Court Case

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

The prosecution would often refer back to the constitution. They continued to mention amendments 4, (the rights to search and seizure) 6, (the rights to a fair trial) and 14, (this one roughly mentioned minority rights) and they mentioned how the Senate Bill 1070 violated all of these amendments. They had a lot of other evidence, but the constitution was all that they really mentioned when talking to their own witnesses. When cross-examining, they would often ask specific questions about bills that the other witnesses signed, to see if they knew exactly what it was that they were supporting. Their witnesses were James Madison (played by me), John Adams and Raul Grijalva.

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

The defense had a slightly broader range of facts that the prosecution did. When cross-examining, they would often mention the faults of the witnesses they were talking to, (owning slaves etc.) rather than questioning them on whether or not the found the law to be constitutional or not. When talking to their own witnesses though, they mentioned things about how illegals had wronged them and how the law was helping Arizona, (since it would lower the number of kidnappings in Phoenix and Tempe). Their witnesses were Jan Brewer, Russel Pearce, and officer Collins who was killed by illegal immigrants.

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

I think that it was when the Prosecution turned around the white board and had the witnesses from the defense read off the 4th, 6th and 14th amendments, (asking where it mentioned that only illegals were protected). Whenever one of the witnesses would read that, they would realize that the constitution, (or those amendments at least) never mentioned that only American citizens were protected. After that, whenever they were asked a question about the constitution only applying to American citizens, they could only respond by saying "I don't know" instead of, "Yes, Senate Bill 1070 is unconstitutional."

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

I think the most significant argument made was between Jan Brewer and Calvin. While she was trying to hold her ground, he ended up getting her completely tongue-tied because she couldn't answer a lot of the questions about her own bill. He asked her about if immigration was counted as a foreign matter and if individual states could make laws about foreign affairs, which she had to answer no to. Then he asked her where in the constitution it said that only American citizens were protected, and she said that it didn't either. So when he asked her "Is Senate Bill 1070 unconstitutional?" all she could say was, "I don't know the answer to that question".

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

I agree with the jury, (partially because I was on the prosecution) but also because I believe that Senate Bill 1070 promotes racism, nationalism and profiling. It encourages police officers, and gives them the right, to question and search innocent people just because of the color of their skin. In my opinion, that is saying that profiling is okay, racial profiling is okay, and that America is the "top country" and nobody from the outside should be aloud in. Even if police officers are searching people of all races, in my opinion that is just being a bigot towards any non-American as if they are not human.

Grading

I think I deserve a 50 out of 50 points because I took my role very seriously, I did as much work as I could in the amount of time I was given, (I was called in as a witness a bit late in the game) and even when I was in Sacramento I brought, (and read) two huge books all about the constitution. I made sure I knew everything that I had to about specific amendments in the constitution and I made sure to stand my ground during the trial.

I did the following things very well: I knew my subject, I had an answer to almost every question asked with few exceptions, I took notes during the trial that I knew could help my lawyers and I made sure my point was made the whole way through the trial.

I could have studied outside of the constitution a bit. I was told to study the constitution so that's all I did. I learned a little bit about certain acts and things such as the Chinese exclusion act etc. but I can't tell you much about it because I wasn't expecting to get any questions about anything other than the constitution. If I were to do this again I would have looked outside of just the constitution a bit more.