Reflection on Trial

I thought the trial was very interesting, and was a refreshing review activity. It was nice to do the trial because it was a more fun and hands-on way to learn about and strengthen our knowledge on the revolutions. Instead of just reading it in a text book, and writing a blog post on it like usual, it was fun to work with classmates and build an argument against the other team. At the same time, learning about the structure of a  court trial. Much research was done to make sure that we were knowledgeable on the topics. It encouraged us to form an opinion on whether or not Napoleon betrayed the values of the enlightenment, and research accordingly. It led us to many blogs and bias sources which forced us to assess whether or not the source could be used in the trial. At the same time it exposed us to various different opinions.

The trial was fun, but at the same time felt like it was rushed and unorganized. This is not an insult in any way, i just feel that there was not enough time for us to research and prepare. The cross examinations guidelines were too broad in my opinion. The cross examiner could ask the witness anything, in any category, and the witness was expected to know it, since the witness was supposed to know everything the person did. This led to many answers without any evidence, or without any relation to the witness. For example: if the witness is supposed to be an expert on the Napoleonic code, they should be completely knowledgeable, and shouldn't be allowed to contradict themselves, and change opinions and change answers to questions in the middle of the examination. So to improve the trial, each side should be given boundaries on questions to be asked, and on how knowledgeable the person should be on the witness.