Category: Law

Firearm Possession, Sexual Abuse, and Drug Possession on Tap for SHSU Courtroom

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.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray,

“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.

SHSU, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, 10th Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Tom Gray,

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:

  • Shorts (includes cut-offs, running shorts, Daisy Dukes)
  • Tank tops; Halter tops
  • Caps/hats
  • Mini skirts; Sweat pants, leggings
  • 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.

Contracts, Promissory Estoppel, & Chess: Simulated Law Class with Professor Val Ricks

Last week, LEAP students had the opportunity to experience what it’s like to be in a law class led by Professor Val Ricks at South Texas College of Law Houston! From cold calls that made us lean in with anticipation…

…to deep dives into Promissory Estoppel, Professor Ricks left us all with new knowledge and a new way of viewing words.

The mock class started with defining what law is, specifically:

Law: a set of words that, independent of anyone involved in litigation, describes or establishes a standard of conduct which against the actions of those involved in litigation — including the judge — may be measured. 

Why do humans form law? Would law exist if humans didn’t? The simple answer is: Law is just a standard of conduct humans use to govern themselves. Even though we write them down, without us here to interpret those words, they would have no value.

Professor Ricks related law to a game of Chess, each piece on the board is affected by a rule, that, in turn, influences the sequence of the game.

Then it was time for the case: G.D. Holdings, INC. v. H.D.H. Land & Timber, L.P., a civil case revolving the transaction of 300,000 dollars in exchange for nine acres of land IF the land were to be surveyed, cleared, and level. Professor Ricks provided us with the facts of the case and turned it over to us, cold calling on students…

…to give the other aspects of their case briefs.

Learning from each other, we began to apply the rule of Promissory Estoppel, re-defining its three requisites.

As a class we came to understand that Promissory Estoppel is when a promise is made and the person making the promise can reasonably predict that the person agreeing to the promise will rely on that promise in a detrimental way.

In the example case, the promise was the purchase of land by G.D. Holdings from H.D.H. once the land got cleared.

We also learned that even though both parties signed a contract, because one party crossed out a clause in the contract before signing, the law considers that to be two different contracts meaning there wasn’t ever a valid contract.

After we dissected the case and the language used in it, we got to practice our application with a few examples and found that Professor Ricks (to no one’s surprise) did an excellent job at teaching us the concepts so we all properly applied the learned rules to other cases.

We also got the chance to ask Professor Ricks about law school admissions, grading, as well as what to expect in similar law school classes. Of course, we had to get our signature selfie to finish the class, but the learning didn’t stop there as even afterwards, all of us were beaming with a new passion for contract law and hopes for what future knowledge lies ahead.

Staying out of “Legal Jeopardy” While Having Fun

On January 21, Student Legal & Mediation Services, the Pre-Law Society, and the LEAP Center hosted “Legal Jeopardy” in the LSC, bringing together students for an evening of learning, connection, and friendly competition.

The evening began at 6pm, with check-in and networking while students enjoyed pizza and dessert. Upon arrival, each attendee was assigned to one of four teams, each led by our team leaders: Brittlyn Jackson (Team 1), Jacob Wessels and Allie Plunk (Team 2), Elizabeth Werts and Abigail Wilmot (Team 3), and Isis Hollis and Robin Houghton (Team 4), while our logistical managers, IT Directors, and Sergeant-at-Arms prepared for the evening.

With games ranging from spoon races (with crafted spoons) to rock-paper-scissors to “Hot Topics” and more, the students engaged various levels of fun and sportsmanship.

The team-building brought people together, while also providing cues to the teams who they did–and didn’t–want to represent them in the official jeopardy contests.

Jeopardy officially began at 7pm, with Logistics Manager Olivia McCaughan introducing our host, Dr. Gene Roberts, our IT Director Kayla Fleming, and our Sergeant at Arms, Matthew Bocanegra and, most important, explaining the rules of the game.

The first round of Jeopardy featured categories such as:

  • Famous Speech and Expression Supreme Court Cases
  • Famous Supreme Court Criminal Cases
  • Legal Terminology
  • Supreme Court Chief Justices
  • Legal Thrillers (Film)
  • The US Constitution

With each team having a designated spokesperson and buzzer pusher, the games commenced!

The room soon erupted in cheers, groans, and laughter, as teams deliberated and tried to be the first on the buzzers (which could measure differences up to a millisecond).

Ultimately, Team One came out the winner, armed with the talent of Brittlyn Jackson, Makenna McDaniel, Luke Hempfling, and Eduardo Maia, and they were definitely among the most animated. They won Orange Lululemon belt bags as prizes, courtesy of Student Legal & Mediation Services.

A second round, purely for fun, ensued, with lighter categories such as SHSU, Pop Culture Mashup, State Capitals, Things Pre-Law Students Should Know, and Things You Should Have Learned in High School. For this round, the entire group was able to participate, and this time, Team Four won.

With almost seventy people in attendance at this event, we needed a lot of help. Makenna McDaniel and Brianne Barclay did a great job checking people in; PLS Treasurer, Nataly Elizondo, accepted dues for the organization–bringing in some new members in the process; and Jackie Balbuena took video for some follow-up marketing.

The event highlighted the contributions that the Pre-Law Society, the LEAP Center, and the Student & Legal Mediation Services make across campus, while also bringing people together for a night of a lot of fun and a little bit of learning, too.

Pre-Law Society Hosts Attorney Michael Foreman for an Engaging and Insightful Meeting

This Wednesday’s last Pre-Law Society meeting of the semester ended up being one of our most helpful and interesting ones yet. We started with our usual updates: finances, social media, minutes, and spring-semester dues, before going over upcoming events and ideas for the rest of the year.

Once we wrapped up business, Olivia Discon introduced Attorney Michael Foreman, a Baylor Law graduate and trial lawyer at Haney Paschal & Romoser right here in Huntsville, Texas. Foreman works in family, personal injury, contract and property disputes, and trusts and estates law. From the moment he started speaking, it was clear he had a lot of real-world experience to share.

He began with a question many of us think about: “Does mock trial really prepare you for the courtroom?” Foreman didn’t hesitate. “It’s as close as you can get to actually being in a courtroom,” he said, and encouraged anyone considering law school to get involved. That immediately set the tone for how honest and practical he would be throughout the night.

He also walked us through how he made it onto law review at Baylor. Students can qualify by being in the top 5% of their class or by submitting a strong writing sample. He explained how law review improves your writing, your ability to read cases deeply, and your confidence going into legal practice.

When he talked about law school itself, Foreman didn’t sugarcoat anything. Most classes come down to one final exam, but everything you do during the semester prepares you for it. He stressed how important class rank is your first year, saying, “Your first year is very important. It dictates your speed to success.” Hearing that from someone who has lived it made everyone sit up a little straighter.

Foreman also shared stories from his internships and clerkships, and gave advice that many of us needed to hear: if you get accepted into multiple law schools, choose the best one you can, even if another feels more comfortable. “The first ten years of your career are shaped by the path you choose,” he said. Everyone took a second to process their reality, and most even would say that motivated them even further.

He then talked about the difference between big and small firms. While large firms may seem impressive, he reminded us that new lawyers often don’t get meaningful hands-on work there. Smaller firms, like Haney Paschal & Romoser, give young attorneys real opportunities to learn the entire process, from meeting clients to preparing for trial. It made the legal world feel a little less intimidating. It gave us insight that we would not be able to find on our own as undergraduates.

One of the most interesting parts of his talk was when he described a Texas Renaissance Festival contract case involving $72 million. He used that case to explain what depositions are and why they matter. “Depositions are your first chance to question witnesses under oath,” he said, adding that you often learn the most when you take action early in a case. He also shared the heartbreaking detail that the festival’s owner later committed suicide, which reminded everyone just how much stress clients can be under. “Everyone you work with is under stress,” Foreman told us. “Your job is to give peace of mind and manage expectations.”

From there, he covered probate, personal-injury billing, and the emotional nature of family law. He explained that while the legal part of family law may be straightforward, the challenge comes from guiding clients through tough, emotional situations. “Emotions do not determine decisions,” he said, “but they determine how you communicate.”

He ended the night with a line that stuck with almost everyone: “Law school is ultimately betting on yourself.” For many of us, that was the reminder we needed, that pursuing law is a commitment, but also an investment in who we want to become.

Overall, the meeting was encouraging, honest, and incredibly helpful. We left with a clearer picture of law school, the profession, and the responsibility lawyers carry. It was exactly the kind of meeting that motivates future law students to keep pushing forward.

To finish off the night, the Pre-Law Society and Micheal Foreman had the honor of giving our graduating seniors their cords and PLS certificates.

We are sad to see them go, but grateful to have seen these individuals grow. We wish the best of luck to them and their journeys as aspiring attorneys!

Mooting in Miami

After a summer of study and two additional months of practice, LEAP’s Moot Court team made their way to Fort Lauderdale (which, in fairness to the title, is near Miami) for the Sunshine State Regional Moot Court Tournament–part of the American Moot Court Association’s annual national competition.

AMCA Board Member Ben Rathsam Kicking Things Off

The Moot Court Process

The Moot Court process has many moving parts, but the steps are straightforward:

  • Each team has two members, with one tackling the 14th amendment (equal protection) and one tackling the 1st amendment (speech);
  • Teams then register for one of 18 regional tournaments across the US;
  • Teams then compete in the tournament for which they registered, and if they qualify, they move on to a “Preliminary National Tournament” and, if they qualify again, the National Tournament.

Teams are evaluated on four broad categories: Knowledge, Courtroom Demeanor, Response to Questions, and the Clarity and Logic of the Argument.

Michael Dass from NSU

Moot Court at Sam Houston State University (SHSU)

SHSU begins its Moot Court involvement shortly after AMCA releases the Case Problem (May 1). Over the summer, Professor Mike Yawn teaches “How to Win in the Courtroom,” using the Case Problem (and the ancillary 20 other cases) as the curriculum, and culminating with live “hearings.”

In late August or early September, official tryouts are held, and students compete for team spots. The LEAP Center selected five participants this year, making up two teams and a “spare:” Team One is Madison Thurkettle and Allison Lindle; Team Two is Ashton Droll and Maddie Cawthon. A fifth student, Katie Wilson, made the team, but lacked a teammate.

All of these students committed to weekly practices during September and October, with the goal of being prepared for today’s tournament.

The Sunshine Tournament

The Shepard Broad College of Law at Nova Southeastern University hosted the Sunshine Tournament, giving 64 students the opportunity to travel; visit a law school; perform in front of judges, bailiffs, and tournament organizers; and meet other pre-law students from across the country. AMCA Representative Ben Rathsam introduced the event, and Shepard Broad Law Professor Marc Consalo provided additional guidance, helping orient the students, and focusing their minds.

Day One, to use a sport analogy, is the “regular season,” and it consists of three rounds for each team. The first round began at 2:00pm, with Thurkettle and Lindle representing the petitioner and competing at a team from Central Florida; Droll and Cawthon also represented the petitioner, and they competed against a team from Nova Southeastern University. In subsequent rounds, SHSU teams faced competitors from Stetson University, Benedictine College, Liberty University, and the University of Tampa.

Moot Court Self Care

Katie Wilson, although not competing this year, travelled with the team, proving herself an expert navigator, and a quick-learning photographer.

Competing

Although the students have been involved in more than a dozen formal practices and numerous individual practices, the real thing brings a fresh sense of nerves.

“For me, the first round was the worst,” noted Madison Thurkettle, a Junior at SHSU, and a first-time competitor in Moot Court, “and I was able to loosen up in the subsequent rounds.”

Allison Lindle, Thurkettle’s teammate, agreed: “The first round was nerves; the second round, we were able to see some success; and by the third round, we were hitting our stride.”

Only Known Photo of Thurkettle Smiling While at a Podium

For Ashton Droll, who did debate in high school, nerves weren’t a huge issue. But there was still the adapting to representing different parties in different rounds and learning the idiosyncrasies of the different judges. In Round One, for example, one judge gave Droll an average score of 87.5; another gave her an average score of 99.25.

At times, the judges’ feedback can be contradictory. One judge told Maddie Cawthon that she “sometimes got lost while answering questions.” The same round, a different judge told her: “Great responses to questions.” A frustrated Cawthon lamented: “they can’t both be correct.”

Outcomes

One of the outcomes of tournaments such as this is seeing the competition from other schools. Getting students out of the classroom and seeing high-achieving students from other schools is a key part of moot court, and in this setting, there were many strong students representing top universities across the nation.

For Lindle and Thurkettle, it was a steep learning curve, one punctuated by some near misses. On the final round, for example, they lost two ballots by one point each ballot. It was a tough round. Nonetheless, they both had strong showings. On one ballot, Thurkettle averaged a 98; on the same ballot, Lindle averaged a 97.5.

Droll and Cawthon similarly saw some close calls. Two of their ballot losses came from margins of 10 points or less (out of 1600), but they were in the running on every ballot–and this consistency helped them break into the Sweet 16. Indeed, they were seeded 11th out of 32 teams!

This was a victory not only for Droll and Cawthon, but for the entire SHSU delegation. As Katie Wilson noted, “I’ve spent the last couple of months with these girls, and it was rewarding to see them grow and have the opportunity to compete in front of real judges. I am already getting excited for next year’s case!”

Wrapping Up

But, of course, there is at least one more round in this year’s tournament for Droll and Cawthon, a prospect making for a long night (thankfully, Daylight Savings Time will add an hour…). But whatever that outcome, the tournament–and the organizers, judges, and volunteers–has provided the thrill and stress of competition, exposure to new places and people, and the opportunity for growth.