As attorneys for Defendant, argue his case below

1

COMM 420 Moot Court Rubric. Grade breakdown: Paper 75 pts, Peer evaluations 25

Criteria Unsatisfactory - Beginning Developing Accomplished Exemplary Total

Paper:

I. Intro to case

study

0 -1 points 2-3 points 4 points 5 points /5

Fails to include the

Background and case history.

Incomplete inclusion of the

Background and case history.

Adequate, but incomplete,

inclusion of the Background

and case history.

Complete inclusion of the

Background and case

history.

Analysis:

II. Explain torts

Defamation or

Privacy Law &

III. Rule on the

case

0-14 15-17 points 18-20 points 22-25 points /25

Demonstrates a lack of

understanding and inadequate

analysis of the legal topic.

Insufficient progression of

case law; insufficient citation

of important case law;

Analysis of case study

according to the relevant case

law is superficial and based

on opinions and preferences

rather than court rulings and

legal analysis. Insufficient or

missing conclusion

Demonstrates general

understanding and minimal

analysis of the legal topic.

Minimal progression of case

law; minimal citation of

important case law; Analysis of

case study according to the

relevant case law is basic and

based on minimal court rulings

and legal analysis. Insufficient

conclusion.

Demonstrates solid

understanding and analysis of

the legal topic. Well-

developed and complete

progression of case law; solid

citation of important case law;

Analysis of case study

according to the relevant case

law is well-developed and

reasoned on solid

demonstration of court rulings

and legal analysis. Solid

conclusion. Adequately

compares/contrasts legal

perspectives, counter-

arguments, or opposing legal

arguments positions.

Demonstrates a

sophisticated legal analysis

of the case study. Excellent

progression of case law and

citation of important case

law; Excellent analysis of

case study based on relevant

case law and court rulings/

legal analysis. Well-stated

conclusion. Skillfully

compares/contrasts legal

perspectives, counter-

arguments, or opposing

legal arguments positions.

Quality of

Evidence (Law

cases and legal

analysis

sources)

0-14 points 15-17 points 18-20 points 22-25 points /25

Lacks sufficient case law and

legal analysis sources to

support a legal argument.

Contains numerous factual

mistakes, omissions, or

oversimplifications.

Provides some case law and

legal analysis sources to support

a legal argument. Some sources

may not be relevant, accurate,

and reliable. Contains some

factual mistakes, omissions, or

oversimplifications.

Provides essential, accurate

case law and legal analysis

sources to support a legal

argument. Legal sources that

are mostly relevant, accurate,

and reliable.

Provides compelling and

accurate case law and legal

analysis sources to support a

legal argument. Legal

sources are highly relevant,

accurate, and reliable and

add to the strength of the

case study argument.

2

Criteria Unsatisfactory - Beginning Developing Accomplished Exemplary Total

Writing Quality

& Proper APA

style reference

and in-text

citations

0-9 points 10-13 points 14-17 points 18-20 points /20

Paper shows a below

average/poor writing style

lacking in elements of

appropriate standard English and

following proper APA and Table

of Cases guidelines. Frequent

errors in spelling, grammar,

punctuation, spelling, usage,

and/or formatting.

Paper shows an average

and/or casual writing style

using standard English and

following APA and Table of

Cases guidelines. Some

errors in spelling, grammar,

punctuation, usage, and/or

formatting.

Paper shows above average

writing style and clarity in

writing using standard English

and following APA and Table

of Cases guidelines. Minor

errors in grammar,

punctuation, spelling, usage,

and/or formatting.

Paper is well written and

clear using proper APA and

Table of Cases guidelines

and standard English

characterized by elements of

a strong writing style. Free

from grammar, punctuation,

spelling, usage, or

formatting errors.

Peer Evaluation 0-14 points 15-17 points 18-20 points 22-25 points /25

Fails to provide serious analysis

of peer moot court presentations.

Minimal to no effort to provide

useful feedback to peers.

Provides basic, minimal

serious analysis of peer moot

court presentations. Little

useful feedback provided to

peers.

Provides thoughtful and

serious analysis of peer moot

court presentations. Solid

useful feedback provided to

peers.

Provides thoughtful

excellent analysis of peer

moot court presentations.

Critical, yet fair, feedback

provided to peers to enable

improvement for future

presentations.

TOTAL

POINTS

/100