Mock Trial Reflection

1. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.

The prosecutions (the peoples) main point related to the constitution, and how this law violates it and how this law relates to immigration which is a federal issue. A main point that was repeated throughout the trial was a story about a McDonalds raid where a woman told officers she was a citizen but she was taken to jail anyway. Their witnesses were James Madison, John Adams and Raul Grijalva.

2. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the defense. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.

The facts presented by my side, the state of Arizona, were directly from the bill and from statistics about the bills approval. Our main points had to do with the conditions of crossing the borders, protecting the citizens and that this bill was a state crime law, not a federal immigration law. The witnesses were Jan Brewer, Russell Pierce and Robert Watchorn.

3. What was the most significant piece of evidence, in your personal opinion?

I thought that the story about the McDonalds raid was a strong piece of evidence on the prosecuting side, and on the defense the direct readings from the bill were powerful since it was straight from the measure.

4. What was the most significant argument made, in your opinion?

I thought that the defenses argument about this being a crime law was, if nothing else a really good attempt and it was a fairly strong argument to consider. On the flip side, I thought that the prosecutions argument about it being a federal and international issue was also valid and significant. The argument about racial profiling was also very significant, because at one point on the stand they caught me because it is pretty hard to think of other ways to profile someone besides based on their skin color, even if the bill says they will not be judged based on that.

5. What do you personally believe the correct verdict should be? Do you agree with the jury? Why or why not?

I personally believe the right verdict was made by the jury. Although I was disappointed since I represented the defense, I can see why they would come to that verdict, and I would personally agree with it. I dont think it was right for the state to pass this bill, it dabbles in both federal immigration laws and racial profiling and even discrimination. I can see where the state of Arizona was coming from since noting has been done nationally about this issue yet. We need some kind of solution, but I dont think that SB 1070 was the right way to handle it.'