an outline.
5. Very persuasive and convey sincere belief in position; had presentation essentially memorized.