Juniata College’s Mock Trial teams delivers a rare clean sweep at the Kent State University Invitational during the weekend of Nov. 21, capturing first, second, and third place against a competitive field of colleges and universities.
submitted photo
A local honoree includes Maddie Herold ’27 of South Abington Township, who won an Outstanding Attorney Award.
submitted photo
Juniata College’s Mock Trial teams out-argued the competition at Kent State University during the weekend of Nov. 21, with all three teams delivering dominating performances and returning home with the tournament’s top three spots.
“It is very unusual for a college to win first, second, and third place at an Invitational Tournament. Our performance at this Tournament shows the strength and depth of our Mock Trial Program by having all three teams earn the top three spots,” said Attorney David Andrews, mock trial coach and Juniata College counsel. “I am very proud of these hard-working students.”
Juniata’s A team took first place with a perfect 8-0 record, B team took second place, and C team placed third.
Individual team members won accolades as well, with Bryce Garland ’27 of McConnellburg, Hannah Lovell ’29 of Westminster, Md., Jack Stoudnour ’29 of Saxton, and Celise Springer ’28 of Brooklyn, NY, winning Outstanding Witness Awards.
Additionally, Ethan Dennis ’28 of Altoona, Maddie Herold ’27 of South Abington Township, and Zachary Riggall ’29 of Taylor, won Outstanding Attorney Awards.
Garland won two Outstanding Witness Awards, with roles on both sides of the case. This marked the 10th and 11th individual awards of his mock trial career.
This year’s case involves an alleged murder at a Survivor-type television show. The case involves one contestant allegedly putting acid in the swimming goggles of another contestant during the competition.
Governed by the AMTA, Mock Trial is an academic competition in which students assume the roles of attorneys and witnesses in a trial.
Teams compete against other colleges and universities, with no distinction between Divisions 1, 2, and 3. In competition, each team tries the case four times, twice as prosecution and twice as defense.
All teams are given the same information, and witnesses must stick to the affidavit provided, but the ways different teams interpret the information highlight and challenge each member’s ability to adapt, problem-solve, and think on their feet.
All teams are given the same information, and witnesses must stick to the affidavit provided, but the ways different teams interpret the information highlight and challenge each member’s ability to adapt, problem-solve, and think on their feet.
