EnglishFreePrintable

Three Little Pigs Mock Trial

A free english worksheet ready for your classroom. Open in Kuraplan to grab the print-ready PDF, customize it for your students, or generate a fresh version in seconds.

Download now

Name:Date:

Three Little Pigs Mock Trial

A courtroom is deciding whether the three pigs were justified in using a hot pot to stop the wolf. Read the case file, prepare a fair argument, then take part in a mock trial. Listen carefully, speak clearly, and challenge ideas respectfully. You may reach a verdict of guilty, not guilty, or not proven.

Case file: What happened?

Use only these agreed facts. The pigs lived in separate houses made from straw, sticks and bricks. The wolf blew down the straw and stick houses. The pigs escaped to the brick house. The wolf followed, threatened them and tried to enter through the chimney. The pigs placed a hot cooking pot beneath the chimney. The wolf fell into it and was badly injured; the case file does not confirm whether he died. A witness says the wolf had asthma, but cannot say whether it affected what happened. A building witness says the houses had different strengths and purposes. The prosecution says the pot was a dangerous, excessive response. The defence says the pigs faced an immediate threat and were protecting themselves.

Courtroom language

A claim is a position you argue for. Evidence is a case fact. Reasoning explains how evidence supports a claim. A rebuttal responds to another argument. Reliability means how trustworthy or certain information is. Proportionality asks whether a response matched the danger. A fair speaker separates what is known from what is assumed.

1.Which statement is a fact from the case file, rather than an inference?

The wolf followed the pigs to the brick house.
The pigs wanted to hurt the wolf.
The wolf would have entered the house peacefully.
The pot was the only possible way to stay safe.

2.The witness says the wolf had asthma but cannot say whether it affected the incident. What is the most careful conclusion?

Asthma proves the pigs caused the injury.
Asthma proves the wolf was harmless.
The evidence is relevant to consider, but it does not establish the cause of the injury.
The witness's statement should be treated as certain proof.

3.Write one claim about whether the pigs acted justifiably. Support it with one specific case fact and explain how that fact supports your claim.

Listening round: the house-builder's statement

A partner or facilitator reads this statement aloud twice. The first time, listen without writing. The second time, note key details. If working alone, read it once, cover it, then answer from memory. “I helped build the pigs’ homes. The straw house was quick to put up, and the stick house took more work. The brick house took the longest and was the strongest of the three. I did not see what happened at the chimney. I can describe the houses, but I cannot say what the pigs intended or whether they had another safe option.”

4.According to the house-builder, which house was strongest, and what could the witness not say?

5.Why is the house-builder's statement useful, and what is one important limitation of it?

6.Write one open question you could ask the house-builder to clarify the evidence. Avoid questions that assume the pigs' intentions.

Prepare your role

Choose a role: prosecution, defence, witness, or jury. Use case facts rather than invented details. In the trial, speakers should address the court, take turns, listen without interrupting, and disagree with ideas rather than attacking people.

7.Prepare a 30–45 second opening statement for either the prosecution or the defence. State your position, use two case facts, and explain why they matter.

8.The opposing side argues that using a hot pot was excessive. Write a respectful rebuttal that acknowledges this concern and responds with relevant evidence or reasoning.

9.Which question is most useful and fair when examining the wolf's actions?

Why was the wolf obviously evil?
Can you describe what happened after the wolf reached the brick house?
You planned to harm the pigs, didn't you?
Why should anyone believe anything you say?

10.After the trial discussion, give a verdict of guilty, not guilty, or not proven. State the strongest evidence for your decision, acknowledge one reasonable opposing point, and explain what further evidence would help you decide more confidently.

11.During the trial, identify one moment when you changed, refined, or strengthened your thinking because of something you heard. If your view did not change, explain which speaker's evidence you considered and why it did not change your conclusion.