Coastal Point • Submitted: There’s no reason to mock this award-winning Mock Trial team from Sussex Central High School. The team recently won second place in the 2016 Delaware State Mock Trial Competition in New Castle County.Sussex Central High School has proven that public schools can lead the state in a prestigious academic competition. This year, SCHS won second place in the 2016 Delaware State Mock Trial Competition.
That’s the highest a Sussex County team has ever advanced in the competition’s 25-year history.
Mock trial puts students in a real courtroom to argue either side of a fictional, but realistic, case.
This year’s fictional criminal trial involved a police officer accused of murder. During two days at New Castle Courthouse, the goal isn’t to win the actual case, but to prove mastery of courtroom proceedings, as judged by real attorneys and justices.
Every team has the same cast of characters, and they compete by arguing different sides of the case against other schools, before an actual Delaware justice. Each student attorney questions one witness from each side.
After three rounds, SCHS was named to the final four. Heading into the championship round against Wilmington Friends School, Sussex Central was briefly in first place.
Students used the school year to create plan of attack, with help from coaches Helen Elliott and Tom Murphy. Acting as attorneys, students must wring the most information from each witness, attacking and defending with just the right questions and objections.
Given only a witness statement, students also acted as witnesses, learning to withstand direct and cross-examination.
“I had to be prepared for really tough questions,” said Derya Sen, portraying a key witness who served as an alibi, despite being drunk and suffering short-term memory loss during the fictional incident.
Meanwhile, Daniella Furtado played a forensics specialist/expert witness (“We had to teach ourselves the forensics of it,” she said.).
Sussex Central’s personality helped set them apart from other teams. They brought character to the witnesses, wanting to do more than just recite the witness statements, word-for-word. Four years ago, they thought that was a winning strategy.
But with a background in theater, many of the students wanted to create a fleshed-out character.
“We can’t just be saying monotonous stuff. We have to give it something, and I think that’s what set us apart from a lot of teams this year,” said Devon Lynch. “It just makes it more believable for the jury.”
“I think we’ve really learned a lot. I think we also brought something new to the competition,” Megginson said. “When I started, at least, there weren’t many teams who had witnesses with a lot of character. It wasn’t until we started kind of walking the line and re-defining the role of attorney and witness, we started seeing it [elsewhere, too].”
“As a witness, it’s really important to get relevant information out,” said Nathan Greenlee, “especially when a lawyer will only take part of your statement and use part of your sentence against you. It’s your job to … say, ‘Yes, that’s true, but let me tell you what the rest of my statement says.’”
That also helps burn time in the competition.
Attorneys have to find the right balance to lead the questioning, without coaching their witness or being too aggressive on cross-examination.
Although they don’t develop characters, the attorneys have different styles of approaching a case. One likes to improvise, while another is an “ice queen” who isn’t easily derailed.
Megginson likes to play on emotions, making the witness angry, then tugging on the fishing line when the witness finally takes the bait.
Hailee Smith is the team’s evidence expert.
“When we get an objection that were not expecting, it’s better to know the rules of evidence so you’re better prepared for it,” Smith said. “[If] you can cite a rule for that, it gives you points for your team. A lot of the objections I got for my witness, I was prepared for because I knew the rules of evidence, so it made it a little bit easier to defend my witness.”
“Coming to mock trial, you don’t know how to make a hearsay objection,” said “attorney” Holly Williams, who learned how to phrase a question and how to pick apart witness statements. “You have to look so deeply at things.”
SCHS students have all learned a lot since the team formed six years ago.
Two attorney coaches have also brought professional expertise: Ashley Bickel, Esq., of the Gonser & Gonser law firm, and Eric Hacker, Esq., of the Morris James law firm.
“Without them and attorneys across the state who volunteer to coach at the various schools, this exceptional educational opportunity would not exist for students,” Elliott stated.
The first year is always a challenge for newcomers, said attorney coach Ashley Bickel. “But instead of not coming back, like so many schools do, I think it just lit a fire” under the SCHS students to learn more and do better.
Their dedication has continued for six years, with three-hour practices after school and on weekends.
“I think there was a class and a professionalism that Sussex Central brought to the competition that was not expected, and I think that was evident in the response when they announced the schools for finals,” Bickel said. “They deserved to be there, and they did an excellent job.”
The annual competition is sponsored by the Delaware Law Related Education Center (DLREC). Only one-third of the 25 entrants were public schools, said SCHS students, which seems intimidating at first.
But SC’s team proved their ability to make adjustments, even between rounds. A judge, who criticized them early on, later complimented the team for taking his advice, for adding questions and objections.
“They were all willing to learn new little tweaks to improve their skills,” said attorney coach Eric Hacker.
SCHS plaintiff team included attorneys Charlie Megginson IV, Hallie Smith and Holly Williams, plus witnesses, Daniel Keenan, Daniella Furtado and Derya Sen. The defense team had attorneys Bryce Molnar, Anya Klimitchev and Charlie Megginson IV; witnesses Devon Lynch, Nathan Greenlee and Daniel Keenan; and time keeper Faith Kinsler.
“From a coaching perspective, they did everything they should have done,” said coach Tom Murphy. “Everyone was a major contributor. There were no weak spots.”
SCHS also brought home ten gavel awards on Feb. 26 and 27. Holly Williams won a Best Attorney gavel; Charlie Megginson IV won three Best Attorney and one Best All-Around Attorney gavel; and Danny Keenan won three Best Witness, one Best All-Around Witness and Best Witness award of the championship round.
Some of the seniors will miss the program, but may join their college mock trial team.
Coach Helen Elliott is proudest when her alumni return to visit, and they want to study political science, intern at a law office or help advise the SCHS team (like J.T. Tober and Jacob Orledge).
“I feel that’s the success of the program: that the skills we’re sharing with the students are life skills that they’re going to carry with them,” Elliott said.
Elliott also thanked SCHS administration and Indian River Board of Education for their support, both in time and money.
Sussex Central has moved past the term “rebuilding year,” said Anya Klimitchev.
“Last year was supposed to be a ‘rebuilding year.’ When we placed sixth, after they placed 11th the previous year, it was a whole new ball game,” she said. “It wasn’t a rebuilding year. Every year’s a step up, no matter what, because we have people coming back. We’re all learning just so much. We all have a finesse [that we’ll seek in new teammates]. I don’t think it will be a rebuilding year next year. I think we’ll do just as well.”