VOICE
1

Hirohiko Harada (professor/lawyer) Osaka City University Law School
(Extract from PSIM News No. 14)

Last year I first started using PSIM’s materials. What I used was the contract payment demand case in teaching materials No. 24. 。
There were two main reasons for picking this material. Firstly, it was suitable for when there were a total of three people, including the person taking the case and the witnesses, for when allocating the witness role and when there was extra time for group investigation of evidence. The second is that there is an actual written memo for cross-examining the person taking the case and the witnesses, which is separate to the written statements. By showing the person taking the case and the witnesses these and saying that it was ok to answer in these ways if asked, but not to actively report the contents, it was possible to approximate an actual witness testing with having the prosecutors and defendants do the questioning.
Osaka City University has mock trials where the materials given to prosecutors and defendants are strictly separated, and the mock trial is conducted very much like a real trial, so the second point was extremely useful for us.
On the other hand, the point in dispute was decided on whether or not a contract had been established so it slightly lacked an interesting dynamic. Furthermore, if details that the parties concerned and witnesses could know were to be included, this would perhaps make the mock trial more realistic. However, this is perhaps an unreasonable request.

VOICE
2

Yuji Fujita (associate professor/lawyer) Graduate School of Law, University of the Ryukyus
(Extract from PSIM News No. 13)

In the past I mostly used materials supplied by the created by the Japanese Bar Association or the instructor in-charge (mainly an instructor sent by the courts). However, in my 2011 classes I used materials from PSIM during mock trial lessons.
The reasons for choosing this was that, in the case of tort cases, the findings were the main point at issue and the main point at issue was clear. In 2011, the first year when the civil mock trial was moved to the second year second semester, I felt unsure of how to deal with matters, so I used the above case in consideration of the outcomes for the class.
In the lesson, the issues were arranged smoothly during the four fixed trials, and the material, I think, was easy to for the students to deal with. From the point of view of teaching, I think it would have been good if there were issues that were more challenging for the students, but considering the objectives of the lesson with was to experience substantive law and procedural law, I feel now that the cases allowed the students some flexibility like in a real case. I felt that, even for the instructor, it was necessary to experience hands on the appropriate level for the materials by dealing with a multitude of cases. Using the PSIM materials was a very valuable experience for me.