Lessons from a Mock Trial

I spent yesterday (from about 8:30-3:30) inside the DC Superior Court pretending to be a prosecuting attorney. It was fun, exciting, exhausting, and just extremely difficult! I wish I had some great lessons or advice to share after the experience, but probably the best I can do is confirm what you'll hear from anyone who's done it before: There's just no such thing as too much preparation.

I can't emphasize that enough: If you're doing mock trial, you have to know the facts -- every one of them -- cold. I didn't, and I got nailed a couple of times for it. Of course, you should also know the Federal Rules of Evidence pretty much backwards and forwards, as well as how to introduce and use exhibits to the best advantage. Why don't law schools just make this part of the first semester curriculum? I mean, wouldn't an intro to trial procedure, evidence, and advocacy be a good introduction to the law? A school could replace contracts or torts with one a more practical class like this, and I think its students would be well served.

But we don't learn evidence or trial procedures or advocacy in our first year, so we just had to wing it. Over the past couple of weeks, I've watched or participated in about four mock trials based on the same case materials (that's counting scrimmages and participating as a competitor in one instance and a witness in another), and each "trial" was very very different from the others. This tells me that you have to be prepared for anything, and have contingency plans for any approach your opponents might throw at you. So again, the main lesson is: Be prepared.

In all, I learned an incredible amount, but participating in Mock Trial has only deepened my ambivalence about being a trial lawyer. While the preparation part seems enjoyable and satisfying, the actual trial part seems like a crap shoot. Does the judge like you? Do you have the right "style"? Does the judge or jury like it that you cross your witnesses aggressively, or did you lose them there? Did you wear the right clothes? Did you hold your notes in an acceptable manner? All of these things seem so hard to predict or control.

But worse: Can you really think fast enough on your feet to solve all the random problems that might arise in a trial? Can you recover and reroute on the fly when your own witness gives you the exact opposite answer you were looking for and threatens to torpedo your case? Can you remember the exact spot in the deposition where the opposing witness impeached herself? Can you keep in your head the five different points opposing counsel misrepresented so that you can effectively explain and spin them in your close? And even if you can keep them in your head, can you find that effective spin in the two minutes you have to actually prepare that close?

I admire trial lawyers even more after doing mock trial. They have to be brilliant, no "ifs" or "buts" about it. But do I want to be one? Do I have what it takes? For now, I guess that will remain a question of fact to be left to the jury....

Posted 09:34 AM | Comments (3) | law school

Nader's In

So he's doing it. Nader has officially begun his campaign for the White House as an independent candidate. Okey-dokey.

Here's a thought on that. And here's another.

I agree with Nader on many things, including the fact that the two-party system is broken and undemocratic. However, isn't a run as an independent this year only going to hurt the long-term chances that a third party will ever be taken seriously? I mean, just about any other year, I might support something like this, but this year!? Right. There's always the nagging voice of the revolutionary whispering in my ear: "If not now, when? If not us, who?" But when it comes to whether a third-party lefty should run for President of the U.S. the answers to those questions are clearly: "Any other year" and "Maybe us, but any other year!"

But maybe this will turn out to be a good thing:

Asked if he would withdraw if he concluded his candidacy would merely ensure President Bush's re-election, Nader told interviewer Tim Russert, "When and if that eventuality occurs, you can invite me back on the program and I'll give you the answer."

So do you think Ralph's so sure the Democratic nominee is going to kick W's ass so hard that a lefty independent candidacy won't give the election to the W? Or here's another scenario:

Ralph can just stir the pot, continually reminding everyone how corrupt Washington is and how the two-party system does not work, etc. That's all great, so long as he withdraws and emphatically supports the Democratic nominee by, oh, let's say Oct. 15th. That could be a win win for everyone. Please Ralph, only run 'till October!

Posted 09:24 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004

Asylum for Domestic Violence

The best thing about Legal Writing class as a 1L for me is that it's teaching me a lot about a few small segments of the law. One of those segments has been asylum law, which was the subject of our first memo last semester. I hardly knew what asylum was before that memo, but now I understand the basics, which means I know enough to understand the asylum process can be seriously random and unjust.

Asylum law is in the headlines today because of a big case about whether women who have been victims of domestic violence in their home country should be granted asylum in the U.S. NPR covered the story Friday, as did the print press. UC Hastings also has a site with more information on the case. Here's the gist:

The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to grant asylum to a Guatemalan woman who was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband for a decade.

The request will determine whether battered women are eligible to receive sanctuary in the United States. The case could have great impact on women in countries where domestic violence goes unpunished.

Ashcroft has the authority to allow Rodi Alvarado, 36, to stay in the country and set a precedent for other abused women seeking refuge. The recommendation was made in a legal brief filed late Thursday. It couldn't be determined when Ashcroft would act on it.

Asylum experts said Homeland Security's endorsement of Alvarado's asylum claim would make it far harder for Ashcroft to reject the plea.

It's incredibly depressing to have to rely on Ashcroft to make a potentially huge decision like this, but here's hoping he chooses correctly and grants Alvarado asylum.

In related news, tonight at 10 p.m. on Court TV: Chasing Freedom, an original movie about an Afghan woman trying to get asylum in the U.S. after being persecuted by the Taliban. Juliette Lewis stars as the young New York lawyer who takes the case pro bono. (Does anyone do asylum cases full time?) This could be just another opportunity for a movie to say, "Hey, the Taliban was really bad; isn't it great the U.S. took over Afghanistan?" But it's on court tv, so instead, maybe it will focus on the broken backwater that is U.S. immigration and asylum law. Although some of you may be too broken up after the series finale of Sex and the City to watch anything else, "Chasing Freedom" might be worth taping to watch some other day.

Posted 08:32 AM | law general