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.
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.
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.
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!
After months of anticipation and careful planning, we opened the doors to our Citizenship Celebration at The Woodlands Center–an evening that marked not just a milestone, but the launch of an exciting new chapter for our existing citizenship program.
The celebration brought together naturalized citizens, aspiring citizens, LEAP friends and alumni, all united by a shared support for those on their journey toward citizenship and the program.
What began in 2008 as a local initiative in Walker County has grown far beyond its original scope. Thanks to National Partnership for New Americans, the program now reaches into Montgomery County, creating new connections and expanding the community in meaningful ways.
One of the many goals for this celebration was to ensure every guest left with a meaningful takeaway. This is always easier when everyone shares a common purpose. For us, this growth brought new connections in the Montgomery area, including volunteers from Caney Creek High School…
…who joined SHSU students to create a welcoming, vibrant atmosphere for the guests as they arrive.
As guests arrived, they settled in with plates of delicious food–empanadas, beef satay, ceviche, and an array of other cultural dishes–setting the stage for an evening of culture and connections. The room itself was beautifully decorated with a patriotic theme symbolizing the civic pride and sense of belonging that come with citizenship.
The ceremony began with Professor Yawn, who welcomed attendees and explained how LEAP’s citizenship program is expanding beyond Walker County.
The audience included familiar faces like Gregoria McGuire and Roxana Woychesin, former course participants, alongside eager newcomers ready to begin their journey.
LEAP alumni–Brian Aldaco, Bianca Saldierna, Ademide Adedokun, and Megan Chapa–also in attendance, perfectly timed to coincide with LEAP’s upcoming 20th anniversary celebration and the launch of new initiatives.
I then had the chance to offer my own words of welcome — thanking everyone for their incredible support and emphasizing that this event was truly a celebration for all: those who had been naturalized, those beginning the journey, and those supporting this civic milestone.
Then came the moment I’d been looking forward to — introducing Christina Sato, who so graciously agreed to share her journey and beautiful words with us. Christina Sato is an accomplished actress, singer, and University of Texas at Austin graduate who interned for former U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and has built an impressive career bridging entertainment and public service.
Christina spoke beautifully about three important themes, with one particularly powerful message about the importance of an invitation…
…recalling that she first met Professor Yawn in an elevator, three years ago. That chance meeting, followed by some networking, led to the invitation to speak at this event.
She tied this concept perfectly to the crowd and their purpose, making everyone feel the significance of being present and being welcomed into community.
Her story was one of unexpected turns and beautiful detours. Sato shared how she began her career with aspirations in public service, only to find life taking her down different paths-through entertainment, through various roles and opportunities that she never initially imagined. Rather than viewing these changes as setbacks, she embraced them as part of life’s natural rhythm. Her journey wasn’t linear, and she owned that truth with grace and authenticity.
For the naturalized citizens in the room– many of whom had taken long, winding roads to reach that point–her story struck a personal note. For those still on their journey toward citizenship, her message offered hope, encouragement, and a reminder that every experience brings us closer to where we’re meant to be.
The evening then shifted to something wonderfully fun–Lotería! For those unfamiliar with this traditional game, it’s similar to bingo but with a uniquely cultural twist.
We played a couple of rounds, giving away prizes to lucky winners throughout the evening, with the help of volunteers Andrea Torres, Olivia Discon, and Laura Juarez Ordonez.
It was a beautiful reminder that while we gather for serious purposes – citizenship, community, growth – we also come together to celebrate, to play, and to enjoy each other’s company.
As the celebration concluded, we announced the next phase of our program: our Spring 2026 Citizenship Course. This course will be held on April 2nd, 9th, 16th, 23rd, and 30th at The Woodlands Center, to support immigrants as they work toward their citizenship, providing the resources, guidance, and encouragement they need to succeed.
A heartfelt thank-you to everyone who made this evening possible: thevolunteers and LEAP alumni whose ongoing support sustains the program, Christina Sato for generously sharing her time, inspiring story, and wisdom, and most importantly, the naturalized citizens and immigrants whose journeys continue to inspire this program and remind us of why it initially started.
Here’s to the journey ahead–and to all the events yet to come!
For more information about LEAP’s citizenship program or our upcoming Spring course, email Professor Mike Yawn at mikeyawn@shsu.edu.
After a long day of Moot Court competition and work that persisted late into the night, our LEAP competitors enjoyed the mercy of an extra hour of sleep, courtesy of Daylight Savings Time. But the sun rises even after the longest nights, and we–Madison Thurkettle, Allison Lindle, Katie Wilson, and our Day Two competitors, Ashton Droll and Madison Cawthon–hastened to the Shepard Broad College of Law to extend our Moot Court season.
A Time to Keep…
With admonishments to arrive no later than 9:30am, we arrived early, in time to witness the coin toss that would decide whether we were representing the petitioner or respondent.
Our competition was Connor Rust and Inanna Khansa from the University of Chicago, and winning the coin toss, they chose to represent the respondent–which was fine with us.
A Time to Build Up…
A win in this round would place us at the Preliminary Nationals, scheduled for Virginia in January. For Maddie, who wasn’t expecting to get this far, much of the pressure had been shed from her shoulders. Ashton, on the other hand, animated by what many judges described as “a passion for moot court,” felt the pressure and the need to win. Both, however, experienced the ups and downs of preparing for competition.
Both sensed immediately the elevated level of competition. “We could cite the record and the cases,” observed Droll, “but Rust and Khansa took it a step further. They cited the record and then cited cases within the cases.”
A Time to Speak, a Time to Keep Silence…
Nonetheless, Droll and Cawthon executed their best performances. Heeding the Biblical admonition that “a fool’s voice is known by a multitude of words,” they answered questions directly, demonstrating their knowledge of the cases and applying that knowledge judiciously and to the point. “They were,” noted Wilson, “more polished than they’ve been the entire Moot Court season.”
In the end, however, it wasn’t quite enough. Rust and Khansa edged out Droll and Cawthon on two ballots (one was decided by three points out of 1,600) and solidly on a third. Despite the loss, the team members’ outlook remained undimmed, happy with their portion, and equipped with a focus on a new season and a renewed sense of purpose.
Two Shall Withstand…
The finals pitted Anna Barker and Steven Abraham (University of Central Florida) and Christy Banker and Gaege Gobezie (Liberty University)–the latter of whom had taken the tournament’s first and second-place individual orator honors.
Facing a hot panel–which included the Dean of the Law School (Olympia Duhart), the Director of Advocacy Programs for the Shepard Broad College of Law (Joe Lester), and an animated Criminal Law Professor (Megan Chaney)–
…the four competitors showed impressive knowledge of the cases, verbal agility, and the enviable skill of anticipating the judges’ line of questioning and redirecting it. It was, LEAP students noted, a lesson to learn.
The contest was close, perhaps the closest of the tournament…
…with Anna Barker and Steve Abraham of the University of Central Florida edging Christy Banker and Gaege Gobezie of Liberty University. The match was decided by two points.
Every Man Should Eat and Drink…
With competitions behind us and much before us, we decided on a meal at Rocco’s Tacos, which was recommended by Orlando Magazine and Eater. The recommendation was well founded.
We began with guacamole (excellent), which had just the right mix of tomato, salt, and garlic; chips and a salsa sampler, with the salsa verde and the smoked salsa being the favorites; and sauteed shrimp, which were impressively tender and bursting with flavor. It was a good way to begin the meal.
Our entrees were equally impressive. Half of our group ordered salads, while Ashton sampled the cheese enchiladas (featuring creamy Chihuahuan cheese); Professor Yawn tried the veggie and pork tacos; and Cawthon explored the Chorizo tacos, featuring Cotija cheese.
The food was excellent and filling, and the time at the table offered a respite from a competition and an opportunity for reflection.
Patient in Spirit…
With the tournament receding into a remembrance of former things, we contemplated the transitional and cyclical nature of things.
Each of us has enjoyed a new experience on the trip, whether it be a new food experience, learning photography with a mirrorless camera, or simply our first travel without family in tow. For all of us, this was our first Moot Court competition.
And while it is natural to see a cohort go and a cohort come, four of our five competitors will still be at Sam Houston State University next year and–at least following the high of competition–are interested in participating again in Moot Court, renewing a cycle of education, experience, and exploration.
And with these reflections on the good of our labor, we returned to the hotel, where we looked forward to the sweet sleep of the hard working and to the start of a new day.
Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics 