ILNews

IBA: Indiana High School Mock Trial Judge Volunteers Needed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana High School Mock Trial Regional competitions are in need of volunteer judges to preside over and score the mock trials presented by high school teams from all over Indiana in February. These competitions will culminate with the Indiana State Competition in March, when volunteer judges are also needed.

 Indiana will also host the 2013 National High School Mock Trial Competition in May, when high school mock trial teams from all over the country will converge on Indianapolis, and approximately 400 judges’ positions will need to be filled. If you are available to judge any of the competitions, your participation would be greatly appreciated. If you are available to judge the National competition, you are encouraged to gain or refresh your experience by judging at the regional or state level.

The schedule of competitions is as follows:

Indianapolis Regional, Saturday, Feb. 9, 2013

Hammond Regional, Saturday, Feb. 9, 2013

South Bend Regional, Saturday, Feb. 16, 2013

Indiana State Competition, Saturday and Sunday, March 2-3

2013 National High School Mock Trial Championship, Friday–Sunday, May 9–11, 2013

 To register to volunteer for regional and state competitions, go to www.inmocktrial.org, click on the “Competition” tab and follow the instructions for the volunteer judge form. To register to volunteer for the 2013 National Championship, go to the website, click on the “2013 National” tab, and click on the online registration system. Additional details will follow regarding case materials and competition rules.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT