Overview of AMTA and Its Rules
The American Mock Trial Association (AMTA) is a national organization dedicated to providing high school and undergraduate college students with a top-notch competition experience in order to develop their interpersonal, analytical, and advocacy skills. AMTA emphasizes both the educational value and competitive aspect of the mock trial program by providing valuable resources through its website and in-person conferences and workshops. Educational materials include a number of mock trial rules and guidelines, including the AMTA rules of evidence contained in the case packet for the annual national competition.
The purpose of the AMTA rules of evidence is to provide additional structure and instruction during the trial process. Since law schools , courts, and actual trials do not have a comprehensive set of rules for evidence, AMTA provides students with a workable framework that most closely resembles the rules of evidence used in courts. The rules do not have the same complexity as they would in an actual courtroom, but are close enough so that students can practice their trial skills in the most realistic way possible. In addition, the AMTA rules are similar to Federal Rules of Evidence that most undergraduate students have learned in their classrooms, so the AMTA rules do not deviate greatly from the law students are already familiar with.
AMTA Rules of Evidence – Must-Know Basics
To maintain a level playing field, AMTA applies the Federal Rules of Evidence, with some modifications to certain areas. Here we briefly cover the major evidentiary rules you will need to know for competition.
Relevance (FRE 401 & 402): All evidence submitted in the competition must relate to facts that are relevant to the case and must be part of the record in the case (i.e. it must be a piece of physically entered into evidence in the trial).
Character Evidence (FRE 404): Unless character is at issue in the case, character evidence generally cannot come in. For example, if character is not an issue, you may not be able to impeach a witness by saying they were involved in some crime unrelated to the trial.
Hearsay (FRE 801 to 804 a.k.a. the big one): If someone is testifying about out of court statements, then hearsay is at play. A great take on hearsay in AMTA competitions is on The Practice Podcast, episode 19.
Objections: An objection is made when a witness is about to give testimony that is inadmissible. Objections are made by the opposing side (not the question-witness side) and require a basis (i.e. hearsay, speculation, mischaracterizes testimony, etc.) for the objection. If timely made, the objection will be ruled upon by the judge.
AMTA and Federal Rules of Evidence: A Comparison
In judicial advocacy, the goal is to establish facts and make legal arguments. Facts, in turn, are proven through a system of questions asked of witnesses, called testimony, and the objections made against the relevance or admissibility of that testimony. All of which is done under a set of rules appropriate to the scope of the case. In AMTA, that scope is an appellate court hearing a criminal appeal. That said, while each of these sets of evidentiary rules seeks to accomplish that same purpose, they do so in different ways. While every rule should have some point of comparison with at least the Federal rules (else it would not be based in real world practice), most of the AMTA rules depart from their underlying Federal rule of evidence by presenting the rule in a much less practical way than rules drafted in the real world. For example, the first Rule of Evidence, titled Scope and Purpose, one of the most fundamental rules in any evidentiary system which explains why all other rules exist, that exists in the Federal rules is combined with three other Rules of Evidence on the scope, construction, and purpose of the AMTA rules into a single lengthy rule that turns only on the presence or absence of "reasonably available" information. Why would it be offered that way? Primarily for ease of comparison with the Rules of Evidence as amended in 2000 and 2011, which themselves combine similar rules of evidence in much the same way. (The Rules of Evidence are noted for being streamlined in their implementation of specific rules of admissibility, so this makes some sense.) In contrast, AMTA’s rules appear under the comparative rubric of the relevant Federal Rule of Evidence, with no discussion of why the AMTA rule varies from the Federal rule. The important distinction to remember is that while AMTA rules speak in generalities, the Federal rules offer examples that can be argued as broader than, or a limitation on, the AMTA words. For example, while AMTA’s Rule 401, requests that the court find a statement "generally speaking" to have probative value, the Federal rule of evidence requires the court to find that the statement "has any tendency" to make a fact more probable than it would be without the evidence, without any statement that it must be done "generally speaking." In general, most of the Rules of Evidence have an AMTA counterpart. Among the notable exceptions to this are the following: 1) AMTA does not have an equivalent to the Federal Rules of Evidence 4, 10, 11, or 20. 2) AMTA has no equivalents for the Federal Rules of Evidence 3 or 22, which, respectively, govern simple cases and jeopardy. 3) AMTA has devoted significantly less time to refining its version of the Rules of Evidence in the last five years, and several federal rules are unrecognized by AMTA. 4) AMTA has also significantly abbreviated the list of duties that fell to the Appellate Court, the Appellant, and the Appellee under the Federal Rules of Evidence 37. In conclusion, while AMTA strives to be flexible in the way it governs admissible evidence, it has struggled with the issue of how it fits in with the Federal Rules of Evidence as a mock system.
Best Practices for AMTA Rules Application
Strategies for Using AMTA Rules of Evidence Effectively
When using the AMTA rules in competition, generally speaking there are only a few objections that every participant should be prepared to make, and some objections that are so rare that they may never have any use whatsoever in competition. The following is a list of objections that competitors should be familiar with: Specific to AMTA, in the event that a question is asked that is not expressly covered by AMTA rules (see Article IV.H), that question is generally deemed admissible, subject to challenge for relevance, grounds 101 and 403. Notably, however, this is the only area of AMTA’s rules that simply defaults to FRE doctrine. The AMTA rules do not provide guidance concerning the admissibility of questions under the residual hearsay rule (FRE 807) or of impeachment of an unsworn hearsay statement (See FRE 613(a)). Interestingly, AMTA has traded off a more expansive interpretation of permissible impeachment evidence by replacing FRE 608(b) with FRE 608(b)(2) and (3). AMTA shall allow impeaching a witness with extrinsic evidence of prior opinions from witnesses who do not testify as opposed to merely allowing cross examination regarding prior opinion testimony under 608(b)(1) as in Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) (an example of such impeachment can be found with expert witnesses in section D of the rules) . This change also explains why AMTA rule IV.B.8.a.vii. allows for impeachment by extrinsic evidence of a prior statement of a witness (as to be impeached) outside their presence on the grounds that the witness was "fabricating a prior statement," as opposed to the FED 607 rule or 613 rule that simply mentions prior inconsistent statements. Given these rules, when an objection is made, the participants should use and cite to AMTA rules only, (not FRE), and when the student is caught off guard with a question regarding impeachment, they should remember to adapt their response to cite either AMTA IV.B.7 or IV.B.8 (or IV.B.6 if impeaching character). However, AMTA does "revisit" almost all other evidentiary questions that fall into those four categories specifically (sometimes going beyond FRE and AMTA’s rules in general to cite legal arguments specific to the MOI or to more specific procedural rules like the Orange Book for mock trial competitions). An example of this is Appendix B, which provides specifics about how certain questions should be admitted even though they are hearsay. This appendix comes after the rules, further setting itself apart from FED theory – certainly an area where it is important to know when to cite the AMTA rules, and when to cite FED.
AMTA Rules: Common Pitfalls to Avoid
One of the most effective means of ensuring that mock trial participants have a strong grasp of the AMTA rules of evidence is to teach through a series of "hypothetical" problems such as those we have provided previously. Certain rules of evidence may be particularly problematic for mock trial participants, or they may consistently misinterpret or misunderstand certain AMTA rules of evidence.
The most common challenge for mock trial participants is understanding hearsay. One of the key concepts that students tend to have trouble with is the idea that testimony that offers an out of court statement cannot be used to prove a truth of the statement. For example, the witness may be allowed to testify that she saw two people arguing (because the witness was there and obviously can testify to what she experienced), she cannot testify that the argument was over money or the argument was between the defendant and plaintiff (unless she heard, first hand, the argument) because the fact that the two people were arguing is not the truth of the statement to prove (or disprove) money actually changed hands. The witness would have to be able to testify about the contents of the argument if the witness heard it. Without that first hand knowledge, the witness would only be able to testify what she experienced directly, or the witness’ reaction to the experience. This would eliminate (or, at least limit) the number of objectionable hearsay statements in a mock trial competition that would otherwise be used to prove a truth of the statement.
Another common challenge for mock trial participants is the application of the best evidence rule. Mock trial participants may understand that an opposing counsel attempting to put a document into evidence must lay a proper foundation for the document, which includes establishing that the document is what counsel states it is, and that the document is relevant (all evidentiary objections should be made to the judge during competition). Should opposing counsel begin to read directly from a document into evidence, a common objection is that the witness reading from the document is hearsay. However, as long as the witness has personal knowledge that he or she is reading directly from the document, as opposed to paraphrasing or explaining (where the witness has no personal knowledge), the witness (or consulting expert) (who has been properly qualified as an expert) may quote directly from the document and still provide that testimony without another story, answer or exhibit. Other potential objectionable issues of mocking trial participants laying a foundation for document evidence that could fleetingly raise the issue of best evidence is late and improper authentication while the document is initially introduced into the record, introducing evidence to explain a chain of evidence after it has already been admitted into evidence, and introducing duplicates when originals are required.
The Significance of AMTA Rules for Law School
AMTA rules of evidence are a key aspect of legal education and skill development that every student should become familiar with. The impact they have on a student’s understanding of the law and ability to argue it increases as they become more advanced. These rules are used throughout law school in mock trials, internships, and their first few years of practice. Understanding AMTA rules of evidence and their application is vital for students and attorneys alike , as they are the foundation for how they will continue doing their jobs for the rest of their careers.
Pursuing a career in law should only take place if a person is willing to do whatever it takes to be the best. A lawyer needs to be knowledgeable, resourceful, and skilled enough to win every case they obsess over. AMTA rules of evidence are designed to help them attain those qualifications and make a lasting impact on their minds. Evidence rules lay out the facts, admissibility, and amount of detail that’s necessary for compelling arguments that can win cases. When students get a firm grasp of all of these factors, it gives them a great boost in their education and future career success.