Public Resources

NYS Mock Trial

New York Statewide 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 hereto view the brochure.

Congratulations to the 2018 Mock Trial Tournament State Champion...

GOSHEN HIGH SCHOOL | Region 4 - Orange County
Click here to read the press release!

Runner Up:

Dates for future Mock Trial Finals in Albany:

* 2019 - May 19-21
* 2020 - May 17-19
* 2021 - May 23-25   


♦  The Mock Trial Case(Download the current case and related correction memos from this year's Mock Trial Tournament)

♦  Mock Trial Finals Information

♦  Case Archives

♦  CLE Credit for Attorneys Participating in Mock Trial

♦  Mock Trial 101 Training Video  

♦  Past Mock Trial Finals Videos 

♦  Past Regional Champions (1982-Present)

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

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

Click here to download the most current version of the Rules of Evidence (dated 2/7/2017).  

2017 - Robin Berkman v. County of Dover
In this civil case, a convenience store was robbed and the store clerk was shot. Witnesses identified the suspect by only the name “Robin.” The Detective who investigated the crime focused on Robin Berkman as the prime suspect. Robin was eventually arrested and charged with the robbery and attempted murder of the store clerk. After a trial by jury, Robin was found guilty and sent to State prison. Robin, who always denied committing the crime, contacted the Actual Innocence Association (AIA) while in prison. The AIA reviewed the case and, convinced that Robin was innocent, asked the District Attorney to reopen Robin’s case. The DA’s office did so and found that another person who was confined to another State prison had confessed to committing the robbery and attempted murder. Robin was exonerated and released from prison. Robin subsequently filed a lawsuit for malicious prosecution against the County and its agents, stating that Detective Smith, who had originally handled the investigation, did not pursue any other suspects and focused solely on Robin as the perpetrator of the crime. Robin is seeking monetary damages for the malicious prosecution.   

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.

NYS Mock Trial Finals Videos

Click the links below to view the video from past Mock Trial Finals:  

2018 Mock Trial Finals
Case of People v. Carson Conners (Criminal)
President Judge: Hon. Mae A. D'Agostino, United States District Court, Northern District of New York, Albany, NY

   • First Place: Goshen High School (Goshen / Orange County / Region 4)
   • Runner up: Brooklyn Technical High School (Brooklyn / Kings County / Region 6)

2017 Mock Trial Finals
Case of Robin Berkman v. County of Dover (Civil)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Mae A. D'Agostino, United States District Court, Northern District of New York, Albany, NY

   • First Place: W. Tresper Clarke High School  (Westbury / Nassau County / Region 7)
   • Runner up: Regis High School (Manhattan / New York County / Region 6)

2016 Mock Trial Finals  
Case of People v. Kelly Roberts (Criminal)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Michael C. Lynch, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, Albany, NY

   • First Place: Fayetteville-Manlius High School (Manlius / Onondaga County / Region 2)
   • Runner up: High School of American Studies (Bronx / Bronx County / Region 6)

2015 Mock Trial Finals
Case of Morningside Heights Booster Club v. Casey Cheatham (Civil)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Michael C. Lynch, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, Albany, NY

   • First Place: Clarence High School (Clarence / Erie County / Region 1)
   • Runner up: Potsdam High School (Potsdam / St. Lawrence County /  Region 3)

2014 Mock Trial Finals
Case of People v. Penn HydraGas, Inc. and Mitchell Tomley, CEO (Criminal)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Susan Phillips Read, Associate Judge, New York State Court of Appeals, Albany, NY

   • First Place: William Floyd High School (Mastic Beach / Suffolk County / Region 8)
   • Runner up: Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School (Schenectady / Schenectady County / Region 3)

2013 Mock Trial Finals 
Case of Morgan Martin v. Cattaraugus Programming University (Civil)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Karen K. Peters, Presiding Justice, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, Albany, NY

   • Winner: William Floyd High School (Mastic Beach / Suffolk County / Region 8)
   • Runner up: The Mount Academy (Esopus / Ulster County / Region 4)

2012 Mock Trial Finals 
Case of State of New York v. P.J. Long (Criminal)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Robert S. Smith, New York State Court of Appeals, Albany, NY

   • Winner: Nyack High School (Nyack / Rockland County /  Region 4)
   • Runner up: Jamestown-Dewitt High School  (Syracuse / Onondaga County / Region 2) 

Videos by Total Webcasting, Inc.      

NYS Mock Trial 101 Program Training Video

Watch the video here!

This training video is designed to give Mock Trial teams a competitive edge, whether they are first-year teams or experienced participants.

Mock Trial 101 is part of the award-winning NYSBA Youth Empowering Youth Program honored by the American Bar Association as one of the winners of the ABA's 2007 Outstanding Law Day Activity Award.

This video was recorded in 2007.  As of September 2015, the contact information at the end of this video is out of date.  Please contact the current Program Manager below for more information about the New York State High School Mock Trial Program:

Kim Francis
LYC Program Specialist/Mock Trial Program Manager