Seven students huddled together against the cold evening air as they approached the entrance to the looming facade of the Montgomery County Circuit Court. After passing through metal detectors and taking an elevator up nine floors, they took their places in Courtroom 9B.

The prosecution—three of the Whitman mock trial team members—took a seat across from the defense, three members of the Poolesville team. One student sat on the judge’s right, serving as the bailiff. The other team members sat in the audience, awaiting their roles as witnesses.

“Council ready?” the judge—Lydia Lawless, an experienced attorney—asked, scanning the room. The lawyers nodded. With that, the trial of the State of Maryland vs. Sam Saratoga began.

Unlike the other trials held in this courtroom, this mock trial was designed to educate rather than adjudicate. Mock trial is an extracurricular activity that allows high school students to gain firsthand experience with the law while competing against other schools in mock trials throughout the season.

One case is published each competitive season, which lasts from November 1 to March 1. The Citizenship Law Related Educational Program (CLREP)—a Maryland-based program created to provide students with civic education—oversees the process of writing and distributing the cases.

The cases alternate between criminal and civil each year and often center on current events, captain Genevieve Beske said. The current case parallels the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. In the case, the State accused Sam Saratoga—the superintendent of the fictional Clearwater School district—of misconduct in office and reckless endangerment based on her decision to turn on water that had been sitting in lead pipes, resulting in lead poisoning.

“Two years ago, we had a criminal case about the Trayvon Martin shooting,” Beske said. “Last year, our case was about concussions.”

Teams prepare extensively before each trial, working to become familiar with the seventy-plus pages of case materials provided by the CLREP, including the background and testimony of witnesses, dossiers of evidence and guidelines for trial proceedings.

“They learn to think critically and synthesize information by reading lots of different cases, reading laws and reading the case background itself,” staff sponsor Marisa Del Savio said. “It’s a very difficult skill set.”

Before the trials, the Whitman team meets for an hour each week to read these materials and prepare opening statements, in addition to practicing their assigned roles and doing drills to improve their general skills, such as public speaking and witness examination.

“The preparation is really fun,” junior Kyle Cho said. “It’s fun preparing and trying to think of a strategy, what [an opposing team] might do and how to counter that.”

The majority of the trial involves examination of witnesses; the examination period begins with two minutes of “voir dire,” in which council establishes the qualifications of a witness, followed by seven minutes for council to examine the witness and further their case. The defense is then allotted five minutes of cross examination in an attempt to gain concessions for their case.

“My favorite part is the cross examinations,” Beske said. “It involves more thinking on your feet to manage to pin the witness down.”

After cross examination, the prosecution is allowed three minutes of “re-direct,” in which they clarify questions raised during cross-examination. The defense closes with up to three minutes of “re-cross” to further their case and attempt to cast doubt on the witness’ testimony.

Throughout the examination of witnesses, opposing counsel can raises objections, similar to actual court proceedings, such as “leading the witness,” an accusation of bias in the questioning and “asked and answered,” a criticism of repeat questions.

“The lawyers need to be able to think on [their] feet, to object and respond to objections,” Beske said.

This back-and-forth pattern occurs for each of the six witnesses in the trial, three from prosecution and three from defense.

Although argumentation skills are essential in mock trial, it’s not a debate. In fact, it’s quite different from debate, said sophomore Yasmeen Gauri, who is on both the debate and mock trial teams. “There’s a lot more acting,” she said.

Although acting skills are crucial in all roles, they are the most important for witnesses.

“The witnesses must be good actors, since they’re given a role and have to learn, memorize and deliver it effectively,” Beske said.

Each trial lasts a few hours and closes with seven minute statements from each side, followed by a period of deliberation to determine the winner. Since a jury is not present, the judge makes a unilateral decision.

Although they lost in their trial in Courtroom 9B that frigid evening, the Whitman team won three of their four trials in the regular season, a record that was sufficient to send them to playoffs within the Montgomery County circuit, where they lost in the first round.

Despite the competitive nature of the activity, the goal is educational.

“They use [trials] as a method to improve their skill set, not as some evaluative tool for how they are as a person,” Del Savio said. “When they don’t do well, they ask what they can do better.”

The value of the activity is the knowledge students gain, not the trial results.

“The value of participating is that students learn court procedures for lawyers, judges and witnesses,” Montgomery County mock trial coordinator Scott Zanni said. “Since most legal proceedings are verbal in nature, students benefit by improving their public speaking, listening skills and critical thinking skills.”

Team members attested to these benefits, as well as gaining an interest in pursuing careers related to the law.

“I wasn’t too interested in law before,” Cho said. “Now, I really am—anything to do with law is what I want to do with my life.”