Months of dedicated practice came to a head on Feb. 22 in the Tampa Courthouse as Robinson’s own mock trial team competed in a district competition. The team began the day’s mock trial with a debate about an art theft; first playing prosecution, then defense.
Mock trial serves as a way for those interested in law to “act out” courtroom scenarios and involves lots of preparation and practice. The club’s president, Ava Lekarczyk (’26) spoke about some of the challenges involved in putting together a mock trial.
“We faced a ton of challenges,” Lekarczyk said. “I think the biggest one was probably our size. We started with quite a few people interested in the competitive team, but most didn’t even end up trying out, because they didn’t have the time to dedicate to [mock trial]. Other people had to drop the team along the way due to scheduling conflicts. We had to learn a lot more material because of this, so we didn’t get everything memorized, but I’m honestly glad it ended up being so small; it feels like a family.”
The team had a set of mentors to help guide them through the stress of balancing the courtroom with academics.
“Our coaches were integral to our success,” Lekarczyk said. “We started out with a single flaky attorney coach, then my neighbor in the interim and finally landed on a wonderful duo of defense attorneys, Mr. Joshua and Ms. Jocelyn. They helped us be a lot more professional, strategic, and focused, and taught me a lot about certain rules of the court that I had no other way to know about.”
In preparation for the day, the team had to prepare both an offensive and defensive position on the case (which had the verdict purposefully left ambiguous) in order to allow for competition between a defense and prosecution. Following the trials themselves, a winner is decided via either a guilty or not guilty final verdict.
“We had one trial in the morning, where we acted as prosecution,” Lekarczyk said. “We presented our opening statement, then our case-in-chief cross-examined the defense’s witness and finished with a closing argument. The trial repeated in the afternoon, where we did the same, but in reverse as the defense. We’re scored on the performances of witnesses and attorneys, as well as our ethical conduct and overall performance.”
Scoring for mock trial takes a holistic approach, with the scoring being based on each aspect of a trial, from opening statements to direct and cross examinations to closing statements. This approach to scoring ties the team’s performance to each individual and helps to foster a close and cohesive team.
“I think this really makes you rely on your team and be in a position where you really want to help them and support them not only for them, but also for the betterment of the team,” mock trial member Uma Razdan (’26) said. “One of my teammates played four witnesses, and she did an amazing job for all of them. We were all very proud of her because that was quite a responsibility for her to take on, and she handled it with such poise.”
Another of the members, Aspen Armstrong, described how her teammate’s admiration helped her to play all of her roles.
“I was extremely nervous when giving my directs, especially the ones I wasn’t fully confident on, and when I was getting attacked on cross,” said mock trial member Aspen Armstrong (’27). “But then I saw Uma making faces at cross [the cross-examination side of the courtroom (where the other team is)] and smiling and nodding at my responses, it made me feel like I wasn’t selling.”
Ultimately, the team’s dedication and close-knit work led them to victory in their competition. The team won the prosecution trial and lost the defense trial in an extremely close defeat, with a gap of only nine points. Overall, the team scored 265/300, an extremely admirable score, especially for a first-year mock trial club.
