Moot Court Competition: Oral Arguments and Judging, Cheat Sheet of Operational Research

Download Moot Court Competition: Oral Arguments and Judging and more Cheat Sheet Operational Research in PDF only on Docsity!

UNIT-II

MOOT PROBLEM – HOW DO YOU START?

Initially the students are given a moot problem which comprises a dispute based on fictional states, characters and unreal facts. Sometimes, real global scenarios and incidents are simulated by changing the names of states keeping the facts intact.  Read the moot problem 3 times. Familiarize yourself with who the parties in the problem are. Who is the Appellant/Reclaimer and who is the Respondent?  Use a highlighter to pick out the facts in the problem that seem important. Do these facts support or go against your position?  The facts in the problem often reflect real cases. Read through your Contract notes, identify the relevant cases and read them. The submissions (arguments) put forward in the cases, and the Judges’ decisions, well help you form your arguments for the moot.  Once your team has identified four arguments to support your position, allocate two arguments to mooter one and two arguments to mooter two.  Support your arguments with authority: cases, statutes, etc. HOW TO FORM A MOOT TEAM? A moot team usually comprises 2 speakers and 1 researcher. Speakers : Assigned as “Speaker 1” and “Speaker 2”, they go to the podium and fight out the proposition, placing forward the arguments for their contentions. They also have to carry out research work. Researcher : Does the majority of the research work, formats the memorial, and sits for the researcher’s test (if there is one in the particular moot competition). WHAT TO DO WITH THE MOOT PROPOSITION?

1. Get the moot proposition (commonly called ‘prop’) printed, including all the rules and regulations. Every moot has different rules and regulations. Do not treat any moot casually. Every moot is a learning experience and if your first moot is, naturally, your own college’s moot, you should start off with learning how to properly read the rules and regulations.
2. Check the format of the memorial that they want. Is it the Bluebook? Your own college’s citation style? Check for requirements for the spacing, the margins, the font, and the font size. Check the post on Researchers: The Ones Working Behind The Scenes (coming soon) for more information on this.
3. Now that you know the rules and regulations of the moot and the guidelines to make your memorial, it is time to read the problem.
4. Identify the type of law the problem falls under. The most common laws used are Constitutional Law, International Law or Criminal Law. It may be under any other category

as well. For the purpose of this post, here is an example of a moot proposition on Constitutional Law (credits: Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, for the intra- moot of 2018). On reading the problem, you can recognize it as a Constitutional Law problem, as it talks about a country “Indicsthan” in “Asia”. So, the derivation is that they are talking about India. “Hindus” and “Muslims” have become “Hislims” and “Mundus”. There is an All India Entrance Examination. And ultimately, they have talked about certain Articles such as Article 14 and 29(2) of the Constitution. So obviously, they are talking about the Indian Constitution as you can relate the provisions under the Articles with the ones given in the prop.

5. Now that the moot problem has been placed under a particular category, it is time for

• Basic research
• Framing the issues to be raised
• Making your arguments advanced (The complete contents of a moot memorial have been dealt with in Formatting: The Beauty Of A Memorial ). Before framing the contentions, it is necessary to carry out a very basic research to determine the material available for your moot problem. The research need not be extensive but enough to frame questions to cover your moot problem. What does basic research include? When you get the prop, try to find the key points in it such as the Articles mentioned. Try to find a similar case because some props are based on past judgments. The case given as an example is based on the cases of Dr. Naresh Agarwal v. Union of India and Azeez Basha v. Union of India. This is a relatively easy moot problem where the most important issue to prove is if the university is a minority institution. Proving or disproving that will make the other contentions fall into place. However, there are certain moot problems which have two or three parallel important issues to be proved. Some props are made more complicated where you need more extensive research to connect different precedents and frame your contentions. How to frame the issues to be raised? The issues raised are assertions regarding an argument. To put it simply, you question the credibility of the conclusion of the prop: questions which the other side is supposed to respond to, to win their argument. Issues raised will be different for petitioners and respondents. For example, regarding the provided moot prop, issues raised by the petitioner (the Mundu students) can be: 1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable?

_2. Whether the Hislim University is a minority institution entitled to protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of Indicsthan?

3. Whether the Hislim University is entitled to reserve 50% of the total number of seats entirely for Hislim candidates only?_ Questions raised by the respondent (the Union of India because it is a writ petition) can be: _1. Whether the petitioners have any locus to maintain the writ petition?
4. Whether the Hislim University is a minority institution and is protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of Indicsthan?
5. Whether the reservation of 50% of the total number of seats for Hislim candidates violates Articles 19 and 29(2) of the Constitution of Indicsthan?_ Keep in mind that you are the petitioner while answering the first set of issues raised and the respondent while answering the second set of issues. Thus, the conducive answers by the petitioners to the first set of issues raised will be: _1. YES, the writ petition is maintainable for the petitioners to put their grievances forward.
6. NO, the Hislim University is not a minority institution as the petitioners need to show that the university is unjustly trying to avail benefits given to the minorities in the country and thus, unlawfully denying admission to the petitioners.
7. NO, the university is not entitled to reserve 50% of the seats because, as proved in the previous contention, they are not a minority institution._ Similarly, the respondents to win the case, need to prove that: _1. NO, the petitioners do not have any locus to maintain the writ petition.
8. YES, the Hislim University is a minority institution which will make the argument of not giving the petitioners seats in their university, valid.
9. NO, the reservation does not violate Articles 19 and 29(2) which is why not giving seats to the petitioners is not unlawful._ You cannot frame final and concrete contentions just after preliminary research. You can just frame their skeletal structure. The point of framing preliminary contentions is to aid you to provide a base for doing further research. You will be able to polish your contentions as you dig deeper into more and more judgments, that is, research more. For more on research and guidelines for researchers, check out Researchers: The Ones Working Behind The Scenes (coming soon!). What are “arguments advanced”? For a basic description, arguments advanced are when you explain your contentions in detail, citing appropriate case laws and legal evidence to support your argument.

The issues you have raised as one of the parties, are to be made concrete for winning the case and this can be successfully done through thorough research. Conclusion To sum up,

• Read your moot problem carefully, including the rules and regulations.
• Look for the keywords to determine your points of research.
• Do basic research to frame skeletal contentions or issues to be raised.
• Try to find as many legal cases as possible to substantiate your arguments under every issue raised.
• Gradually, with further research, you will feel the need to modify your contentions.
• Better research will give way to better arguments advanced. DURING THE COMPETITION Prior to the Moot Court Competition, teams produce written arguments (commonly referred to as Memorials), and during the Competition will present oral pleadings based on the written memorials. Note that they can go beyond scope of their memorials. This will take place through a simulation of a courtroom scenario:  with three judges sitting as a panel/judges bench;  a team presenting arguments for the applicant;  a team presenting arguments for the respondent;  a clerk/bailiff to keep time. Judges are encouraged to pose questions to counsel, score counsel based on the Oral Rounds Scoresheet and provide constructive feedback to the mooters. Thus, the Price Media Law Moot Court Competition allows participants to gain and develop practical legal skill sets such as oral advocacy and written legal argument that can have positive impacts on their future career. As a judge of the Oral Rounds you will have three main responsibilities:
  1. Score each oralist based on the legal arguments expressed by them during their pleadings and fill out the scoresheet in full;
  2. Adjourn for a review and consult with the other judges in order to provide provide constructive feedback regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the team’s arguments and oral presentations; and
  3. Make sure to provide the Moot Court administrators with the Oral Round Scoresheet in hand after the oral round is finished.

Ultimately as a judge the goal is to create an environment for the participants that best represents a court room scenario, while simultaneously providing a rewarding educational experience. In order to ensure that every person associated with the competition is treated with respect, it is important for judges to peruse the Fact Sheet on Implicit Bias. Introduction to the Competition During the oral rounds in a Price Moot Court Competition, two team members typically argue on behalf of the Applicant, while the other two team members argue on behalf of the Respondent. As a participating judge, you will sit on a panel with two other judges. The lead judge, who sits in the middle and is commonly referred to as the President, maintains the order of the proceedings, particularly directing the oralist when to begin or end their oral pleadings. This is largely ceremonial as all judges’ scores carry the same weight. In a Moot Court Competition the bailiff, also commonly referred to as the clerk, sits to the side of the judges’ panel facing the oralist’s podium and manages the administration for that round. All questions or concerns prior to the start or during of the oral round should be addressed to the bailiff. Before the match the bailiff will normally approach the team to collect the correct spelling of the names of the oralists and note the time that each speaker will take in presenting their oral arguments as per the Rules. During the oral round the bailiff will announce the entry of the judges into the courtroom (at which time everyone present should rise); announce the case being presented before the court; and when the Sur-rebuttal is concluded, the bailiff will announce that the court is adjourned. During the oral pleadings, the bailiff will also periodically inform the oralist (and judges) of their time by displaying a card when there are fifteen, ten, five, three, and one minute remaining. When time has expired, the bailiff will hold up card that says ‘TIME UP.’ As per the rules of the Competition, it is up to the sole discretion of the judges to grant the participant extra time. Judges are encouraged to stick to the allocated time and at the most, if pressed, allow one minute of extra time per team.

ORAL ARGUMENTS/PLEADINGS

After the judges are introduced by the bailiff and have taken their seats, the president will invite the first Applicant to present their oral pleadings to the court. As stated in the Rules of the Competition, the order of the pleadings in each oral round at all levels of the Competition is:  Applicant^1 (minimum^15 and^ maximum^25 minutes)^ then^ Applicant^2 (minimum^15 and maximum 25 minutes);  Respondent 1 (minimum 15 and maximum 25 minutes) then Respondent 2 (minimum 15 and maximum 25 minutes);  Rebuttal (Applicant 1 or 2, maximum 5 minutes);  Sur-rebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2, maximum 5 minutes). Only two (2) team members shall present the arguments during an oral round, and the maximum time allotted for a team’s oral pleadings, including answering questions from the

Moot Court judges and rebuttals may not exceed forty five (45) minutes per team. When assessing the participant’s oral arguments, judges should base their criteria on the participant’s Knowledge and Use of Facts, Knowledge of the Law, Structure of Argument, Quality of Argument, and Overall Presentation skills (Style, Articulation, Time Management). How the participant analyses the facts presented in the case, cites legal authorities, rebuts the opponent’s arguments, and structures and delivers rational, justifiable legal arguments are all critical criteria to consider when assessing the overall team’s performance. Additionally, judges should take into consideration how an oralist manages time as well as the style and composure of the oralist. The ability to present and adequately address critical issues within the allotted time constraints separates a skilled mooter from a novice. Judges should also consider how participants demonstrate clarity of speech, a high level of confidence, and proper court room etiquette. Finally, judges must consider the overall persuasiveness of the argument and whether it passes muster in law. Oral Rounds Checklist  Did the oralist introduce him/herself?  Did the first oralist introduce co-agents and ask the court if they wanted a summary of the facts of the case?  Did^ the^ first^ oralist^ indicate^ the^ amount^ of^ time^ allocated^ for^ the^ oral^ pleadings^ and which submissions will be respectively addressed by each team member?  Did the oralist provide a structured road map outlining the oral pleadings?  Did the oralist deliver a persuasive and well-structured argument grounded in law?  Did the oralist demonstrate a strong understanding of the facts presented in the case and subsequently utilise them to advance their argument?  Did the oralist compose succinct, coherent and direct responses to the judges’ questions?  Did the oralist properly cite sources and legal authorities?  Did^ the^ oralist^ demonstrate^ the^ ability^ to^ apply^ the^ law^ to^ the^ facts^ of^ the^ competition case?  Did^ the^ oralist^ provide^ an^ adequate^ conclusion^ that^ added^ value^ to^ their^ overall^ oral pleadings?  Did the oralist from the Applicant side limit the rebuttal to the scope of the Respondent’s oral pleadings? (Remember that no new arguments are meant to be introduced during the rebuttal)  Did the oralist from the Respondent side limit the Sur-rebuttal to the scope of the Applicant’s rebuttal? (Remember that no new arguments are meant to be introduced during the sur-rebuttal)  Did^ the^ oralist^ communicate^ effectively^ (for^ eg.,^ speak^ slowly,^ confidently^ and clearly)?

 Was^ the^ oralist^ respectful^ to^ both^ the^ judges^ and^ opponents,^ as^ well^ as^ present themselves in a professional manner?  Did the oralist manage and make effective use of their time? In addition to the above responsibilities, judges must note that verbal or written communication between the oralist in progress of presenting a team’s submissions and the respective team’s counsel table is strictly prohibited. Speaking is prohibited at the counsel table, and thus team members may only communicate in writing. The counsel normally consists of the two current oralists presenting the same position on behalf of a team, and the third team member who argues the opposite position may also assist and serve of counsel. The coach is not permitted to sit at the counsel table, and no more than three team members can be off-counsel. Finally, team participants may not have at the counsel table or podium electronic devices, including laptop computers, mobile phones, PDAs, or digital watches. Teams are instructed to raise rule violations of this nature and others before judges deliberate on the result and the scores. Judges must be aware of this possibility and take this into consideration whilst deliberating. In the event of a dispute that judges are unable to resolve, please request to see the Moot Administrators at the earliest, who will be the final arbiters and provide guidance. Style of Judging Judges are expected to question and challenge oralists to seek clarification and assess their knowledge of the law. Judges are encouraged to adopt styles that they are most comfortable with. It is important to remember at this stage that the role of the judge in a Moot Court Competition is one that is meant to encourage rather than discourage – it is thus advisable to avoid the extremes and be neither very passive nor very aggressive. In essence, the role of the judge is to play an active part and test the legal dexterity of the participants on facets of the problem that you consider to be important. The experience for teams is far more rewarding when a judge engages oralists with questions in a manner that provides an accurate simulation of a court room setting. Thus, judges are allowed to and encouraged to interrupt the participant in order to seek clarification of their legal argument. Some judges prefer to ask questions that require the participant to respond with a ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ while other judges prefer to ask questions that require the participant to generate a more comprehensive response. These questions should not be meant to overtly challenge the participant’s argument, but instead should be forwarded as a means to assess the participant’s calibre and the quality and justification for their argument. Either way judges should be aware of the time limitations of oralists, and avoid engaging in lengthy dialogue which would not allow the oralist to resume the presentation of their submissions. We kindly ask that judges establish a balance and accepted medium that does not attempt to overburden nor intimidate participants, and is equally applied across all participating teams. Other Responsibilities Judges must ensure that they maintain teams’ anonymity by not enquiring which university they are from prior to judging their round. This is to ensure that there is no institutional bias that creeps into judging. That said, however, participants come from diverse backgrounds in terms of language, religion and culture. Judges must take this diversity into account while engaging with the participants during oral arguments. Language very often is a challenge in a

Competition, and comfort levels in English will differ amongst participants. Native speakers should have the advantage over non-native speakers. The emphasis at all times should be to test the understanding of the legal issues involved not level of an English. While articulation is undoubtedly critical to such an exercise, it would be appreciated if judges made sincere attempts at putting the participants at ease and drawing out their understanding of the case. The Price Media Law Moot Court Competition has a strong policy against discrimination of any kind. Judges are encouraged to peruse the Fact Sheet on Implicit Bias to ensure that they are acting fairly at all times. In addition, judges must ensure that they are not seen to be favouring one team over another in any capacity, whether during or outside of the specific round as this would compromise the fairness of the competition. Judges are privy to confidential information and must not exchange such information (such as the Bench Memorandum) with participating teams, not even after the Competition ends. Although an important element of the Price Moot is creating a network of interested and aspiring scholars and practitioners, it is also key to the running of the competition that judges maintain a degree of impartiality and integrity. VIII Scoring and Marking Participants At the end of the oral round, the judges will adjourn to consider the arguments presented by the teams. An Oral Round Score Sheet will be provided to every judge to reduce the disparity arising out of subjective marking and ensure consistency throughout the Competition. Each judge should fulfill the Oral Round Score Sheet separately and independently. Each oralist may be awarded minimum of fifty (50) points and maximum of one hundred (100) points in their oral argument based on the following criteria:  Correct legal analysis and its application to facts;  Relevant citations of treaties, custom, legislation, case law (regional and international), legal scholars and jurists;  Recognition of problems, clarity and logic of argument;  Complete and correct recognition and weighting of issues arising from the case;  Correct primary and alternative submissions;  Evidence of original thought;  Overall presentation;  Ability to communicate with judges, persuasiveness and fluency. The score sheet requests that the judges select a number between 10-20 based upon whether the participant’s performance was Poor (10), Average (11-14), Good (15-17), or Excellent (18-20) for each category. For instance, if a performance was Excellent, the judge should select a score between 18-20; whereas if a performance was only Average, then a score between 11-14 should be selected. A sample score sheet for grading oralists during the oral round can be found at the bottom of this guide. This method to determine the winners of each match ensures that the range used by different judges is largely the same, and subjective marking is kept to a minimum. Judges are also encouraged to write down constructive feedback that they may have in relation to each oralist, as the participants receive copies of the scoresheets to ensure transparency across the Moot Court Competition. In the event of a

discrepancy in the scoresheet, judges may be contacted to clarify their marking by the Moot Administrators. Deliberation and Feedback After the conclusion of oral argument, teams will leave the room and judges will deliberate on the result of the round. While the judges may consult one another regarding feedback to participants, judges are kindly asked not to consult with each other while marking the teams and filling out the score sheets. This is to ensure that there are three independent assessments of the participants’ oral presentations. Following the deliberation, judges will return their score sheets directly to Moot Court administrators or person appointed by Moot Court administrators for collection of scoresheets, and only then provide feedback and comments to the two competing teams regarding their performance. This is to ensure that the preliminary rounds run on time. Judges should not announce the scores or the winner of the round (especially since judges also are not aware who the winner of the match is); enquire about the identity of the participating team; or make apparent through their comments which team has won the match. When addressing the participants and providing feedback regarding the round, judges may begin by introducing themselves and providing a brief overview of their professional career. Judges may then provide comments regarding the teams’ performance. Some judges prefer to give general comments, while other judges prefer to provide more specific and tailored advice to each speaker. As the aim is to build an encouraging atmosphere, if a judge expresses comments concerning weaknesses in a team’s performance, it is advisable to accompany such comments with suggestions about the best method to overcome such weaknesses. Judges should be sensitive, however, to the fact that teams have made numerous sacrifices in their preparation and participation for the Moot Court Competition. Overall these comments are warmly received by participants because they provide critical recommendations for upcoming rounds, future Moot Court Competitions, as well as for their future careers in law.