Mock Trial

Mock trials have proven to be an effective learning tool for students of all grade levels. It helps them understand the law, practice critical thinking, and gain greater confidence with public speaking by assuming the roles of attorneys and witnesses in a fictional criminal or civil trial. Participants experience first-hand the difficulties that judges, lawyers and juries face in determining which facts are relevant and what legal arguments are effective. 

 High School Competition


Village Home Education Resource Center Mock Trial Team – 2015 State Champions

Each year, more than 70 teams, totaling some 1,200 students, compete at regional, state and national levels — with support from more than 500 attorneys, educators and other community representatives acting as coaches, judges and coordinators.

Registration for 2015-16 competition is now closed.

Competition dates: 
February 27, 2016 – Regional Mock Trial Competitions, statewide

March 11-12, 2016 – State Mock Trial Competition

For State Results, please visit our News Page.

May 12-14, 2016 – National Mock Trial Finals, Boise, Idaho

2015-16 MOCK TRIAL CASE MATERIALS: State v. Dousa

 2016 Mini Mock Trial – Date TBD

Dec, 2016 | Multnomah County Courthouse, Portland

This event gives students an opportunity to gain experience, try out new roles and skills, and encourages high schools to start a team.

2015 Mini Mock case | State v. Caufield

There are 4 witnesses per side in this year’s Mini Mock Case
Two teams per school maximum may participate in the Mini Mock Event
Teams may be any size for Mini Mock

*Start times are approximate. Mini Mock operates on a rolling start, so unlike the competition, teams will be starting and finishing at varying times.

Mock Trial Resources

Case Archive: For a list and access to previous mock trial cases, please click here.


DVD's of Previous Mock Trial Cases


Video of 2016 State Finals (the password is:  Mocktrial2016)

Mock Trial Manual: For step by step instructions, lesson plans, and supplementary resources: Manual | Handouts | Appendix

Find handouts from the 2014 Middle School Mock Trial Workshop led by Susie Marcus here.

Just interested in putting on a mock trial with your class or community group without the commitment of the competition?  Check out the extensive mock trial collection available for download on our Resource page.

2015-2016 Mock Trial Discussion List (Listserv)

The email discussion list (aka “Listserv”) for mock trial competition questions and answers is; any subscriber can post to the list using this email address. Key issues from the list will be posted weekly to the sections below.

You can subscribe to the list by contacting CLP or by visiting You will receive confirmation email and must click the link in that message before you are fully subscribed.

Teams are responsible for information and announcements posted by Classroom Law Project to the Mock Trial Discussion List and website.

Official Notices / Q & A

This section, updated weekly, includes official notices such as team letter codes and information specific to regions. We will also post official answers to questions asked by teams on the Mock Trial Listserv here.

Most recent update: February 19, 2016 — Case Materials Notice and Forms, changes to teams for Eastern Oregon and Jackson County, Q&A for Questions 9 and 10

Official Notices

Regions and Team Letter Codes
Following is a list of the teams and the regions to which they have been assigned. Each team has a two-letter code used for identification during the regional and state competitions. Please be sure parents and supporters know their team’s letter code.

All regional competitions are Saturday, Feb. 27, at the appropriate county courthouse as indicated below. The state competition is Friday afternoon, March 11, and Saturday, March 12, in Portland.

Every region has a volunteer Regional Coordinator running the local competition. Please contact these terrific individuals for information specific to your region (location, times, etc.). As local Regional Coordinators provide information, it will be posted here.

COACHES: contact your educator judges now! Be sure they know the date and their responsibilities. It is very disruptive and difficult for regional coordinators when judges cancel at the last minute.

Clackamas County – 11 (3 to state)
Coordinator: Bill Knox, Attorney <email>

  • 7:00 teams arrive
  • 8:00 Team/Parent Orientation
  • 8:45 Round 1
  • 11:00 Round 2
  • 1:45 Round 3
  • 4:15 Closing
  1. Colton High School – AA
  2. Lake Oswego High School Blue – AX
  3. Lake Oswego High School White – BH
  4. Lakeridge High School Blue – CW
  5. Lakeridge High School Gold – DW
  6. Lakeridge High School White – FS
  7. Reynolds High School – GT
  8. Sandy High School Black – HS
  9. Sandy High School Crimson – IQ
  10. West Linn High School Gold – JQ
  11. West Linn High School Green – LL

Deschutes County – 8 (2 to state)
Coordinator: Angie Lee, Attorney <email>

  • 7:30 Doors Open
  • 8:15 Student Orientation
  • 8:30 Round 1
  • 11:00 Round 2
  • 1:00 Lunch
  • 1:45 Round 3
  • 4:00 Announcements
  1. Bend Senior High Blue – AB
  2. Bend Senior High Gold – AY
  3. Bend Senior High Purple – ZZ
  4. Cascades Academy – BI
  5. Sisters High School Black – CX
  6. Sisters High School White – EE
  7. Summit High School White– FT
  8. Summit High School Green – YY

Eastern Oregon – 3 (1 to state)
Coordinator: Ms. Kelsie McDaniel, Union County District Attorney <email>

  1. Baker High School – AC
  2. La Grande High School – CY
  3. Vale High School – ES

Jackson County – 8 (2 to state)
Coordinator: Justin Rosas, Attorney <email>

  • 8:00 team orientation
  • 8:30 Round 1
  • 10:45 Round 2
  • 2:00 Round 3
  • 4:00 announcements
  1. Crater Academy of Health & Public Services Black – AD
  2. Crater Academy of Health & Public Services Orange – BB
  3. Grants Pass High School Blue – BR
  4. Grants Pass High School White – DD
  5. Hidden Valley High School – EU
  6. St. Mary’s School Blue – GB
  7. St. Mary’s School White – GU
  8. St. Mary’s School Green – ZA

Linn County – 7 (2 to state)
Coordinator: Kristen Sager-Kottre, Attorney <email>

  • 8:15 Orientation
  • 8:30 Round 1
  • 10:30 Round 2
  • 1:30 Round 3
  • 3:30 Announcements
  1. McNary High School – AE
  2. St. Paul High School – BF
  3. Salem-Keizer High School Blue – BT
  4. Salem-Keizer High School Red – DT
  5. South Eugene High School – EV
  6. West Salem High School Gold – GG
  7. West Salem High School White – HD

Multnomah County – 22 (5 to state)
Coordinator: Barbara Rost, Classroom Law Project <email>

  • 7:45 doors open
  • 9:00 Round 1
  • 11:45 Round 2
  • 2:15 Round 3
  • 4:30 announcements
  1. Central Catholic High School – AF
  2. Cleveland High School Gold – BG
  3. Cleveland High School Green – BW
  4. Franklin High School – DV
  5. Grant High School Blue – FF
  6. Grant High School Gray – GQ
  7. Jefferson High School Blue – HH
  8. Jefferson High School Gold – WW
  9. Lincoln High School Red – II
  10. Lincoln High School White – IR
  11. Pacific Crest School Green – KB
  12. Pacific Crest Community Purple – LM
  13. Parkrose High School – MM
  14. Riverdale High School Blue – MY
  15. Riverdale High School White – NN
  16. Roosevelt High School – PR
  17. St. Mary’s Academy Blue – RR
  18. St. Mary’s Academy White – SS
  19. St. Mary’s Academy Silver – TK
  20. Stephen’s Academy – TT
  21. Scappoose High School – UU
  22. Wilson High School – VV

Washington County – 12 (3 to state)
Coordinator: Elizabeth Lemoine, Attorney <email>

  • 7:00 am – doors open.
  • 8:00 am – Team Orientation
  • Rounds 1, 2, 3 to follow
  1. Catlin Gabel School Blue – AU
  2. Catlin Gabel School White – BX
  3. Jesuit High School Black – CC
  4. Jesuit High School Green – FR
  5. Jesuit High School Gold – HR
  6. Oregon Episcopal School Gold – JN
  7. Oregon Episcopal School Platinum – KK
  8. School of Science and Technology – LO
  9. Sunset High School Gold – MN
  10. Sunset High School Purple – MZ
  11. Village Home Garnet – OO
  12. Village Home Sapphire – QQ


The printed case materials were not printed in their entirety (printer error). Pages 76 through 84 are missing. All pages, however, have been and are available online.

The missing pages include the following materials, each of which is linked for your convenience.

Q & A

Question 1 (Dec. 21 and Jan. 21)

Q? On page 33, line 21, “Bobby’s” needs to be changed to “Addie’s”.

A! Yes, it should be. Consider it done.

Question 2 (Jan. 22)

Q? The dates of some affidavits are 2014 or 2015.  It is now 2016.  Do we have, for example, Addison testify to being a high school graduate–or a senior?  Same question for each of the other high school witnesses.

A! All affidavits were taken in August or September 2015. The date of Addison Anderson’s affidavit is consistent with its content. When one works backwards from the date the affidavit was given, Aug. 2015 (p.15, line 23), AA was a sophomore in the 12-13 school year (p.11, line 14), a junior in the 13-14 school year (p.11, line 16), a senior in the 14-15 school year, and is sitting out in the current 15-16 school year (p.11, line 7). The same rationale should be used for each of the other high school witnesses.

Question 3 (Jan. 27)

Q? Could you give a definition of retrograde and anterograde amnesia?

A! Retrograde amnesia: Amnesia in which the lack of memory relates to events that occurred before a traumatic event. Retrograde amnesia is in contrast to antegrade amnesia in which the lack of memory relates to events that occurred after a traumatic event.” The traumatic event in this case is the ingestion of Rohypnol. (Source: 1/28/16)

Question 4 (Feb. 4)

Q? A couple of my attorneys wanted me to ask you about the lack of the specific ORS in this year’s case. Was this intentional? Are we to have the kids research the specific elements of the statutes? Is it okay to bring in the statutes as an outside resource/reference?

A! No, this was not intentional; it was an oversight. Students should not use outside resources or references; doing so could result in a violation of the mock trial rules. Therefore, the following information is now officially a part of the Jury Instructions:


475.908 Causing another person to ingest a controlled substance

Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of causing another person to ingest a controlled substance if the person knowingly or intentionally causes the other person to ingest a controlled substance without consent of the other person. In this case, to establish the crime of causing another person to ingest a controlled substance, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements:

  1.    The act occurred on or about December 5, 2014;
  2.    Bobbie Dousa knowingly or intentionally caused Addison Anderson to ingest a controlled substance; and
  3.    Addison Anderson did not consent to the ingestion of the controlled substance.

163.160 Assault in the 4th degree

Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes physical injury to another. In this case, to establish the crime of assault in the fourth degree, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements:

  1.    The act occurred on or about December 5, 2014; and
  2.    Bobbie Dousa intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused physical injury to Addison Anderson.

166.065 Harassment

Oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally harasses or annoys a person by subjecting that person to offensive physical contact. In this case, to establish the crime of harassment, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements:

  1.    The act occurred on or about December 5, 2014;
  2.    Bobbie Dousa harassed or annoyed Addison Anderson by subjecting Addison Anderson to offensive physical contact; and
  3.    Bobbie Dousa intended to harass or annoy Addison Anderson.

Question 5 (Feb. 6)

Q? When was exhibit 1 (screenshot of Facebook post) taken? We know that the picture was posted three hours ago, but three hours from when? This information is crucial to figuring out the timeline of the case.

A! The information on screenshot is all we know.

Question 6 (Feb. 9)

Q? Can you please help with the pronunciation of both “Rohypnol” and “Kannan.” Is it “Roof-i-nol” or “Roo-hip-nol” and “Cannon”?

A! Rohypnol is pronounced: ro hip nul. Teams should ask Witness Kannan how he or she pronounces his or her last name name: KAYnan or Canon?

Question 7 (Feb. 10)

Q? The name of the Facebook page that Bobby mentions he controls in his affidavit is called “Raider Central”, whereas the screenshot shows the Rowe page as “Rowe Raiders”. Is this accurate?

A! As in Q5, the information on the screenshot is all we know.

Question 8 (Feb. 10)

Q? Is it permissible to bring copies of witness statements that have been pre-numbered “p.1,” “p.2,” and so on, of some witness’ statement without violating the rules, or must the direct/cross-examining attorney make reference to the page number on the statement as it falls in the case/problem–i.e. “I refer you to p. 26 of your witness statement” (when in fact Bobby’s statement is only six pages long)?

A! No. In an effort to keep all teams and judges on the same page, students should refer to the pagination in the case materials.

Question 9 (Feb. 17)

Q? Are the expert witnesses (Juarez and Chen) familiar with all the affidavits in this case?

A! Rule 703 provides guidance in answer to this question.

Question 10 (Feb. 17)

Q? Question concerning the “Rowe Raiders” vs “Raider Central” – having two different Facebook pages confuses me.  In the stipulations #7 it states that Bobby Dousa has access to the facebook page that depicts a photo but his/her witness statement says s/he controls ‘Raider Central” and fails to mention “Rowe Raiders”.  So I guess I need to know the definition of ‘access’.  Does that mean Dousa is the only one that can control the material on the webpage or do we mean having the ability to look at and download material.  Also the isolated fact that the exhibit is the only place where ‘Rowe Raiders’ is mentioned, which makes it difficult for either side to discuss the ownership of the website.  So as I ramble on, is it possible that it is a typo from the original material?  And with ‘Raider Central’ not being the website where the photo was posted, does it not make any reference in the trial to that website irrelevant?

A! It is not a typo. The presiding judge in each trial may rule on an objection based on relevance. Whether “Rowe Raiders” and “Raider Central” might be used interchangeably may be a question of reasonable inference, and may also ruled upon by presiding judges.