Are You Allowed To Do That?
“Are you allowed to do that?”
We had finished a showcase round at the Chinese high school mock trial national championship. It’s a time-honored tradition: after watching the high schoolers try a case across a weekend, prominent judges put on their version of the same case. These judge-led rounds are typically theatrical, fun, and high-octane.
I’m actually singing George Washington’s part from Hamilton here, but same event.
I went all out — objecting to their sides’ characterization of the word “trap,” cross-examining my witness about her memory problems, impeaching them using their own attorney’s opening statement, and repeatedly reading from their deposition (impeaching by contradiction and omission) every time I thought there was a discrepancy.
An undergraduate college competitor asked me that question. Are we ALLOWED to go scorched-earth in a trial?
The question, I think, betrayed a mindset that many in competitive communications share: take few risks. Try to play to a safe, median judge.
But doing the safe, predictable thing is NOT the way to succeed in mock trial — or really any communication competition.
What Does Aggression Look Like In Real Trials?
Sometimes uncomfortable. Often really engaging and fun.
There are key moments from recent trials where cross-examiners “break the rules” — asking open-ended questions, berating their witnesses, risking overreach as they gnaw at a witness’s credibility.
Here’s Alex Jones getting roasted on cross. The attorney is straight-up testifying. These questions are super compound. And it doesn’t matter. Jones was forced to pay millions.
This is Amber Heard getting torched by newly minted rockstar Camille Vasquez. “Stop arguing to the jury” is a WILD form of witness control. I loved it. So did they. Heard lost in the trial and the court of public opinion.
Alex Murdaugh. Caught in a lie. Is hit with, like, five questions in one (all of which are argumentative). Serving two consecutive life sentences for killing family members.
Gwyneth Paltrow’s attorney grills plaintiff Terry Sanderson. He had sued the celebrity about a collision. He’s cutting the plaintiff off, admonishing him for “qualifying” his answers, and jumping to impeach with the deposition every chance he gets. He’s so loose with wording that he withdraws his own questions without halting his momentum. Didn’t matter. Paltrow won a counter-suit and earned a symbolic $1.
If you’re a mock trial contestant who has only watched mockers, this may seem sloppy, unprofessional, or off-putting.
You may say that they won these lawsuits in spite of their aggressive crosses, not because of them.
I disagree.
What Does Aggression Look Like In Mock Trial?
The most recent back-to-back national finalist team (Harvard in 2022 and 2023) was the most aggressive in recent memory. Bombarding their opponents with objections during opposing direct examinations to stop them from building momentum. Cutting witnesses off in cross and claiming that they didn’t think the witness was still talking if objected to (unironically very fun to watch).
It doesn’t play as well everywhere. The University of Virginia, for instance, is one of the most successful mock trial programs (four national titles in the last 20 years). They intentionally play a very safe, predictable game. Easy to listen to. Slow, loud, and clear.
I did something pretty similar in college. During my senior year, I would always go for the 9 out of 10. That means that I would do things that scored high enough to be helpful, but not something outlandish that could earn a 10 from some judges but a 6 from others. I played it safe.
You can see how my perspective shifted from 2014 to 2023. Here’s an interview where I break down (in depth) the evolution of my style and outlook. I think the riskier, pithier, more passionate 2023 performance is flat-out better.
A lot of this is rooted in observing more “real” top trial lawyers perform.
For instance, here’s the most aggressive cross I’ve ever seen (and this is one minute out of 10+ hours). Prosecutor Juan Martinez believes that soon-to-be convicted murderer Jodi Arias is lying. He mocks her for saying that she can’t remember. He does an impression of her attorney’s posture. She’s found guilty.
Gerry Spence is one of the top all-time trial attorneys. In making a point of how cherrypicking past details about someone’s life can be used to paint an unfair picture, he treats an eyewitness like they’re on trial, suggesting that they had a part in the JFK assassination.
Spence’s rival, top prosecutor Vince Bugliosi, is crossing Cyril Wecht, a well-known forensic scientist who believes there was another JFK shooter aside from Lee Harvey Oswald. Bugliosi calls him by his first name and chastises him like he’s a kid. Bugliosi won the trial, beating nearly undefeated Spence.
I think you see the point. Aggression, if well-used, can amplify your argument.
Will Aggression Always Play Well?
Of course not.
I don’t think this incredibly aggressive opening statement, delivered by a later-convicted double murderer defending himself, is good. At all.
Research from Psychiatry, Psychology and Law demonstrated that:
“Prosecutor’s authentic displays of anger provoked anger in the participants, which, subsequently, increased the odds of a guilty verdict and guilty verdict confidence. Moreover, authentic displays of anger improved perceptions of the prosecutor’s competence, which also increased the odds of a guilty verdict.”
Compellingly, “attorney gender did not play a moderating role.” This matches my perception across years of mock trial coaching. Most of my most successful students are female. I have (just about) never advised any of them to tone down rhetorical or tonal aggression.
I acknowledge that prior research does not fully align with these more recent findings.
From the Golden Gate University School of Law (2005):
“There are the following two prevailing styles: the savage, slashing, “hammer-and-tongs” method of “going after a witness to make him tell the truth,” and the smiling, soft-spoken, ingratiating method directed at lulling the witness into a sense of security and gaining his confidence...It is submitted that in most cases, the gentler approach is better calculated to elicit the concessions the advocate desires…
Although a tough approach may weaken the effect of the witness’s direct testimony by emphasizing his partisanship and hostility, the content of the answer may be that which leads the jury to believe that the witness is beating the examiner at his own game. Only the complete success of such an examination will keep the examiner in the jury’s good graces. The repeated failure of such examinations is incalculably prejudicial.”
I submit that Americans live in a different society than 2005. We are more partisan. We are angrier. We watch debate videos — Jubilee, Piers Morgan, Twitch — regularly. We are more tolerant towards more zingers, gotcha moments, and one liners. It takes more to hold our attention.
My argument is not also true for every audience member in every cultural arena.
For example, negotiation research found that expressing anger reduced concessions from Asian/Asian-American counterparts (while it increased them for European Americans). When participants were told anger was “appropriate,” Asians conceded more—showing the key role of display-rule expectations.
This matters for mock trial and debate. If the audience knows that aggression is something they can expect, then they’re often more favorably disposed towards it. Judges with less real-world trial understanding (like mock trial judges who are still undergrads) might not feel like they’re allowed to like it. Know your audience, or know that you’re okay with stepping on their toes.
How Can You Use It Best?
Not every t-shirt fits every person. Not every style of delivery is going to mesh with every presenter.
But you are doing yourselves a disservice if you don’t have the courage to TRY styles that you believe might be ‘risky’ or ‘forbidden.’
People rarely used “tallying opponents’ rhetoric” or “pointing at engravings in the courtroom” before UCLA won collegiate nationals in 2014.
People rarely used “blatantly argumentative first questions” before Harvard won in 2015.
People rarely had eyewitnesses get off their chairs and begin re-enacting crimes before Yale won in 2016.
People rarely tried to impeach all three witnesses consecutively before Virginia won in 2017.
People rarely commented on opposing witnesses’ demeanor/character choices before Miami won in 2018.
You get the point.
For the last two years, I’ve coached students at the Gauntlet, the collegiate Witness Tournament of Champions. The attorneys are not scored — only the witnesses — so the strategy to win involves doing aggressive cross-examinations to throw the other witness off their game.
Here’s the 2024 final round. It gets really spicy.
I have now heard dozens of judges at the contest give feedback. All ages. All walks of life. Evaluating attorneys who are often reading from laptops or notepads. Taking huge swings.
It is uniformly positive. In fact, it is more glowing than normal comments from safe, memorized AMTA rounds. Judges LOVE it. So do coaches. And competitors. Everyone is letting loose and having fun.
And no matter how rough and aggressive and real-world the crosses get, they’re still going out for dinner and drinks later. It’s like Reagan and Tip O’Neill. Fight it out during the day, then party it up at night.
Next time you wonder, “Am I allowed to do that?”
Ask this instead: “Why shouldn’t I try?”
Do This Next
Watch five real trial crosses before your next scrimmage. Learn the rhythm.
Build one “aggressive” cross — sharp and high-risk — and test it live.
Ask your coach: “Where would aggression help me?”
Practice shifting tone from calm to fiery, then back. Control is key.
Treat pushback as data, not disapproval. If someone asks, “Are you allowed to do that?” — you’re close to innovation.
