Summary of Moot Court Rules and Guidelines (partly taken from http://falcon.fsc.edu/mootcourt/)
Time: Each round is 40 minutes. Each team gets 20 minutes. Each team may divide their time as they please except that each individual must present at least 7 minutes, including questioning. Petitioners (and only Petitioners) may reserve up to 3 minutes of rebuttal and only one team member may deliver the rebuttal.
Decorum:
1. Courtesy:
Wear business attire. Contestants must be courteous to opponents and judges. Never demean the opponent. Do not make faces or gestures or talk or whisper while the other team speaks. When speaking, do not pound the podium or make exaggerated gestures.
2. Do not identify your college.
3. Use of notes: While notes are permitted (but not charts or diagrams or visual aids), judges are instructed that contestants are encouraged to give their opening statements without notes and to minimize the use of notes at other times.
4. Presentation:
Maintain eye contact with the Judges throughout the oral argument.
First words: attorney-contestants should state “May It Please the Court” and wait for an affirmation from the Court.
Then Introduce yourself: The first speaker should introduce both him or herself and his or her teammate and should inform the court which question or issue each team member will address. The second speaker should also introduce him or herself to the court.
Opening statement: The opening statement of each attorney-contestant typically provides a brief summary of the key points of argument to be presented or provides the court with a clear picture of the case. Provide a Road Map of your argument, starting with strongest points first. Begin with your conclusion and then provide facts and law to support the conclusion.
1st Speaker for Petitioner asks the Court if it wants a summary of the facts before moving to her main arguments. In general, Respondents should not provide a second statement of the facts, but Respondents may want to draw attention to some facts that they believe have been omitted or misrepresented by Petitioner.
Provide case citations but do not quote at length.
Summarize at the end, if time permits: integrate your main points into a coherent whole.
Conclusion. Attorney-contestants should conclude with a one-sentence request for relief and concisely identify the ground on which the relief would be based.
Rebuttal:Petitioners must make their request to reserve time (up to 3 minutes) for a rebuttal prior to the beginning of each round. The purpose of a rebuttal is to respond to the Respondent’s arguments, and it is inappropriate to attempt to introduce new arguments during the rebuttal.
Questioning by Judges. In a typical hearing, attorney-contestants will not be able to present their arguments without frequent interruption by Judges’ questions. When interrupted by a Judge’s question, an attorney-contestant should stop speaking immediately and focus on understanding and replying to the Judge’s question. When answering a Judge’s question, the attorney-contestant should address the Judge as “Your Honor.” Attorney-contestants should always attempt to provide clear and definite answers that address the Judge’s concerns. Evasive answers tend to engender more pointed
questions and to lower the attorney-contestant’s scores. Unwillingness to answer a question will be interpreted as disrespect for the court. Once an attorney-contestant has answered a Judge’s question, she should return to the presentation of her argument.
5. Closed problems. The problems presented for the ACMA Tournament are closed problems. Students may discuss cases outside the Table of Authorities solely to the extent that they are quoted and cited within the official cases. Judges are to be informed to deduct points as a penalty for use of prohibited materials.
Comment to Rule 3.11. For example, if a case is simply included in a string quotation, that case cannot be discussed unless the student says that this case of X v. Y was cited by the court in [official case within the record] to support its holding. Any detailed discussion of the facts or reasoning of X v. Y would be inappropriate unless those matters specifically appear in the official case.