Greensburg Salem finishes 2nd in statewide mock trial competition
Greensburg Salem High School's mock trial team fell on Saturday in the state finals to Quigley Catholic High School from Beaver County in the 30th annual Pennsylvania Bar Association Statewide High School Mock Trial competition in Dauphin County.
“It's quite an accomplishment to be second in the state,” said Westmoreland County Judge Richard E. McCormick Jr., an adviser to the team. “I think it's just a great job the kids have done.”
Greensburg Salem won quarterfinal rounds on Friday to advance to the semifinals and finals.
Twelve teams from across the state — from an initial field of more than 300 — advanced to the state tournament, sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Association Young Lawyers Division.
During the competition, eight-member student teams are given the chance to argue both sides of a case in an actual courtroom before a judge. The students play the roles of lawyers, witnesses, plaintiffs and defendants.
Members of the Greensburg Salem team are Kenneth Clark, Anna George, Caitlin Hensel, Paige Kemsey, Garrett King, Lauren Nicassio, Theodore Russell and Courtney Wright.
The teacher-coaches are Elizabeth Butler Simone and Judith Washburn. Attorney Eric H. Dee advises alongside McCormick.
Greensburg Salem's victory over Franklin Regional sent it to the state competition for the 12th time in 13 years. Greensburg Salem won state titles in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Bob Stiles is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-836-6622 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.