| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| JUS-441 | JUS-441-O500 | Benchmark - Motion in Limine | 80.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% |
| Part I: Complete the Motion in Limine documentation. Be sure to include a legal rationale for grounds for exclusion of the evidence. (Comp. 1.5: Prepare thorough and accurate legal documentation.) | 15.0% | Motion in Limine documentation was not completed. Documentation does not include a legal rationale for grounds for exclusion of the evidence. | Motion in Limine documentation was not completed. Documentation attempts to include a legal rationale for grounds for exclusion of the evidence. The approach is not based on sound reasoning or is poorly described. Demonstrates poor understanding of topic. | Motion in Limine documentation was completed and fairly correct. Documentation includes a legal rationale for grounds for exclusion of the evidence with some level of depth; explanation is somewhat limited but approach is based on sound reasoning. Demonstrates a minimal understanding of the topic. | Motion in Limine documentation was completed and mostly correct. Documentation includes a legal rationale for grounds for exclusion of the evidence with accurate details; description shows sound analysis of a clear and valid approach. | Motion in Limine documentation was completed and all correct. Documentation includes a legal rationale for grounds for exclusion of the evidence with quality details; description is comprehensive and insightful, showing an exceptional approach. |
| Part II: Answer the following questions in a 150-200 word response for each. Be sure to cite at least three scholarly sources in support of your responses. 1. What would happen if the Motion in Limine was denied? | 15.0% | Response does not explain what would happen if the Motion in Limine was denied. | Response attempts to explain what would happen if the Motion in Limine was denied. The approach is not based on sound reasoning or is poorly described. Demonstrates poor understanding of topic. | Response explains what would happen if the Motion in Limine was denied with some level of depth; explanation is somewhat limited but approach is based on sound reasoning. Demonstrates a minimal understanding of the topic. | Response explains what would happen if the Motion in Limine was denied with accurate details; description shows sound analysis of a clear and valid approach. | Response explains what would happen if the Motion in Limine was denied with quality details; description is comprehensive and insightful, showing an exceptional approach. |
| 2. Why was this case filed in the jurisdiction that it was, as opposed to a different jurisdiction, e.g., City court, Federal court, etc.? (comp. 2.3: Determine jurisdiction for a given incident ) | 15.0% | Response does not explain why this case was filed in the jurisdiction that it was, as opposed to a different jurisdiction. | Response attempts to explain why this case was filed in the jurisdiction that it was, as opposed to a different jurisdiction. The approach is not based on sound reasoning or is poorly described. Demonstrates poor understanding of topic. | Response explains why this case was filed in the jurisdiction that it was, as opposed to a different jurisdiction with some level of depth; explanation is somewhat limited but approach is based on sound reasoning. Demonstrates a minimal understanding of the topic. | Response explains why this case was filed in the jurisdiction that it was, as opposed to a different jurisdiction with accurate details; description shows sound analysis of a clear and valid approach. | Response explains why this case was filed in the jurisdiction that it was, as opposed to a different jurisdiction with quality details; description is comprehensive and insightful, showing an exceptional approach. |
| 3. When may a Motion be amended? Is this a matter of procedural right or procedural discretion? Explain. | 15.0% | Response does not explain the protocol for amending motions nor whether it is a right or discretion. | Response attempts to explain the protocol for amending motions and whether it is a right or discretion. The approach is not based on sound reasoning or is poorly described. Demonstrates poor understanding of topic. | Response explains the protocol for amending motions and whether it is a right or discretion with some level of depth; explanation is somewhat limited but approach is based on sound reasoning. Demonstrates a minimal understanding of the topic. | Response explains the protocol for amending motions and whether it is a right or discretion with accurate details; description shows sound analysis of a clear and valid approach. | Response explains the protocol for amending motions and whether it is a right or discretion with quality details; description is comprehensive and insightful, showing an exceptional approach. |
| Utilize the GCU Library to locate at least three relevant, scholarly sources in support of the content. | 10.0% | No outside sources are cited. | Some sources may be cited but they are not scholarly and/or relevant. | At least three relevant, scholarly sources are cited in a loosely connected, vague way. | At least three relevant, scholarly sources are cited in a well-connected way and elaborated on. | At least three relevant, scholarly sources are cited and are flawlessly integrated into the essay to support the claims made therein. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| Paragraph Development and Transitions | 10.0% | Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs are established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope. Organization is disjointed. | Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident. | Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. | A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose. | There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 10.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Kelly Boyd
Rubric_Print_Format.xlsx
