WHO STARTED WWI



Trial: Who Started WWI?Background: None of the powers wanted a European War. Their governing rulers and ministers, with very few exceptions, all foresaw that it must be a frightful struggle, in which the political results were not absolutely certain, but in which the loss of life, suffering, and economic consequences were bound to be terrible. Nevertheless, a European War broke out. Why? Because in each country political and military leaders did certain things which led to mobilizations and declarations of war, or failed to do certain things which might have prevented them. In this sense, all the European countries, in a greater or less degree, were responsible. Sidney Bradshaw Fay, from Origins of the World War.Task: You will work on a team to plan and present a mock trial trying a country for their role in the outbreak of the First World War.Teams: TEAM #1: Prosecute GermanyTEAM #2: Defend GermanyTEAM #3: Prosecute RussiaTEAM #4: Defend RussiaTEAM #5: Prosecute Austria-HungaryTEAM #6: Defend Austria-HungaryTEAM #7: Prosecute SerbiaTEAM #8: Defend SerbiaRoles: Responsibilities: Attorney #1:1) Opening Statement : Give the court an overview of your argument and three supporting reasons.2) Reason #1: Prove Reason #1 using evidence from the documents.Attorney #2:1) Reason #2: Prove Reason #2 using evidence from the documents. Work with witness to write a series of questions that prove your position.Attorney #3:1) Reason #3: Prove Reason #3 using evidence from the documents.2) Closing Argument: Summarize what your team has proven during the trial. Refute opposing team’s argument.Witness:1) Direct Examination(s): Participate with attorneys to write questions and answers for direct examinations.Procedure: Assign rolesPrepare Argument Outline as a group.Prepare Trial Preparation Form individually.Present Trial.Conduct self-evaluationTrial Procedure:Prosecution presents Opening StatementOpening Statement is a 2-3 minute overview of your team’s position. Introduce your fellow attorneys. Give a brief background on the issue at hand. Provide a summary of your position and supporting reasons. If possible use an interesting hook or analogy to interest the jury and persuade them to adopt your position.Defense presents Opening StatementDirect-Examination--Prosecution presents Reason #1Direct Examinations: In the direct-examinations, the attorneys are going to present and prove your supporting reasons. In order to do this, the attorney is going to use facts and evidence from the provided documents to convince the Jury that this reason proves your position. The attorney may speak directly to the jury or question a “witness” to prove their point. When using evidence from the documents, the attorney should ask the jury to refer to the document, recite the key words or phrases that are being used, and explain how this proves their point. (2-3 minutes each)Example: Will the jury please turn to document G4. In the fourth line down, the author of ___ says “Other reasons why Germany wanted colonies were that she might obtain more food.” This shows that Germany was only acting in self-defense and…. Direct-Examination--Prosecution presents Reason #2Direct-Examination--Prosecution presents Reason #3Direct-Examination—Defense presents Reason #1Direct-Examination—Defense presents Reason #2Direct-Examination—Defense presents Reason #3Closing Argument—DefenseClosing Arguments: Your goal in the closing argument is reiterate how you have proven your point and how the opposing team has failed to prove their point. In the closing argument, each team will have an opportunity to summarize how they have proved their position, and to refute the opposing team’s argument. No new evidence or information should be introduced at this point. (3-5 minutes)Closing Argument-- ProsecutionJury DeliberatesJury Deliberation: The class will debate both sides presented and come to a consensus on whether or not the country was responsible for the outbreak of the First World War. (5-10 minutes)Class votes guilty/not guilty -3429002392680 TRIAL PREPARATION FORMPosition: ____________________ IS GUILTY / INNOCENT (circle one) OF STARTING WWI.SUPPORTING REASON # ___Describe Reason in 1 sentence. SUMMARY. Elaborate and explain how your reason proves your Position.Evidence Proving This Reason:Evidence(Include quotes, facts, and data from the documents provided.)Source (Document Code and Name)1)2)3)Mock Trial: Who Started WWI?Evaluation:Group namesCountryPeriodGradeStrengthsAreas for ImprovementRubricAExemplaryBProficientCDevelopingD-FDeficientArgument Outline50 points*Complete*Detailed*Reasons are relevant and effective*Group has identified the best supporting reasons.*Evidence is plentiful, accurate, and makes use of sources.*Complete*Reasons address the thesis and are accurate*Evidence is relevant, accurate and effectively proves reasoning*Complete*Lacks Detail*Reasons are repetitive, irrelevant, and/or do not address thesis*Reasons are not sufficiently supported with evidence *Incomplete*Lacks sufficient evidencePresentation50 points*Exceptional effort*Arguments are easy to understand and well presented.*Factual Evidence and Primary Documents are used in presentation*Opening Statement is detailed and effective. * Closing arguments is detailed and effective. *Direct Examination is effective and includes at least 5 questions. Answers utilize information from primary documents.*Cross Examinations are skillful*Presentation makes sense and is easy to follow.*Factual Evidence and Primary Documents are used in presentation*Presentation reflects good preparation*Opening Statement gives an effective overview and summary of argument.*Closing Statements gives an effective overview and summary of argument.*Direct Examination includes at least 3 questions*Presentation is hard to follow.*Presentation reflects appropriate preparation*Direct Examination does not use adequate information from documents. *Does not include a direct examination/*Presentation lacks effort.*Poor presentation because of inadequate preparation.Score: Mock Trial: Who Started WWI?Evaluation:Group namesCountryPeriodGradeStrengthsAreas for ImprovementRubricAExemplaryBProficientCDevelopingD-FDeficientPresentation50 points*Exceptional effort*Arguments are easy to understand and well presented.*Outside research is used in presentation*Direct Examinations skillfully incorporate document evidence into a series of questions.*Factual Evidence and Primary Documents are used & explained in presentation*Opening Statement is detailed and effective. * Closing arguments is detailed and effective. *Effectively cross examines an opposing witness. *Presentation reflects good preparation*Presentation makes sense and is easy to follow.*Direct Examination includes at least 3 questions and addresses factual information.*Factual Evidence and Primary Documents are used in presentation*Opening Statement gives an effective overview and summary of argument.*Closing Statements gives an effective overview and summary of argument.*Presentation lacks thorough preparation.*Presentation is hard to follow.*Presentation reflects appropriate preparation*Direct Examination is incomplete or does not use adequate information from documents. *Does not include a direct examination of a witness*Lacks opening or closing argument.*Team uses insufficient evidence from documents. *Presentation lacks effort.*Poor presentation because of inadequate preparation.Notes: Score: Mock Trial: Who Started WWI?Team GradeNamesPeriodCountryGradeStrengthsAreas for ImprovementRubricAExemplaryBProficientCDevelopingD-FDeficientSupporting Argument*Selected the 3 separate, relevant and effective supporting Reasons.*Each reason was effectively proved with evidence and examples*Three supporting reasons were separate and relevant. *Some reasons lacked sufficient evidence or interpretation.*Some of the three reasons were irrelevant or similar*Reasons lacked evidence and interpretation.*lacked 3 supporting reasons. Effort*Exceptional Effort*Extensive outside research*Used visual aides*Good Effort*Some outside research*Average Effort*No outside research*Poor Effort*Lacks researchPublic Speaking*Highly Persuasive Public Speaking*Continuous Eye Contact*Effective use of rhetorical questions, examples, and analogies*Effective use of visual aides*Points were clear and easy to understand*Occasional eye contact*Little eye contact*Hard to Understand*Failed to speak in front of classOpening Statement*Gave detailed overview of conflict*Grabbed jury’s attention*Persuasively presented an overview of 3 supporting reasons.*Gives a detailed overview of 3 supporting reasons*Gives an overview of reasoning*fails to give an overview of reasoningClosing Statement*Persuasively summarizes important points and evidence*Effectively points out contradictions and inaccuracies in opposing team’s arguments*Gives a detailed summary of reasons and supporting evidence*Gives a summary of reasons*fails to give a summary of reasonsNotes: Score: Individual Performance EvaluationNameCountryPeriodGradeWWI TrialAExemplaryBProficientCDevelopingD-FTrial Script50 points*Complete*Reason is logical and directly addresses thesis.*Evidence is relevant and plentiful*Direct Quotes from the documents are used & explained.*Complete*Reason is logical and proven with evidence*most evidence is relevant*Student uses at least two pieces of evidence. *Complete*Reason is repetitive or not directly tied to thesis.*Fails to use direct quotes from the documents.*lacks sufficient or relevant evidence. *Incomplete*Reason is not thoroughly explained or proven*Reason is not relevant to thesisIndividual Performance50 points*Exceptionally well prepared and ready to present*Persuasive and effective public speaking*Clearly & thoroughly explains reasoning.*Makes Continuous Eye Contact with audience*Documents evidence is plentiful and effectively used. *Uses outside research to add to evidence.*Prepared and ready to present*Uses clear language that audience can understand. *Makes frequent eye contact with audience *Reasoning utilizes evidence from the documents. *Inadequately prepared.*Very little participation in trial*Points are hard to understand or lack elaboration.*Reasoning lacks detail and use of evidence.*Makes Little Eye Contact with audience*Does not say anything during trial.*Does not participate in trial appropriately.ScoreNotes:TRIAL SCRIPTPlanning the TrialHow to write your script:First, prepare a Rough Draft of your script.Record the Final Draft of your script on index cards (write clearly—you are turning these in).There are two ways in which you can present your information:Speak to the jury Question a witness In both scenarios, you mustIntroduce your reasonUse quotes and evidence to prove your reasonExplain how your reason proves your thesisIn both scenarios you must use exact quotes from the documents.When using evidence from the documents. Choose only the most important and relevant quotes from the document packet.Ask the jury to look at Document #__ .Recite or have the witness recite a short (but important) quote or fact.Explain or have the witness explain what the quote or evidence shows and how it relates to your case. Use a minimum of 3 quotes or facts in your script. HIGHLIGHT the quotes or evidence used from the documents. In parentheses, place the document # after the document is used. {example: (A-3)}Additional options.You may bring in outside information or resources if you make copies for the entire class. You may bring in visual aides, diagrams, pictures, or maps to assist you in your presentationYou may use analogies or other creative methods to convince the jury.*If you are questioning a witness, make sure you have both questions and answers on each person’s index cards. Example #1: USING A WITNESSMy name is Attorney Smith and I am representing the defense. The Defense would like to call Gavrilo Princip to the stand. Q: Would you please state your name for the jury.A: Gavrilo PrincipQ: Gavrilo, how are you involved in the Black Hand?A: blah blah blahQ: What are the goals and method of the Black HandA: blah blahQ: Gavrilo, What happened on the day of the assassination?A: blah blah blahQ: Why did you murder Franz Ferdinand?A: blah blah blahQ: Do you regret this action?A: "No I am not sorry. I have cleared an evil out of the way. He [Franz Ferdinand] is a German and an enemy of the South Slavs. He treated them badly. … Every day a high treason trial. Every day it went worse with our people. They are impoverished. … I killed him and I am not sorry. …” (Doc S2)Q: How are the Austrians enemies of the South Slavs?A: They are trying to control our country, and we feel we have a right to independence.Q: Does this justify murdering the archduke? A: “I regarded him as an energetic man who as ruler would have carried through definite ideas and reforms which stood in our way. … For union [of the South Slavs] one must sacrifice many lives, and it was for this reason that Franz Ferdinand fell. Nevertheless, the main motive which guided me in my deed was: the avenging of the Serbian people. … I am a nationalist. I aimed to free the [Yugoslavs].” (Doc S2)……EXAMPLE #2 (NOT USING A WITNESS)[INTRODUCE REASON] “Ladies and gentleman of the jury, today we are here to convince you that Austria is guilty of starting the First World War. One important reason that Austria is guilty, is that she was using the assassination as a pretext for solidifying her control over Serbia. Austria did not declare war in self-defense. On the contrary, she was war-hungry. She wanted to increase her control of Serbia. This is made very clear in the ultimatum Austria sent to Serbia on the eve of the war. May it please the jury to turn to document H-2. (pause & wait). The ninth clause in the ultimatum demands the following: [USE EXACT QUOTES FROM DOCUMENTS] “make explanations to the Imperial and Royal Government concerning the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian functionaries in Serbia and abroad who, without regard for their official position, have not hesitated to express themselves in a manner hostile toward Austria-Hungary since the assassination of the 28th of June;”[EXPLAIN & INTERPRET QUOTES] These “unjustifiable utterances” are statements made by Serbian officials that oppose the Austrian intrusion into Serbian life. What is this demand requesting? Austria wants Serbians to stop speaking out against Austria. But it is not just Serbian officials and Gavrilo Princip that hate Austrian involvement in Serbia. It is all of Serbia. Austria has no right to interfere with the independence of this nation.[EXPLAIN HOW REASON PROVES GUILT/INNOCENCE] Austria was aware that Serbians were tired of their presence and was trying to use the war as an excuse to solidify their control. This is shown by…. COMMON TRIAL OBJECTIONS"Objection, your Honor, the question is argumentative."A question is argumentative if:It is asked for the purpose of persuading the jury or the judge, rather than to elicit information.It calls for an argument in answer to an argument contained in the question.It calls for no new facts, but merely asks the witness to concede to inferences drawn by the examiner from proved or assumed facts."Objection, your Honor, the question has been asked and answered."A question may be objectionable on the ground thatThe witness has already answered a substantially similar question asked by the same attorney on the same subject matter."Objections, your Honor, the question assumes facts not in evidence."A question assumes facts not in evidence if:It presumes unproved facts to be true. Example: "When did you stop beating your wife?" This question assumes that the person has beaten his wife."Objection, your Honor, the question is compound."A question is objectionable on the ground that it is compound if:It joins two or more questions ordinarily joined with the word "or" or the word "and.""Objection, your Honor, the question is hearsay."A question is hearsay if:It asks the witness to comment on something he or she does not have first-hand knowledge of.A question is irrelevant if:It invites or causes the witness to give evidence not related to the facts of the case at hand."Objection, your Honor, the question is leading."A question is leading if:It is one that suggests to the witness the answer the examining party desires. However, this type of question is allowed on cross-examination of a witness."Objection, your Honor, the question mis-states the evidence."A question misstates the evidence if:It misstates or misquotes the testimony of a witness or any other evidence produced at a hearing or at a trial."Objection, your Honor, the question calls for speculation." A question is speculative if:It invites or causes the witness to speculate or answer on the basis of conjecture ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download