Juris Diction
Published by Softdisk Publishing
Juris Diction is a Trademark of Softdisk Publishing.
Copyright 1984-94, TransMedia Inc.  All rights reserved.
Original game concept and design by Ashley S. Lipson, Esq.

If you'd like to order the full version of Juris Diction,
call 1-800-831-2694. Watch for the Windows version coming
in Spring 1995.

Section I: QUICK START
System Requirements Computers: PCs, XTs, ATs, PS/2s, PS/1s,
and compatibles with minimum 512K memory. Monitors: CGA,
Hercules, EGA, VGA or MCGA (Monochrome or 16 color
graphics)

Other: Compatible with The Sound Source, Advanced Gravis
UltraSound, or Sound Blaster.

NOTE: If you have a Sound Blaster, you will need lines
similar to the following in your AUTOEXEC.BAT file for
the game to be able to use the Sound Blaster.

    SET SOUND=C:\SBPRO
    SET BLASTER=A220 I7 D1 T2

Refer to your Sound Blaster manuals for the proper settings
for your computer.

PLAYING JURIS DICTION

Juris Diction is a game in a courtroom setting where you
are the defense attorney. You will be defending your
client, who is charged with the murder of a prominent
figure from Beverly Hills. Your client's destiny lies in
how well you handle the prosecution's line of questioning
to the witnesses brought forth during the trial. If you do
well, your client will be acquitted and you can discover
the true culprit; if not, your client will fry like bacon!

As the defense lawyer it is your job to analyze each
question asked by the prosecutor during the trial. With
each question, you must determine whether the question is
objectionable according to rules of evidence; and, if the
question is objectionable, you must object quickly and give
the judge your grounds for objecting.

1) To start playing Juris Diction, type START at the C:
prompt.

2) Press S for Setup.

3) Configure Animation and Sound to your liking and press
Enter.

4) Read the information for Level 1. This information
includes a listing of 11 objections that you will use
during the trial. Your success in this game depends on how
quickly you can identify questions that fall into one of
these 11 categories. To get a good overview of each of the
11 objections, see Section II, Rules of Evidence. (For your
benefit, an objection key will remain in the corner of your
screen during the trial.)

5) Press Enter to begin Level 1.Now the first witness will
come to the stand and the line of questioning begins. With
each question, decide whether the question is admissible or
not. If it is, press Q; if not, press one of the keys that
corresponds with the appropriate objection in the objection
table in the top left of your screen.

Objection Key Q - Proper Question

A - The question is ARGUMENTATIVE
B - The question violates the BEST EVIDENCE RULE
C - The question calls for a CONCLUSION
F - The question assumes FACTS not in evidence
H - The question calls for HEARSAY
I - The question is IRRELEVANT or IMMATERIAL
L - The question is LEADING
M - The question is MULTIPLE
P - The question violates PRIVILEGE
S - The question is SPECULATIVE
V - The question is VAGUE

Scoring and Advancing Levels

How well you score depends on the accuracy and quickness of
your responses to the prosecution's questions. The Demo
allows you to play only the first level. You may repeat it
twice before the game ends. In the full version, there are
a total of 6 levels. Make it through the fifth to acquit
your client; make it all the way through the sixth to find
out the guilty party.

Quitting

To Quit the game press the escape button anytime after the
questions have begun.

Section II: RULES OF EVIDENCE

Chapter 1: ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTIONS

It is never proper to engage in name-calling. Insults and
derogatory terms are for the movies, not the courtroom.
Questions designed to degrade or humiliate the witness,
rather than obtain information, run the risk of being
argumentative and, therefore, objectionable.

A lawyer can always show that a witness is biased or lying,
but he or she must do so by asking proper questions.
Name-calling is not a proper way to ask such questions.
And, despite popular belief, it is not a lawyer's
inalienable right to degrade witnesses during
cross-examination. The primary purpose behind testimony
should always be the presentation of facts that relate to
the issues of the case, not the presentation of insults.

Chapter 2: THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

The Best Evidence Rule says that a witness should not be
allowed to testify about the contents of a writing, unless
the original of that writing is produced in court.

Specifically, the rule states that a witness should not use
oral testimony to establish or prove "the contents" of a
written document, where that document is capable of being
presented. The reason for the rule is somewhat
self-explanatory: The "Best Evidence" would be the written
document itself. In other words, the rule is saying: Show
me the writing, don't tell me about it.

This rule applies only to testimony about a writing. It
does not apply to unwritten demonstrative or real evidence.

Chapter 3: QUESTIONS CALLING FOR A CONCLUSION

A question that asks a witness to give his or her own
personal conclusion, opinion, decision, or judgment is
inadmissible unless a proper foundation has been
established. Generally, a witness is expected to present
facts, not conclusions, opinions, personal reactions, or
feelings. Conclusions should be determined by the court or
jury, and not the witnesses. There are exceptions, however,
particularly where experts are concerned. A "professional"
(in some field relating to the trial), or expert may state
a conclusion in the form of a professional opinion, after a
foundation for his or her expertise has been established.
Lay persons may, in limited circumstances, also give their
own opinions or determinations, as long as they are based
upon facts derived from personal experiences.

Chapter 4: QUESTIONS THAT ASSUME UNPROVEN FACTS

A question may not assume facts unless they have been
established by prior questions or evidentiary
presentations. A proper question should seek to discover
actual facts, not present unproven ones. Questions may
contain facts that have already been established; those are
permissible. And within limits, hypothetical questions may
also contain unproven facts. But generally, a question is
improper if it assumes some fact that has not already been
proven.

Chapter 5: THE HEARSAY RULE

To provide a "quick explanation" of the Hearsay Rule is
almost a contradiction in terms. It is very complicated.
Basically, hearsay occurs when a witness attempts to prove
the truth of some assertion by repeating what someone else
said, or asserted, because he (the witness) didn't happen
to observe the event first-hand. There are many exceptions
to the Hearsay Rule; they will not be encountered until you
reach the higher levels of play.

Chapter 6: IRRELEVANT OR IMMATERIAL QUESTIONS

A question is irrelevant if it has no bearing whatsoever on
the case. The test of relevance is a very easy one to
satisfy. A question will be considered relevant as long as
it infers or suggests something about a disputed fact.
"Materiality" is a term that is often used synonymously
with relevance, but it is, in fact, a stricter standard. To
be material, the evidence must tend to prove or disprove a
fact that is critical to the outcome of the case.

Chapter 7: LEADING QUESTIONS

A question that is intentionally phrased so that the answer
is suggested, is leading. A leading question tells the
witness how to answer it. An obvious violation of this rule
would be virtually any question that starts with the phrase
- "Isn't it true . . ." Please note, that unlike most of
the other rules of evidence, this rule may be relaxed
during cross-examination. If an attorney is questioning an
opposing party or opposing witness, he may ask leading
questions. However, as a rule, an attorney may not lead his
own witness during direct examination.

Chapter 8: MULTIPLE QUESTIONS

A multiple or compound question is one that, in essence,
asks two or more questions in the same sentence. Attorneys
should ask one question at a time. Questions that call for
more than one answer may be considered multiple or
compound. They are often confusing. They also interfere
with the attorney's ability to interpose an objection after
"each" question.

Chapter 9: PRIVILEGE

Throughout the years, legal scholars and judges have formed
the notion that thieves, muggers, rapists, hit-and-run
drivers, squealers, and wrong-doers, in general, should all
have somewhere safe to go and spill their guts. At least,
that's what the creators and perpetuators of the law of
privilege believe. More particularly, the theory suggests
that it is beneficial if certain people can be "trusted" to
keep quiet. Were this not the case, people would be
reluctant to seek professional help. And this would, of
course, create a national crisis - shrinks, doctors, and
lawyers would make less money. In a courtroom setting, the
term "privilege" means that the witness has a legal right
to refuse to answer a question because of some special
relationship, law, or constitutional guarantee. Questions
that violate an established privilege may be objected to.
If no objection is made, however, the privilege will be
waived.

Chapter 10: SPECULATIVE QUESTIONS

A question that requires the witness to guess or present
information that he or she does not possess is
objectionable. A question is speculative if, by its very
nature, it asks the witness to provide information that he
or she does not possess. A question is likewise
objectionable if it specifically requires the witness to
guess or speculate. Calling for approximations, however,
may be proper as long as it has been demonstrated that the
witness has a basis for making them. As a rule, any
question that asks the witness to state what was in the
mind of another individual is automatically improper and
speculative. Mind-reading has never been established as
scientifically acceptable.

Chapter 11: VAGUE QUESTIONS

Questions should be concise and comprehensible, or else
they will be objectionable. They don't have to be
grammatically perfect; but the question and information
requested should be both clear and specific. Questions may
not be over-broad, ambiguous, or confusing. Questions
should be clearly stated, and avoid slang. They should also
call for specific answers, not a speech or "story."
