TASK:
- You are required to identify areas to cross-examine from your own work.
PURPOSE: - Analyze and review your own report and work product and determine areas of cross-examination
possibilities.
GRADING RUBRIC:
Skills 10 9 8 7 Score
Devil’s
Advocate
Preparation Language is clear
and relevant Most language is
clear and relevant Few parts of the
contract are
clear/relevant The language is not
clear
Required
Elements All of the required
elements are
clearly visible,
organized and well
placed Most of the
required elements
are clearly visible,
organized and well
placed Few of the required
elements are clearly
visible, organized
and well placed.
May be missing
elements Missing most or all
of the required
elements
Content Spelling
Grammar
Punctuation Excellent spelling,
grammar,
punctuation, and
original content 1-2 spelling,
grammar, or
punctuation errors
with original
content 3-5 spelling,
grammar, or
punctuation errors
with original content Multiple spelling,
grammar, or
punctuation errors
Some content is
copy/paste
ORIGIN
- List 3 areas on which you expect to be cross examined on the issue of your origin location. This
question seeks some specific questions that you expect to be asked, based on your origin opinion.
Do not write a general question such as: "Why did you exclude the other portions of the room?"
Rather, write a more detailed question such as:
"If the living room went to flashover, could that explain why there was a hole in the
floor?"
"If you were told that the fire department extinguished the living room last, would that
explain why the hole in the floor was so much larger than the hole in the dining
room?"
If you start to think like the attorney who will cross examine you, then you will be much
better prepared for any questions you will face.
CAUSE - List 3 areas on which you expect to be cross examined on the issue of your determination of cause within your area of origin. Be very specific in identifying these 3 areas.
Again, make sure your questions are specific. For example, "If you discovered that the
lab analysis was not reliable, and that the "accelerant" evidence could not be used in
court, what other proof do you have that would be sufficient to support your conclusion
that the cause was arson?"