A courtroom that reopens a real scientific decision, from Paris in 1784 to a NASA teleconference in 1986, and tries it on the evidence that existed on the case date.
Students put a real scientific decision on trial, from John Snow's Broad Street pump to the Challenger teleconference, and argue it from the quotes and data tables of the time. Lawyers enter one row of real data as an exhibit, witnesses answer only from their notebook cards, and the jury votes from the record alone, judged on what could be known on the case date.
Use this when your science class practices arguing from evidence (NGSS SEP-7) and judging sources (SEP-8), or as the history-of-science day in a unit that matches a case. Each case brings its own sources and data tables, so there is no reading to assign first and no legal background needed: the game supplies the roles and the order of events. Underneath, students practice claim, evidence and reasoning under objection, and read one row of a real data table for what it shows and what it cannot show. Every case is judged only on what was known at its date. Pick by unit: physics (the 1919 eclipse plates, PS2.B), engineering and materials (Challenger, PS1.A and ETS1.B), chemistry and environment (leaded gasoline, ESS3.C), psychology and research methods (Little Albert, Mesmer), and biology or health science (Snow, Mary Mallon, yellow fever), where no NGSS core idea is about human disease. Every case suits grades 7-12.
What Students Will Learn
Argue a claim out loud from evidence: state the claim, point to a quote or a data row in the record, and explain how it supports the claim.
Read one row of a real data table and say what it shows and what it cannot show on its own.
Judge a scientific decision on what could be known on its date, and name an argument that uses hindsight.
Question a source's author, date and purpose before trusting what it says.
Reach a verdict from a shared record, citing two record items, and compare how different juries read the same evidence.
Cases Included
Pick the case and the format in the lobby, then press Start game - same rules, different text. Every courtroom in your class runs the same case, then the class compares verdicts.
Dr. Snow's Case v. the Board of Health's Finding
Dr. Snow's evidence, as it stood in July 1855, proved that water from the Broad Street pump caused the cholera outbreak of September 1854.
Mallon v. the Health Department
On the evidence known by the end of July 1909, the Department of Health of the City of New York is not justified in going on holding Mary Mallon, a healthy woman who has never been tried for any crime, on North Brother Island.
The Review v. Dyson and Eddington
Sir Frank Dyson and Professor Arthur Eddington gave the Sobral astrographic plates little weight because those plates disagreed with Einstein's prediction, not because they were worse than the plates they kept.
The Teleconference Data on Trial: Challenger, 27 January 1986
The data Morton Thiokol and NASA had in hand on the night of 27 January 1986 showed that it was unsafe to launch Challenger with its O-rings colder than any earlier flight.
The Public v. The Surgeon General's Committee
The Surgeon General's Committee of Seven was wrong, on the evidence in front of it in January 1926, to report that there were no good grounds for prohibiting the sale of ethyl (leaded) gasoline.
The Prosecution v. Watson and Rayner
John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner were wrong to build fears into Albert B. and then let the experiment end with those fears still in place.
The Volunteers v. the Yellow Fever Commission
The Army Yellow Fever Commission (Major Walter Reed, Dr. James Carroll, Dr. Aristides Agramonte and Dr. Jesse W. Lazear) was wrong to infect human volunteers in Cuba in 1900 and 1901 with yellow fever, a disease that could kill.
The King's Commissioners v. Animal Magnetism
Animal magnetism, as practised in Paris in 1784, is nothing: the commissioners' experiments show that no magnetic fluid acts on the body, and that every effect seen at the tub, cures included, is the work of imagination, touch and imitation.
NGSS SEP-7 Engaging in Argument from Evidence - counsel argue claim, evidence and reasoning out loud under objection, and every juror vote must cite two record items
NGSS SEP-8 Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information - every exhibit shows its source's author, date and purpose, and witnesses testify only from cards drawn from primary sources
NGSS SEP-4 Analyzing and Interpreting Data - lawyers enter single rows of period data tables as exhibits and argue what a row does and does not show
NGSS Nature of Science (Appendix H) - scientific knowledge is open to revision in light of new evidence: each case is judged on what was known at its date, and the debrief shows what was learned later
NGSS HS-PS2.B Types of Interactions (Newton's law of gravitation; Einstein's prediction goes beyond NGSS) - Eclipse Plates 1919: Newton's and Einstein's predictions for starlight passing the Sun, against three cameras' measurements
NGSS HS-PS1.A Structure and Properties of Matter and HS-ETS1.B Developing Possible Solutions - Challenger 1986: O-ring data by temperature, and weighing risk in an engineering decision
NGSS HS-ESS3.C Human Impacts on Earth Systems - Leaded Gasoline 1925: the committee that let tetraethyl lead back on sale
APA National Standards for High School Psychology Curricula, Scientific Inquiry (research methods and ethics) and Learning (classical conditioning) - Little Albert 1920 and Franklin v. Mesmer 1784
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.6-8.8, RST.9-10.8 and RST.11-12.8 - separate fact from speculation and judge the reasoning and evidence behind a scientific claim
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.9-10.7 - put the numbers in a data table into words in an argument
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.3 - evaluate a speaker's reasoning and use of evidence (objections and the jury's vote)
Social & Emotional Learning (CASEL)
Aligned to the CASEL framework's core competencies. These are the SEL skills students actively practice while playing.
Responsible Decision-MakingJurors reach a verdict from the record alone, and each vote must cite two record items. Nobody may argue from what was learned after the case date.
Social AwarenessCounsel argue the side the teacher assigns, often the one the textbook skips, and must take the other side's data seriously to cross-examine it.
Relationship SkillsCo-counsel share 4 exhibits and 3 objection tokens, so every spend is a joint call, and a jury needs a supermajority to reach a verdict.
Flexible Class Sizes
1 courtroom
8 to 15 students. Juries of 5 or more from 12.
2 courtrooms
16 to 30 students. Juries of 5 or more from 24.
3 courtrooms
31 to 45 students. Juries of 5 or more from 36. Pick this for a smaller class only if you want three verdicts to compare: juries will be 3 or 4.
1 courtroom + Witness 3
9 to 16 students. Block or Two-Day only. Juries of 5 or more from 13.
2 courtrooms + Witness 3
18 to 32 students. Block or Two-Day only. Juries of 5 or more from 26.
3 courtrooms + Witness 3
33 to 48 students. Block or Two-Day only. Juries of 5 or more from 39.
How the Game Plays Out
Roles Your Students Will Play
Every courtroom has the same 7 seats; Witness 3 is used only in Block and Two-Day trials with three witnesses. Up to three courtrooms try the same case at once. Click any role to see their background and what they are trying to accomplish.
Judge
You are the judge in this courtroom. The jury decides the verdict. You keep the record fair.
When a lawyer objects, rule Sustained or Overruled. You have 30 seconds. Your rules card says when to sustain and when to overrule.
Watch for hindsight: nobody may argue from what was learned after the case date.
When both sides are done, press End this part early to tell your teacher. You may not add time.
In deliberation, write your opinion. In the final votes, if the votes for each side are exactly even, you break the tie.
Only what is in the record counts.
Prosecution
You are a lawyer for the prosecution. You carry the burden of proof: you argue that the charge is true.
In prep, read your evidence bank and write one question for each witness.
Enter an exhibit to put a quote or a data row in the record. Your side gets 4 for the whole trial.
Question your own witness in direct examination. Question the other side's witness in cross-examination.
Object when the other side breaks a rule. Your side has 3 tokens. An overruled objection costs 1 more.
If a witness says Not in my notes, you may use Refresh memory once for that witness.
Only what is in the record counts. Nothing learned after the case date counts.
Defense
You are a lawyer for the defense. You answer the charge for the accused, which may be a person, a document or a method.
In prep, read your evidence bank and write one question for each witness.
Enter an exhibit to put a quote or a data row in the record. Your side gets 4 for the whole trial.
Question your own witness in direct examination. Question the other side's witness in cross-examination.
Object when the other side breaks a rule. Your side has 3 tokens. An overruled objection costs 1 more.
If a witness says Not in my notes, you may use Refresh memory once for that witness.
Only what is in the record counts. Nothing learned after the case date counts.
Witness 1
You are a witness: a real person from the case, or the author of a real document. Your screen names who you are once the case is picked.
Your testimony comes only from your notebook cards. Each card comes from a primary source.
In prep, read your cards. Tick up to 3 you think the lawyers will ask about.
On the stand, play a card or press Not in my notes. Never invent a fact.
Off the stand, write contradiction cards: anything you hear that your notes contradict. Up to 3.
Nothing learned after the case date counts.
Witness 2
You are a witness: a real person from the case, or the author of a real document. Your screen names who you are once the case is picked.
Your testimony comes only from your notebook cards. Each card comes from a primary source.
In prep, read your cards. Tick up to 3 you think the lawyers will ask about.
On the stand, play a card or press Not in my notes. Never invent a fact.
Off the stand, write contradiction cards: anything you hear that your notes contradict. Up to 3.
Nothing learned after the case date counts.
Witness 3
You are a witness: a real person from the case, or the author of a real document. Your screen names who you are once the case is picked.
Your testimony comes only from your notebook cards. Each card comes from a primary source.
In prep, read your cards. Tick up to 3 you think the lawyers will ask about.
On the stand, play a card or press Not in my notes. Never invent a fact.
Off the stand, write contradiction cards: anything you hear that your notes contradict. Up to 3.
Nothing learned after the case date counts.
Jury
You are a juror. The jury decides the verdict from the evidence in the record.
During each part, move your slider when your mind changes and tick what moved you, or tick Nothing moved me. A log counts only while its part is on.
Decide by the preponderance of the evidence: more likely than not.
A vote must cite two items in the record. A verdict needs the number your screen shows.
If your jury cannot reach that number, it is a hung jury. An abstention counts for neither side.
Only what is in the record counts. Nothing learned after the case date counts.
Hand Each Student Their Own Sheet
One click on the teacher dashboard prints a dossier for every role - background, goals, key facts, and their confidential briefing - plus the primary-source packet and a vocabulary sheet. Print them, or save as PDF, so each student reads their role on paper instead of huddling around one screen. The app still runs the votes and the action; the paper just carries the reading.
Primary Sources
Every role includes real historical documents. Students read them because they need the information to make their case.
Key Terms Students Will Learn
the recordexhibittestimonyabstaindirect examinationcross-examinationobjectionsustainedoverruledstipulationburden of proofpreponderance of the evidenceverdicthung jurydeliberationsupermajoritydatabenchhindsightprimary source
After the Game: Debrief Questions
Did a quote or a data row do more work in your trial? Why?
Did anyone argue from hindsight? If so, what did the judge do? If not, what would that have sounded like?
Name a question the record could not answer. What data would have answered it?
If two juries read this record, could they disagree? Would one of them be wrong?
Ready to run this in your classroom?
Get free teacher access in 30 seconds. No account needed - just a passcode that unlocks the full game library, teacher guides, and session tools.