In our four years at Sam Houston State University, we have had many opportunities to attend conferences. And, perhaps unusually, we have also had the opportunity to present at conferences, and one of those opportunities arose late this semester–two weeks prior to our graduation!
Our presentation, alongside Dean Lyons and Associate Dean Boisvert, was to highlight the many ways that SHSU, the College of Criminal Justice, and the LEAP Center help bridge the gap between academia and the “real-world.”
While the Deans ably handled high-level things such as state mandates, trends in higher education, and challenges faced across the educational industry, we offered an overview of some of the ways that this curricular “bridge” has helped us participate in and transition to the workplace.
This included discussions of things we experience in the classroom, such as police simulations; internship opportunities we have had in and outside of our fields of study; travel opportunities we have enjoyed; and the community service in which we have engaged. This approach was taken to demonstrate that, in a world where a career lattice (rather than career ladder) is likely, it’s important to have broad and well-rounded skills rather than narrow and inflexible skills.
It was a pleasure to have this opportunity–and especially together–as we approach our graduation. As fellow Criminal Justice majors with an assortment of minors, and as former SHAIP interns, and as students very active in the LEAP program, it was a pleasure to share some of our experiences with Dean Lyons and Associate Dean Danielle Boisvert…
…in front of many of the leading professionals in the correctional-legal field.
Each year, the American Moot Court Association fields national competition for pre-law students. The competition consists of regional tournaments, preliminary nationals, and then nationals. For those into writing, there is a separate brief writing contest.
The Moot Court experience simulates that of an appeals court, an appropriate match for SHSU, inasmuch as we are one of the few institutions to bring in an appeals court annually to hear cases.
This Year’s Moot Court Case & “How to Win in the Courtroom”
Each summer, Professor Yawn teaches “How to Win in the Courtroom,” which uses the Moot Court case as the class curriculum. Students who sign up for this course will not only receive academic credit, but also have a head start in learning the material. The course unfolds as follows:
Introduction to Courts and the Judicial System
How to Brief a Case / Moot Court Rules
Bronner v. US
Con Law Cases (8 involving the 4th Amendment and search and seizure; 9 involving Article II of the US Constitution and Presidential Powers)
Oral Arguments
This year’s case involves the detention of Bobby Bronner following a 93-day period of visual surveillance, posing questions of (1) the extent to which the government can use surveillance techniques (in this case, “Ring” cameras installed on telephone poles) and (2) the legality of detaining non-citizens under presidential order.
Moot Court Team Awaits Its Assignment
Students interested in Moot Court are thus encouraged to take the class, allowing them earn credit while gaining low-pressure exposure to Moot Court. Students who do well in the course and otherwise show desirable characteristics of a moot court participant are invited to meet with the coach and team lead.
Depending on the number of participants and the budget, additional students may be able to try out for the team.
How Moot Court Works
“Mooters,” as participants are called, compete in teams of two. One individual handles the first legal issue (in this year’s case, it is the fourth amendment); the second member of the team handles the second legal issue (Article II powers of the President, in this year’s case). with one of the team handling rebuttal, when called for.
To prepare for the Oral Arguments, the team members have to thoroughly know their own issue, and have some knowledge of their teammate’s issue. This involves reading and re-reading the hypothetical scenario posed by AMCA (i.e., Bronner v. US) and the cases that form the backbone of their issue. For the Fourth Amendment issue, as previously mentioned, this involves eight cases, including landmark USSC cases such as Katz v. US. For the Article II issue, this involves reading nine cases, including landmark USSC cases such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer.
Mooters Participate in Weekly Meetings to Prepare
Even after taking the class “How to Win in the Courtroom,” students will need to engage in weekly meetings (approximately two hours long) in preparation of the regional tournament, which typically takes place in late October or early November. Because registration for the tournaments takes place September 1, teams have to be established by then.
The Competition
There are approximately 15 regional tournaments each year, and in the last two years, SHSU has attended tournaments in Fort Worth (TAMU Law) and Fort Lauderdale (Shepard Broad College of Law).
For the first round, teams are assigned their role: either petitioner or respondent, with the petitioner having the opportunity for rebuttal. Three judges (actual attorneys) hear the cases, interrupting as they see fit, and scoring each participant following the round.
Participants are scored on (1) knowledge, (2) response to questions, (3) forensic skill/courtroom demeanor, and (4) organization, logic, and clarity of argument.
For the second round, teams take the side opposite they argued in the first round, and for round three, a coin toss determines the team’s side.
Depending on the size of the tournament, a quarter to half the teams will advance to the tournament’s second day, where the competition will proceed much like the first day.
Benefits of Moot Court
Moot Court sharpens the mind, pushing students to develop reading comprehension skills, sharpen their persuasive skills, enhance their public speaking, refine their use of logic, and expand their legal network.
Almost all law schools offer a Moot Court team, and law students have the option to choose among Moot Court, Mock Law, Negotiations, or all three. Participating as an undergraduate can give students a head start on this decision, while also providing skills and exposure that helps in law school.
Students who would like to learn more about Moot Court can go the American Moot Court Association’s website.
One of the advantages of attending SHSU is the opportunities afforded by the College of Criminal Justice, whose activities continue deep into the semester and even the summer. And so it was we found ourselves at lunch with 74 professionals from the legal and corrections community across the state of Texas–while listening to Texas Supreme Court Justice James Sullivan.
After an introduction by TDCJ General Counsel Stephanie Greger…
…Justice Sullivan highlighted five keys to leading teams of public servants.
Hire people smarter than you;
Grow a coaching tree;
Lead from the front;
Show people you care;
Build resilience.
He offered examples from his career, which he often shared tinged with traces of humor and a lot of common sense. He described his career as a government attorney and noted that while he didn’t earn as much as his private-practice counterparts (his wife, he says, “funds my government attorney hobby”), he was part of a team that produced successful leaders. This involves, he noted, disruption: good attorneys come in and work for the state; after a couple of years, they get better offers; and they move on to higher-paying jobs with greater influence. This creates turnover, but it is a product of a good strategy: hiring good people. And while those people leave eventually, they become coaches in their own spheres of influence, producing leaders that go on to serve.
Sullivan’s audience was on hand at SHSU to attend the Texas Criminal Justice Legal Conference, where leading practitioners were present to collaborate, think, and act to make Texas a better place. There were numerous attorneys present, including our friend Jack Choate and his excellent staff, and some new people we met, such as Rachelle White, Chief of Staff for TDCJ; Sean Groves, Deputy Executive Director of Texas Juvenile Justice; Eric Nichols, attorney at Butler Snow and Chairman of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice; and Wyvonne Long, Director of TDCJ Independent Office of Inmate Counsel. In short, there were a lot of people present from whom we could learn.
And learn we did! Between the conversations at the table and in the room, and the presentation by Justice Sullivan, we were exposed not only to tips for managing public servants, but also to the many careers in the law that also allow for public service.
For our second meeting of the semester, Pre-Law Society had the pleasure of hearing from Sam Houston State University’s Police Department. Rather than the traditional typical guest speaker, lecture-style, format, we engaged in some fun activities that are both relevant to the legal field, but also college students, especially when it comes to alcohol, substances, and decision-making. Olivia Discon briefly introduced Sergeant Butterworth (“Butters”) and Lieutenant Zella, and Professor Mike Yawn.
Instead of jumping straight into laws and definitions, they started with something more familiar to everyone in the room: “extracurricular” college life. The kind that doesn’t go on a resume.
What made this meeting stand out was how interactive it was. Rather than talking at us, they walked us through real scenarios, ones that felt uncomfortably realistic. Two students acted out a situation at a house party: one over 21, one underage, a drink left unattended. At first, it seemed harmless. But as Butters and Zella broke it down, the legal implications became clear, showing how quickly a casual decision can turn into a charge. That theme carried throughout the night: small choices, real consequences.
One of the most impactful moments came during a scenario involving someone who had clearly had too much to drink. The question wasn’t just “what’s illegal?” it was “what do you do in case of an emergency?” Students talked through what it means to take care of someone in that situation, from recognizing the signs of alcohol poisoning to physically placing someone in the correct position for safety. Our very own Brittlyn Jackson was eager to take the role of the incapacitated person, which she took on with uncanny verisimilitude!
Various people in the audience made suggestions about how to help Brittlyn, but the most helpful and obvious of choices–calling 911–was not immediately volunteered. But this is crucial, and for those worried about getting in trouble, there is a “Good Samaritan Law” to protect individuals (under specific conditions) who call in such an emergency.
The next scenario played out involved a traffic stop with the potential for DWI and DUI. Gabriel Kranz-Danet played our “drunk driver,” and we learned about the best ways to pull over safely and swiftly. Unfortunately for Gabriel, his almost immediate confession brought this scenario to a quick conclusion!
We then shifted to what would occur after a traffic stop to determine whether someone is under the influence: Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST).
To best simulate the experience, various students put on goggles that distort vision, and for some, balance and coordination. As the students made their best attempts to “pass” the test, several good questions about their careers, hypotheticals, and explanations about the process occurred. It was quite fun to watch the students struggle to catch an eraser, walk in a straight line, or stand on one foot. Of course, we discourage any student from drinking and driving, but we would like to note that, based on their performances with drunk goggles, this would be particularly disastrous for Eva Killande rand La’Kia Tilley.
Another way we learned that police officers can determine impairment was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test. It is the physiological phenomenon that occurs when someone is under the influence of alcohol, causing involuntary jerking of the eye as it follows the movement of objects. We simulated this sensation by spinning Victoria Reich, PLS member and employee of Student Legal and Mediation Services in an office chair. Though it was brief compared to true alcoholic impairment, we were able to see Victoria’s eyes shift quickly which was quite interesting!
Our group thoroughly enjoyed this event. Many thanks to Jayden Shoellhorn, Sergeant Butterworth, and Lieutenant Zella for joining us and for their service to the SHSU and broader Huntsville community.
The meeting then transitioned into more general business. Nataly Elizondo provided the finance update, Olivia Discon shared social media and membership updates, and Madison Cawthon presented meeting minutes. Olivia then introduced upcoming events, including the Mock LSAT (deadline to register is April 1), 10th Court of Appeals, and a Spring Social on April 22.
Overall, this meeting stood out because it didn’t just tell us what the law is but also how it plays out in real life. This meeting was a reminder to all of us that setting ourselves up for success isn’t just about future careers in law, but about the decisions we make right now.
Although Huntsville residents have their share of exposure to the criminal justice system, they rarely have a chance to see an appeals court in action. That changes this Wednesday, April 1, when the Center for Law, Engagement, And Politics hosts the Texas 10th Court of Appeals at Sam Houston State University (Kerper Courtroom), with hearings at 10am, 11am, and 1:30pm. The cases involve possession of a firearm by a felon, charges, sexual abuse of a minor, and possession of a controlled substance.
“The cases are interesting to the local community and students alike,” notes LEAP Ambassador Michelle Cardenas. “It’s a rare chance to see our appeals court in action, and this year’s cases are especially intriguing.”
The 10th Court of Appeals typically meets in Waco, where they hear cases two-three times a year. But the Texas Legislature allows the appellate courts to travel to county seats within their jurisdiction. The 10th Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction extends to some 18 counties, including Walker County, and they have travelled to SHSU every year since 2012 to hear three or, sometimes, four cases.
In addition to changing the venue, the justices also alter the courtroom procedures slightly to suit the educational setting. Attorneys for both the plaintiff and the defendant have three minutes to turn, face the audience, and provide the facts of the case. Although this component of the hearing has no impact on the justices’ decision, it is designed to allow those in attendance to better follow the legal arguments that will be put forth.
This year’s cases involve diverse issues and will take place at the times listed below:
10am: Milton Rederick Miller v. State of TX : This appeal involves possession of a firearm by a felon, with the legal issues addressing, among other things, whether barring guns from non-violent felons violates the 2nd amendment and whether the defendant was competent to represent himself.
11am: Tacoby Davis v. State of TX: this appeal involves charges of sexual assault of a child. The legal issue involves the question of what constitutes a “public trial” and whether barring a testifying witness from the courtroom compromises that constitutional guarantee.
1:30pm: Tyrone Shepard v. State of TX—This appeal involves a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The legal issues involve the relevance of the defendant’s previous arrest for controlled substance and his right to a speedy trial.
Unlike trial courts, which select juries and are presided over by a single judge; the 10th Court of Appeals is presided over by a three-justice panel: Chief Justice Matt Johnson, Justice Steve Smith and Justice Lee Harris. In appeals hearings, there are no juries, no witnesses, no direct or cross-examinations, and no outcome is decided immediately at the end of the hearing. Rather, each side is given 20 minutes to argue their case, with the justices often interjecting to ask questions, challenge an interpretation, or to seek additional information.
The cases will be heard at the Kerper Courtroom in the CJ Center at Sam Houston State University. Although the courtroom rarely reaches capacity, it has occurred, and seating is provided on a first-come, first-served basis. Local residents are welcome to attend. For more information, contact Mike Yawn at 936-294-1456 (or by email at mike.yawn@shsu.edu).
Please note there is a dress and etiquette code enforced by the court. It is:
Dress Code – All persons attending any portion of the oral argument sessions must wear proper attire. The following is a list of inappropriate attire that includes, but may not be limited to:
T-shirts with any type of inappropriate language or picture
Weapons – Weapons of any type are NOT allowed in the room where the oral arguments are taking place. Electronic Devices –ALL electronic devices must be either turned off or set to silent. Recording– No photos, broadcasting or recording devices are allowed during the oral argument session. Food and/or Drink – No food or drink is allowed during the oral argument session. This also includes tobacco products and chewing gum. Behavior – Any person who disrupts the proceedings by talking, making noise, public display of signs, or similar conduct will be required to leave the courtroom. Entrance and Departure – The Court strongly discourages the entering and departure of the courtroom during hearings. The bailiffs will permit entry at the top of the hour, at the beginning of hearings, and at 50 minutes past the hour.
I have attended many World Affairs Council Events, but none has caught my interest in the way that Dr. Tam Dao did with his presentation on “Sexpionage”–the use of sex in the world of espionage.
Dr. Doa is the Associate Vice President for Campus Safety and Research Security at Rice University. Before joining Rice University, Dr. Dao held various positions at the FBI, including work in the counterintelligence task force, classified briefings, and as a certified hostage negotiator.
The event was in a smaller setting, making it more intimate and interactive.
Dao noted that men are much likely to be “victims” of sexpionage than women, and the examples he offered, such as Lt. Col. Benjamin Bishop, bore that out. We also discussed the case of Robert Hanssen, although this was not a true “sexpionage” case.
Not all the cases, however, were as high profile as the above. In many cases, the “espionage” is the process of surreptitiously gaining access to professors’ academic research. Interestingly, Dao noted, many of the people who are seeking this information are doing it for the love of their native countries–despite the fact that they live in the United States and enjoy the opportunities the US affords them.
Dao, an immigrant himself, finds this behavior curious and ironic. While acknowledging flaws in the US culture, politics, and economic system, he praised the US for the opportunities it has offered him and his family.
This was one of the most enjoyable of the WACs we have attended, a sentiment we shared with Dr. Dao following his presentation.
Katz’s Deli
Following the WAC event, we stopped at Katz’s Deli, where we enjoyed various deli-type sandwiches, including a Lox sandwich, a Reuben…
It’s not always easy to make Constitutional Law and, especially, Texas Government, fun, but it’s a lot easier with quality guest speakers. For Professor Yawn’s classes last week, the guest speakers were Sgt. Butterworth and Lt. Zella, who worked in tandem to provide information to students about police-community relations.
The discussion covered various topics and included many questions. One key takeaway was that the police approach each encounter under a certain amount of stress, and while they are trained in their encounters, things go more smoothly when citizens don’t exacerbate the situation.
A simple traffic stop, for example, can go more smoothly if the driver (1) pulls over as soon as it is convenient and signals their intention to do so (e.g., slowing down, a blinker, hazards), (2) turns on their interior lights, (3) avoids sudden movements, and (4) keeps their hands visible.
Police have much discretion on these encounters. A noise violation called on an after party, for example, can be a simple matter of telling people to “quiet down” or it can result in arrests. This is often determined by the scope of illegal activity, the demeanor of those in the house, and the extent to which people are a danger to themselves or others.
For those that don’t consider themselves a danger after drinking or smoking weed, their performances with “drunk goggles” and “cannabis goggles” suggests otherwise, although Michelle Moya (POLS 4334) and Robin Houghton (POLS 2306) did suspiciously well on the walk-and-turn sobriety tests. Other students didn’t perform quite as well on simple sobriety tests.
In two 75-minute sessions, Butterworth and Zella effectively reached out to more than 200 students, improving community relations, increasing mutual understanding, and leaving a lot of students laughing.
Many thanks to Kimani Vercher, Jamya Wright, Robin Houghton, Gus Stephens, Jose Carreno, Audry Brysch, Jack Robinson, Isaac Mokrane, Charlotte Olivares, Hailey Arsham, Michelle Moya, Niya Thompson, and Kevon Paire for being good sports.
To see how the POLS 2306 students performed, see the video below.
To see how the POLS 4334 students performed, see the video below.
Even during a government shutdown, the Federal Bureau of Investigation engages in outreach to the broader community. Accordingly, on Wednesday, November 12th, 2025, forty-five students from Sam Houston State University with an interest in federal law enforcement were selected to attend SHSU’s first-ever FBI Collegiate Academy, organized and led by the LEAP Center.
Over a half-day, students heard from a career panel, learned about the role of genealogy and DNA in solving crimes, helped “solve” an art crime, and learned about the Emergency Response Team.
Douglas Williams, the Special Agent in Charge of the Houston Division, welcomed he students to the Field Office before turning it over to a Special Agent who offered insight into a new technique employed by the Bureau to solve crimes and cold cases: genealogy investigation. The session outlined the FBI’s work in evidence examination and presented his work in closing a cold case dating back to 1983: the murder of Susan Eads. Tracing DNA found in a long forgotten, yet perfectly preserved, piece of evidence, investigators were able to retrace the family’s genealogical tree up to a single great-grandparent, and down again. Further testing of recent relatives provided a concrete identification that put the case to rest and brought Eads’ family long needed closure. The work showed the students that the work of the FBI may not be all high-stress and high action, but methodical, research-based, and compassionate for victims who have felt forgotten about.
This presentation was followed by a Career Panel, moderated by Public Affairs Officer Connor Hagan. Five panelists (unnamed here for security reasons) each showcased their positions within the FBI: an Intelligence Analyst working cyber, a Tactical Specialist working gangs, a Special Agent, a Digital Forensic Examiner, and a Supervisory Investigative Specialist. Highly interesting was the fact that four of the five panelists were either alumni or received some sort of graduate education from Sam Houston State University–and the fifth took a class at SHSU! The panelists shared their journeys to becoming Bureau employees, whether it was interning while an undergraduate at Sam Houston State or bouncing through the law enforcement field. Emphasis was placed on the fact that anyone from anywhere can work for the FBI – anyone with the right sort of skills can make it. The panelists cleared up some common misconceptions about their jobs showcased in the media and provided examples of cases they worked on.
Recruiting Agent Becky Nguyen then guided students through the process of an FBI investigation, using the example of a high-profile art crime involving a stolen Stradivarius violin. Students participated by answering questions prompted by SA Nguyen, and received insight into how investigations operate, the jurisdictional processes that are involved, and FBI values and practices. This session segued perfectly into a presentation by an Evidence Response Team Special Agent, Mary Beth. The Houston ERT was notably present during the series of mail bombings in both Austin and Beaumont, TX and the Sutherland Springs mass shooting. Nationally, ERT secured major crime scenes such as 9/11’s Ground Zero and the recent New Year’s Eve terror attack in New Orleans. The Bureau’s forensic evidence technology is groundbreaking and expansive, using such methods as robots and drones, and laser environment scanning for crime scene reconstruction. As Public Affairs Officer Hagan added, the training the FBI’s Evidence Response Team undergoes is “the best of the best”.
Following the morning of activities, students thanked the presenters for their support and service, especially during the government shutdown. The students made their way back downstairs, passing a wall memorializing fallen FBI employees in the line of duty. Students left the building with a new sense of fulfillment and understanding of the sacrifice and commitment every FBI employee embodies, which comes from, as noted by SAC Williams, faith in an institution and purpose “that has been here long before us and will be here long after us.”
Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics 