NYS Mock Trial

  • Fayetteville Manlius 2016 Mock Trial State Champions
    Fayetteville-Manlius High School - 2016 NYS High School Mock Trial Champions Presiding: Hon. Michael C. Lynch, NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Div., 3rd J.D., May 17, 2016
  • MTSI 2016 Students and Staff
    Mock Trial Summer Institute (MTSI) 2016 at Silver Bay YMCA MTSI 2016 Students and Staff
  • Mock Trial

    New York State Mock Trial Tournament      

    In this educational program, co-sponsored by The New York Bar Foundation, high school students have the opportunity to gain first hand knowledge of civil/criminal law and courtroom procedures. Thousands of students participate each year.  Objectives of the tournament are to:  Teach students ethics, civility and professionalism; Further students’ understanding of the law, court procedures and the legal system; Improve proficiency in basic life skills, such as listening, speaking, reading and reasoning; Promote better communication and cooperation among the school community, teachers and students and members of the legal profession, and; Heighten appreciation for academic studies and stimulate interest in law-related careers.      

    Learn more about our New York Statewide High School Mock Trial Program.  Click here to view the brochure!  

    County Coordinators - Get Important Information for the Mock Trial Tournament 

    Download the Current Case and Related Correction Memos for this year's Mock Trial Tournament 

    Get the latest information on the Mock Trial Finals

    Attorneys and Judges - Read the New York MCLE Rules for earning CLE credit for Mock Trial 

    View Videos of our Past Mock Trial Finals

    View the list of Past Regional Champions from 1982-present

    Download Cases from our Mock Trial Archives

    View the "Mock Trial 101" Training Video

    The 2017 New York State Mock Trial Finals will be held Sunday, May 21 through Tuesday, May 23 in Albany, NY

      The New York Bar Foundation provides funding for this program in conjunction with The New York State Bar Association's Law, Youth and Citizenship Program.        


    • Mock Trial Summer Institute

      The New York State Mock Trial Summer Institute (MTSI) is an intensive week-long educational camp for high school students who are involved with mock trial. During the week, the students attend sessions presented by experienced Mock Trial teachers and attorneys. Counselors are educators who teach law related educational classes and have involvement with their schools' Mock Trial teams. All points of Mock Trial are covered from, “Evaluating the Case” to “Closing Arguments.” The students are put in teams on the first evening of camp. During the week, they work on a past Mock Trial case, incorporating their new skills and techniques into their presentation. Guest speakers, local attorneys, and additional educators are brought in throughout the week to assist in instruction.   The cases are presented on the final day before a judge.  Time is built into the daily schedule for the students to engage in organized team and confidence building activities, as well as free time to enjoy the numerous recreational activities. 

      Students are selected to attend MTSI through an application process.  The application is available online at  MTSI Applications. Teachers and attorneys must provide letters of recommendation for the student to be considered. Applications are accepted in the spring for consideration for that year’s MTSI. We offer rolling admission, but we recommend that you submit your application as soon as possible as we are limited as to the number of students we can accept into the program.  If you are accepted into MTSI, we will send you the official Acceptance Packet. No payment is due until you have been accepted into the program and you have confirmed your attendance in writing.  Once you have confirmed your attendance, you should complete the forms that are provided in the Acceptance Packet and return them with your payment in full.

      MTSI typically takes place at   Silver Bay YMCA on Lake George, during July and runs from Sunday to Friday. The number of students accepted varies, but MTSI can accommodate up to 48 students. There is one adult counselor for every six students, a nurse, a camp director, and a Law, Youth and Citizenship representative on site all week.  The students are bunked two or three to a room in a typical camp-style dorm with shared bathrooms. Meals are served in the cafeteria, buffet style. 

      The fee for New York State students is $250.00 and $1,000.00 for out of state students.  The fee includes the room, all meals, classroom materials, and activities.  Some financial assistance may be available to students from New York State.  A Scholarship Application is available upon request.  For more information, contact Kim Francis at kfrancis@nysba.org 

      The New York Bar Foundation provides funding for this program in conjunction with The New York State Bar Association's Law, Youth and Citizenship Program.    

      The 2017 Mock Trial Summer Institute will be held Sunday, July 16 through Friday, July 21 in Silver Bay, NY

      Click on these links for more information:  

      MTSI Applications (for Students and Counselors)

      MTSI Case  

      MTSI Forms and Information  

      MTSI Flyer   

      JOIN US!
      Want to be a Counselor?

      Educators who teach law related educational classes and have involvement with their schools' Mock Trial teams can apply to be a counselor at our Mock Trial Summer Institute (MTSI).  College students who are have several years of experience participating in mock trial are also welcome to apply.  Click here to download the application!

      Want to be a Judge?

      Attorneys who are interested in participating as a judge at MTSI may email Kim Francis at  kfrancis@nysba.org  

      Information about our New York Statewide Mock Trial Program and MTSI is available in our brochure.
      Click here to view the brochure.  

      Still have questions?  Contact Kim Francis at   kfrancis@nysba.org   

    • Case Archives

      These fact patterns are copyrighted by the Law, Youth & Citizenship Program of the New York State Bar Association.  They are available for classroom use.

      If the case is to be used for a tournament, please send a written request to kfrancis@nysba.org.

      Please be advised that these materials CANNOT be used for any tournaments that charge a fee for participation.

      NOTE:  The Rules of Evidence were updated in 2014.  If you are using any of the cases prior to the 2014 case, please download the most current version of the Rules of Evidence, dated 11/19/14. You need to replace the Rules of Evidence in those cases with the most current version.

      Click here to download the most current version of the Rules of Evidence.

      2016 - People v Kelly Roberts
      In this criminal case, Kelly Roberts was observed by the police to be engaging in what appeared to be a drug transaction with a known addict. The police chased Kelly to an apartment building and upon entering the apartment, found an empty pill bottle with a label indicating that it had contained oxycodone. The police suspected that before they arrived, Kelly threw the pills out of the window into the back yard, which is next door to a daycare center. A rainstorm that would destroy the evidence was imminent, so the police retrieved the pills from the yard without a warrant. Kelly was charged with possessing the prescription-only pain medication, oxycodone, without a prescription (Penal Law § 220.06[1]). Defense counsel moved to suppress the evidence (the twenty oxycodone tablets on the ground), stating that the warrantless search was improper. The prosecution will attempt to show that the warrantless search of the defendant’s premises was justified under the Emergency Doctrine to prevent the contraband from harming young daycare children. Alternatively, the People may argue that under the Exigent Circumstances Doctrine, the officers had to move quickly to prevent the destruction of the evidence by the inclement weather.

      2015 - Morningside Heights Booster Club Inc v Casey Cheatham
      In this civil case, the Booster Club hosted a Fun Fair to raise money for funding some of the school’s extracurricular activities, which were being eliminated due to budget cuts. Casey Cheatham was assigned the responsibility of collecting the money raised from the ride tickets and games-of-chance at the Fun Fair. Casey Cheatham is accused of stealing from those specific funds in order to pay for expensive purchases and support his/her gambling habit.

      2014 - People of the State of New York vs.Penn HydraGas, Inc. and Mitchell Tomley, CEO
      In this criminal case, Penn HydraGas and Tomley are accused of polluting the drinking water supply of a small village in upstate New York as a result of the defendants’ “fracking” operation that is located near the village. The company and CEO are charged with violating section 71-4001 of the Environmental Conservation Law, a criminal offense.

      2013 - Morgan Martin vs. Cattaraugus Programming University  
      In this civil case, the defendant is charged with deceptive business practices for giving misleading statements to the plaintiff during Martin’s tour of the college, which allegedly induced the plaintiff to apply for admission to the University.

      2012 - State of New York v P.J. Long 
      In this criminal case, the defendant is charged with Assault in the Second Degree for allegedly striking the victim in the head with a lug wrench, aka tire iron, in the parking lot of a popular dance club.

      2011 - Pat Parker v Village of Empireville and Board of Trustees of the Village of Empireville 
      This civil case involves a high school student bringing suit against the village and board for amending a parking law that the student believes is a violation of their right to due process.

      2010 - State of New York v Shawn Miller 
      This criminal case involves two lifelong friends and now business associates accused of securities fraud.

      2009 - Chris Cross v Randy E. Porter 
      This is a libel case involving a news story, written by a high school student journalist, which allegedly defamed the school principal.

      2008 - Ryan Strongarm v Chris Rocket
      This is a civil case of negligence which involves a hit and run accident. 

      2007 - State of New York v Pat C. Macintosh
      This is a criminal case in which the defendant, a college sophomore, is charged with stalking a fellow student through messages posted in a campus-sponsored internet chat room.

      2006 - State of New York v Terry C. O'Neal
      This is a criminal case centered on the prosecution of a defendant for the death of a passenger caused by the allegedly reckless or negligent operation of a motor vehicle by the defendant.

      2005 - Macca Elery McLaughlin v Lee and Robbie McLaughlin
      This case is a civil lawsuit brought in New York State Supreme Court under the New York Mock Trial Prudent Investor Act.

      2004 - Jo Moncrieff v WSUB-TV, Lee Juno
      This civil case brings suit against a staff member and management of a TV news station under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

      2003 - State of New York v C. C. Rider
      In this criminal case, The People have charged the defendant with Assault in the Third Degree under New York Penal Law§ 120.00(1), claiming that the defendant intentionally caused physical injury to the complainant. Assault in the Third Degree is a Class A Misdemeanor.  The defendant, who has no prior criminal record, is an eligible youth within the meaning of the Youthful Offender Statute and is proceeding to a single judge trial.

      2002 - Sandy and Pat Loam v The National Overland-Youngstown Bank
      In this civil case, the plaintiffs’ have two separate causes of action against a bank: First Claim: As customers of the bank, the bank had a duty to keep their personal financial information secure – as a result of the bank's staff, agents and employees’ negligence, the plaintiffs' personal financial information was disclosed to unauthorized third parties who ruined their credit, causing them to sustain damages in the amount of $250,000.  Second Claim: The plaintiffs’ claim that the bank breached its statutory obligations under § 349 of the General Business Law and 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq., also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or GLB, in that they actively engaged in deceptive and unlawful practices in their banking business, both through their ads and personal representations to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs request an order of specific performance forcing the bank to take corrective measures to correct their credit history, an unspecified amount of damages, attorney fees and court costs. 

      2001 - State of New York v Monk Agricultural Chemical Co., Taylor and Jefferson Monk
      In this criminal case, the State charges that a company is violating the Environmental Conservation Laws of the State of New York by improperly disposing of waste, and consequently have been indicted under Section 71-2712 and 71-2713 of the Environmental Conservation Law. The defendants maintain their innocence and waived the right to a jury trial, so the case will be heard and decided by a judge.

      2000 - State of New York v Mickey Jackson
      This criminal case involves a school who is accusing a student of committing three crimes: (1) unauthorized use of a computer, in violation of N.Y.P.L. § 156.05; (2) computer trespass, in violation of N.Y.P.L. § 156.10; and (3) computer tampering in the fourth degree, in violation of N.Y.P.L. § 156.20. The criminal information alleges that the student broke into the school's computer system, downloaded secure data on Internet usage, and then posted writings based on that information on a home website. The school principal further alleges that the student disabled the school's Internet proxy server, preventing it from recording individual usage and deleted existing usage records. The principal claims that these actions created a safety hazard for the district, were motivated by a desire to embarrass the principal and vice-principal, substantially disrupted the educational process and school discipline, and undermined a safe and effective learning environment. The student disputes the factual basis of these charges, arguing that the school district created the problem when it "secretly" installed a "buffer" computer to track all Internet usage, thereby acting in bad faith; that the district improperly failed to protect the reasonable privacy rights of Internet users within the school by not securing the usage data but in fact allowed easy access to it by many people; and that such arrest infringes upon a student's constitutionally protected right to free speech on a home-based website. The student further claims that the only actions taken with regard to school computers were authorized by and that the only changes to the school's computer settings were within the scope of the directives. 

      1999 - State of New York v Brandon Berry
      In this criminal case, The People charge a parent with a class A misdemeanor, Endangering the Welfare of a Child [N.Y. Penal Law § 260.10 (2)], in that as a parent of a child less than eighteen, the defendant failed or refused to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent the child from becoming a neglected child.  The defendant is pleading not guilty. 

      1998 - State of New York v Josie Winters
      In this criminal case, three individuals are charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree, a Class A Felony.  Based on plea bargains, each trial has been severed from all others.  The Defense made a Motion requesting a Hearing to Suppress some specific evidence, which was granted. The Prosecution has the burden to proceed in order to show the propriety of the search while the Defense will attempt to show that the search was improper.

      1997 - Jamie June v Dry Gulch Public School District
      In this civil case, a student is bringing suit against a public school district, alleging violations of rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The plaintiff specifically alleges that the district failed to provide adequate training for its staff and students; failed to take appropriate and adequate actions to protect plaintiff from sexual harassment once notified of the harassment.  The school district denies any and all responsibility for the alleged incidents and claims that it enforced and followed its sexual harassment policy.  The plaintiff’s parents are seeking damages in the amount of one million dollars; additional money to pay for counseling for the plaintiff; a court order to institute extensive staff and student training in regards to sexual harassment; attorney's fees; and a public apology to be printed in the local newspaper.

      1996 - Morgan and Jan Crewshank v Jody, Mickey and Rudi Ramirez
      In this civil case, the parents, on behalf of their child who was the victim of a motor vehicle accident which resulted in the injury of their child, are suing the parents of the driver for negligence.  The suit seeks damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00 for future medical care, the medical injuries sustained, and the pain and suffering of their child.

      All materials property of NYSBA.