Sidelights | Mock Trial: Workplace Vengeance Case

A First Encounter with the Justice System—Beginning with Putting on a Robe

The students participating in this mock trial were from the junior high school division of National Experimental High School at Hsinchu Science Park. The moment they stepped into the classroom, one could sense their anticipation and curiosity about the upcoming activity. As robes were handed out to each student, many eagerly put them on, adjusting one another’s collars and looking each other over as excited conversation periodically filled the room. For many, a courtroom may be a distant and unfamiliar place, but through a mock trial, the students were able to experience the justice system firsthand and understand how the law and judicial proceedings actually operate.

The mock trial used Taiwan’s citizen judge system, which was implemented in 2023. At the start of the activity, students played the roles of judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, witnesses, and the defendant, using a script to introduce the factual background of the case—the “Workplace Revenge Case.” The defendant, resentful after being dismissed by a former employer for poor performance, wounded a former supervisor with a knife after drinking. As the mock trial progressed, the students gradually came to understand the arguments of the prosecution and defense, the testimony of the witnesses and the defendant, and the case’s most crucial issues: whether the defendant had the intent to kill and whether the defendant had diminished criminal responsibility at the time of the offense.

Seeking the Truth Between Testimony and Evidence

After the courtroom drama began, the students playing the presiding judge, prosecutors, and defense counsel followed formal trial procedures, while the remaining students served as citizen judges, hearing evidence and participating in deliberations. As the proceedings advanced, the initially reserved students gradually settled into their roles and began thinking about the case from the perspective of citizen judges. During the much-anticipated witness examination, the citizen judges displayed a high degree of concentration. They not only listened carefully to the testimony but also actively recorded key points in their citizen judge handbooks as they attempted to organize the facts and the parties’ accounts.

When it was time for the citizen judges to ask questions, I initially worried that the students would be too shy to speak. The result, however, was a pleasant surprise. The students raised their hands enthusiastically and asked many questions that went directly to the key issues. For example, one student asked the defendant: “You said that you slashed only once, so why does the medical certificate record two knife wounds?” Another followed up: “If you only wanted to frighten the victim, why did you carry several knives?” Other students asked about the defendant’s usual alcohol tolerance, how much the defendant had drunk at the time of the incident, and the force and manner of the defendant’s resistance when witnesses restrained them.

These questions showed that the students were not merely listening passively. After carefully analyzing the testimony, they actively identified possible contradictions and doubts and attempted to clarify the facts through questioning. Their questions showed that many had already recognized that discrepancies can exist between evidence and testimony. They also began to understand that a trial does not simply involve believing one side’s account; a judgment must instead be formed through the examination and cross-testing of evidence.

Being a Citizen Judge Is Not as Easy as It Looks

Even during breaks, the students continued their discussions. Many gathered on their own to exchange views about the arguments of the prosecution and defense and the witnesses’ testimony. During group deliberations after the cross-examination of witnesses, the students spoke even more enthusiastically about their views on the disputed issues and the reasoning behind them. Some believed that the defendant could easily have aimed at a vital part of the victim’s body, but did not injure such an area, making it difficult to find an intent to kill. Others believed that the victim’s multiple knife wounds, together with the number of knives the defendant had brought, were sufficient to infer an intent to kill and therefore establish attempted murder.

Witnessing the Complexity Behind Judicial Decisions

The students’ discussions clearly showed that they did not regard the mock trial merely as an opportunity to put on robes or stage a simple courtroom performance. Instead, they genuinely began to consider how, if they were citizen judges, they should examine the evidence and analyze the facts before reaching a decision. Although the participants were junior high school students, they already demonstrated a preliminary ability to identify issues, analyze evidence, and develop arguments, which was impressive.

More importantly, the students’ differing conclusions revealed the true nature of judicial decisionmaking. When people encounter news about court cases, they often assume that a case has an absolute right and wrong or that the judgment should naturally reach a particular result. Yet once they enter the trial process, they discover that even when evidence and witness testimony are available, there can still be room for debate over whether the defendant committed an offense, whether the defendant had a particular criminal intent, and even whether the evidence is sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt.

Through the mock trial, the students personally experienced how judicial decisions are formed. They learned that judges do not decide cases merely according to personal preferences, but must carefully weigh different possibilities on the basis of limited evidence and facts. Seeing that different people may form different convictions from the same evidence also helped the students understand that legal issues are often not as black-and-white as they might imagine.

Mock Trials Plant the Seeds of Legal Education

I believe this is precisely the most valuable aspect of mock trials as legal education. In addition to introducing students to actual courtroom procedures and the operation of the citizen judge system, mock trials cultivate their capacity for rational, critical thinking and evaluation of evidence. By personally participating in a trial, students not only learn how to analyze facts and evidence but also gain a deeper understanding of the difficulties and challenges involved in judicial work.

In the future, when they encounter social controversies or news about court cases, they may be less likely to rush to conclusions based solely on fragmentary information, media headlines, or online opinion. Instead, they may try to consider cases from the perspectives of evidence, procedure, and legal norms. In the long run, this form of legal education not only helps cultivate citizens’ legal literacy and critical-thinking skills, but also promotes public understanding of the justice system. When people better understand the reasoning processes and institutional design behind judicial decisions, unnecessary misunderstandings and biases may be reduced, laying a firmer foundation for greater public trust in the judiciary.