Natalie:
Natalie played a key role in the limited success on both sides of the case. While her knowledge of objections and procedure had some gaps, her willingness to provide advice and guide her teammates was invaluable. Natalie worked well with the witness with whom she was paired with for her direct (Bailey). Her (Natalie’s) determination to memorize most of her lines was demonstrated by her marked improvement during the Sunday rounds. Her direct-examination of Cary Kramer on Sunday struck a conversational tone, as did her cross-examination of Sawyer Shaw that same day. Surprisingly, her closing remarks lacked this same tone. The flow, structure, and overall message of her closing remarks was far below that of our competitors. I fully expect Natalie to correct her shortcomings in preparation for the UW-Superior invitational. Her studious behavior during the late nights at the Comfort Inn suggest to me that she is a fully devoted member of the team.
Tyler:
Tyler wasn’t adequately prepared for the invitational, just like each and every one of his teammates. However, he spent hours memorizing and refining his opening statements. While his opening did lack some of the elements essential for complete credit, I feel that his …show more content…
Like Anna, and to the best of my knowledge, Hannah made little to no attempt to memorize her direct, cross, or closing. Consequently, each of her opportunities to speak lacked tonal shifts or appropriate eye contact. The handwritten notes she used for questioning seemed to signal a lack of preparation to the judges, and would likely elicit a negative response from a jury. Hannah was regularly unprepared to work in a group or practice any particular element of her position. She seemed disengaged with the group during later meetings at the St. Olaf invitational. Hannah should work on her preparation and memorization, as well as tone and other elements of her
Natalie played a key role in the limited success on both sides of the case. While her knowledge of objections and procedure had some gaps, her willingness to provide advice and guide her teammates was invaluable. Natalie worked well with the witness with whom she was paired with for her direct (Bailey). Her (Natalie’s) determination to memorize most of her lines was demonstrated by her marked improvement during the Sunday rounds. Her direct-examination of Cary Kramer on Sunday struck a conversational tone, as did her cross-examination of Sawyer Shaw that same day. Surprisingly, her closing remarks lacked this same tone. The flow, structure, and overall message of her closing remarks was far below that of our competitors. I fully expect Natalie to correct her shortcomings in preparation for the UW-Superior invitational. Her studious behavior during the late nights at the Comfort Inn suggest to me that she is a fully devoted member of the team.
Tyler:
Tyler wasn’t adequately prepared for the invitational, just like each and every one of his teammates. However, he spent hours memorizing and refining his opening statements. While his opening did lack some of the elements essential for complete credit, I feel that his …show more content…
Like Anna, and to the best of my knowledge, Hannah made little to no attempt to memorize her direct, cross, or closing. Consequently, each of her opportunities to speak lacked tonal shifts or appropriate eye contact. The handwritten notes she used for questioning seemed to signal a lack of preparation to the judges, and would likely elicit a negative response from a jury. Hannah was regularly unprepared to work in a group or practice any particular element of her position. She seemed disengaged with the group during later meetings at the St. Olaf invitational. Hannah should work on her preparation and memorization, as well as tone and other elements of her