LOUIS RIEL MOCK TRIAL SCRIPT AND PRESENTATION

LOUIS RIEL
MOCK TRIAL SCRIPT AND PRESENTATION
Create a script presenting the case that was brought to court in the Trial of Louis Riel
You will have to have a small group to work on this with and you will present it to class
In your script you will present the case, prosecution and defense as you see it should/would of
happened.
REQUIREMENTS
Steps:
1. You will write your script and present it to the class
2. A hard copy will be submitted to the teacher as well
I.
You will read it out to the class (like a play)
II.
When you jury goes to adjourn for their decision (Before you get to the verdict)
III.
the class will vote on if Riel is guilty or innocent based on the information you have
provided
IV.
Then you will finish your reading
Information:
In your script you must address
 The charges that Louis Riel faced
 The way the prosecutors did and/or would have portrayed Louis Riel
 How the defense did and/or would have defended and portrayed Louis Riel
 Witnesses for the prosecution and defense
Structure:
As this is not a law class, you have some flexibility in your script and court proceedings, but the basic
structure should
 Establish a setting with a narrator’s description
 The charge(s) that Louis Riel is facing (read out by a bailiff or judge)
 A judge giving instructions throughout
 An opening statement for the prosecution ( presenting argument of how Riel is guilty)
 Opening statement for the defense (presenting the argument of how Riel is innocent)
 Witnesses for the prosecution/defense
o They can be fictional but the information they give must be accurate
o The lawyers will ask them question
o There can be cross examinations
 Closing arguments (from both sides)
 The jury will adjourn (go off to make their decision) class will vote
 Judge reads out decision
THE ACCUSED:
RIEL’S LAWYERS(defense) :
CROWN LAWYERS(prosecution):
MAGISTRATE (judge)
Louis Riel
Francois Lemieux, Charles Fitzpatrick, and James N. Greenshields
Britton Osler Christopher Robinson
Hugh Richardson
/25
Trial Script and Presentation
Underdeveloped 1-2
/10
/5 x 2
Competent 3
Well Developed 4-5
Content
Specific
information
Almost no historical detail is
provided; account is incomplete and
vague.
Historical detail is thinly provided;
account needs elaboration and more
specifics.
Considerable historical detail is
provided; account is fully
described and very specific.
Revealing
insights
The script does not add to the
reader’s understanding of the event
described.
The script provides some useful
insight that helps in understanding
aspects of the event.
The script offers a revealing
account that helps in
understanding the event.
Preparation
and Research
Witness statements, questions,
and/or performances show a lack of
preparation.
Witness statements are adequately
developed, fairly consistent, and
Accurately performed.
Witness statements are fully
developed, completely consistent
with historical record, and
accurately portrayed.
Attorney questions lack logic; most
questions are poorly formed.
Attorney questions are clear, logical,
and relevant most of the time; most
questions are properly formed.
Attorney questions are relevant,
logical, and clear; questions
are properly formed and
delivered.
Statements and questions show
some understanding of how
evidence supports or opposes
the claim.
Statements and questions show an
understanding of how evidence
supports or opposes the claim.
The script does not offer an
historical characters’ point of view.
The perspectives is unrealistic and
impersonal.
The script captures some of an
historical characters’ point of view.
The perspectives is quite realistic
and personal.
Empathic
perspective
Written
/5
Meaning
not accurate, not logical, not
appropriate, not enough details
- no connections
- confusing connections
a list of similar ideas
- usually correct details, examples,
explanations
- has trouble making connections
beyond the obvious point
Convention,
and
mechanics
- lots of mistakes in simple words
- mistakes make it so you can’t
understand the meaning
- some mistakes in basic words and
sentence patterns
- you can still understand the
meaning even though there are
mistakes
Style
Statements and questions show
Sophisticated understanding of
how evidence relates to and
supports or opposes
the claim.
The script richly imagines an
historical characters’ point of
view. The perspectives is very
realistic and personal.
- sentence does not have flow
- awkward sentences
- simple vocabulary
-mistakes when using complex
language, but the meaning is still
there
- uses different types of sentences,
including complex
- usually appropriate conversational
language
- original and complex
- interesting details, examples,
explanations
- shows thought
- logical connections beyond the
surface
- may have a few mistakes where
writer is trying out complex
language
- you can still understand the
meaning even though there are
mistakes
- it flows smoothly
- different types of sentences
- a variety of good vocabulary
PRESENTATION
/10
1
Underdeveloped
2
Voice
Presenter is not easily
understood; delivery
needs work.
Courtroom
Decorum
Presenter has
appropriate interactions
with judge and
attorneys, and the
presenter stays in
character throughout
the trial.
Presenter needs to
be more convincing.
Body and facial
expressions are not
used.
Authenticity
Competent 3
Well Developed 4-5
Presenter is
understood, but
uses an inappropriate
rate, volume, or
intonation that
distracts from what
is being said.
Presenter is unsure
of how to interact
with other members
of the trial and has
difficulty staying in
character.
Presenter is understood
most of the time and uses
an appropriate rate, volume,
and intonation most of the
time.
Presenter is easily understood
and consistently uses an
appropriate rate, volume, and
intonation.
Presenter’s interactions with
other members of the trial
are appropriate most of the
time, and the presenter
stays in character most of
the time.
Presenter has appropriate
interactions with judge and
attorneys, and the presenter
stays in character throughout
the trial.
Presenter lacks
realism. Their body
and facial expressions
do not match their
portrayal.
Presenter is believable. They
use adequate body and
facial expression, and
their portrayal is adapted to
the setting.
Presenter is very convincing and
has excellent use of body and
facial expression; words and
gestures match.