Barristers, Bailiffs, and Ballots

Day Two of the American Moot Court Association’s South Texas Regional Tournament in Fort Worth offered SHSU’s moot court students a valuable opportunity to learn from some of the nation’s top competitors, become more familiar with Texas A&M University’s School of Law, and help out as needed.

Although none of SHSU’s teams remained in the competition, the students stayed for the day to support the tournament. The day featured four rounds: the Sweet Sixteen, quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals.

The bracket for the day looked like this:

  • 1 / 16: UC Berkely (Tran and Vel) against U of Incarnate Word (Boubel and Shah)
  • 2/15: Cal State–Long Beach (Sanzobrin and Khodjakhonova) against UT Arlington (Osei and Masood)
  • 3/14: UT Dallas (Das and Tsa) against TCU (Morvant and Addison)
  • 4/13: Baylor (Barrow and Alzarez) against UT Dallas (Elsadi and Baldazo)
  • 5/12: TCU (Cantrill and Bene) against Howard Payne University (Horton and Herrera)
  • 6/11: Baylor (Smith and Molinaro) against Howard Payne University (Sandlin and Mathis)
  • 7/10: Baylor (Beck and Homberg) against TCU (Caldwell and Grau)
  • 8/9: UNT (Rhoades and Ethridge) against UT Arlington (Nixon v. Thatraju)

In a couple of the rounds, a person dressed as a witch -this being Halloween- served as a judge.

After each round, members of the American Moot Court Association’s Board and staff from Texas A&M School of Law announced the winners and directed teams to their rooms for the next round.

We noticed that when teams lost, they tended to leave. We opted to stay, out of respect for the winners, and to assist as we could. Accordingly, we served as bailiffs throughout the day, helping keep the proceedings running smoothly. Every student served as a bailiff for at least one round, and most served for two. They also remained available to assist as coaches and in other capacities as needed.

Ryan Snow had the distinction of serving as bailiff for the championship round, held in Texas A&M’s courtroom. The final featured two outstanding teams: Aaron Tran and Nayan Vel of the University of California, Berkeley, and Anna Kate Beck and Maya Homberg of Baylor University.

The championship round featured a panel of five judges, many of whom brought extensive courtroom experience from both sides of the bench. Their collective experience provided a formidable audience for the finalists as they presented their arguments.

The final proved to be a closely contested affair.

After a hard-fought round, Baylor (Beck and Homberg) emerged victorious by a narrow margin, winning three ballots to two.

The top four competitors were gracious following the round. They even posed for a selfie together, and they also posed for photographers–which meant us, as the tournament didn’t have a designated photographer.

Despite the fact that all of SHSU’s competitors would have liked to have been competing on Saturday, it was a rewarding day.

The finalists were excellent, providing lessons for future competitions, and the judges’ questions were, for the most part, insightful and skilled.

Reata

After a full day of moot court, the SHSU group headed to Reata in downtown Fort Worth for dinner, where the restaurant’s distinctive Southwestern cuisine provided a fitting end to the day- and to the Fort Worth “vibe.” The group began with a starter sampler featuring an adventurous assortment of flavors, including polenta, quail, lamb fries, elk sausage, and tortillas.

The variety offered something a little different from the usual dinner fare and gave everyone a chance to sample several specialties.

The entrees were equally varied, ranging from fish and grilled chicken to chicken-fried steak, chile rellenos, Brussels sprouts, and polenta.

Everything was well received, but the chile rellenos proved to be a particular standout. Of course, no dinner would be complete without dessert, and Reata delivered on that front, too. The bread pudding crème brûlée and baked apple fritter served with ice cream were the evening’s clear favorites.

After a day of competition, service, and learning, the excellent meal provided a welcome opportunity for everyone to relax and enjoy one another’s company.

Face to Face with a Dictator: The Real Story Behind The Hunt for Saddam

LEAP Students are always eager for opportunities to expand their understanding of global affairs and politics. Recently, we returned to Houston for a special World Affairs Council event featuring a screening and discussion of TNT’s limited series High Value Target: The Hunt for Saddam, alongside the man who lived it: former CIA Senior Leadership Analyst John Nixon.

The program was moderated by Ronan O’Malley, WAC’s Chief Programs Officer, who has followed and hosted Nixon since the 2016 release of his groundbreaking memoir, titled Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein.

The evening took a slight departure from the traditional format, opening with a screening of the premiere episode. Starring Joel Kinnaman as Nixon and Waleed Zuaiter as Saddam Hussein, the dramatization pulled us straight into the tension of 2003 Iraq and retraced the relentless intelligence work that led U.S. forces to an underground spider hole in Ad-Dawr.

Following the screening, Nixon took the stage to talk more about Hollywood’s adaptation, the reality of Iraqi leadership, and what it was like to look the Iraqi dictator in the eye.

As the CIA’s top Hussein analyst, Nixon was flown in the middle of the night along Baghdad’s perilous Airport Road to answer the critical question: Had they truly captured Saddam Hussein?

Nixon recounted that the moment the door opened to the holding room, he knew instantly that the person sitting across from him was Hussein. Yet instead of seeing a broken captive, Nixon encountered a master manipulator sitting calmly on a folding chair, acting as though the interrogators were merely guests arriving on a routine Saturday evening. Hussein immediately sought cracks in the room, attempting to pit the CIA and military interpreters against one another when translation discrepancies arose.

Nixon also discussed how Hussein’s chaotic record-keeping contributed to the catastrophic intelligence failures surrounding weapons of mass destruction. For example, Iraq had destroyed vast amounts of stockpiles, but Hussein kept no verifiable paper trail, which was partly out of bureaucratic disarray, and partly out of fear of showing regional weakness to neighboring Iran.

Perhaps most surprising was Hussein’s reaction to September 11. Far from expecting a confrontation, Hussein genuinely believed the attacks would bring Iraq and the United States closer together against shared extremist threats, completely failing to grasp that Washington was already preparing to seal his fate.

Addressing the broader takeaways of the war, Nixon offered a candid reflection that regime change is deceptively difficult, and removing a strongman without a stable post-war framework creates a vacuum that endures for decades.

Before concluding, attendees had the chance to mingle, snap photos, and discuss the nuances of intelligence analysis with Nixon, making it another unforgettable night with the World Affairs Council.