Law – Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics

Balancing AI Innovation and Safety: Key Insights from WAC–Houston

Written by Jacob Wessels

LEAP Students gathered for an World Affairs Council oxford style debate at Rice university yesterday. To tackle a question that’s becoming harder to ignore in today’s world: should democratic nations prioritize AI capability over AI safety? The event brought together policymakers, tech experts, and investors for a lively discussion that felt less like a lecture and more like a real look at where the world is heading.

The evening started with a quick introduction to the panel, but it wasn’t just a list of dry credentials, this was a broad list of expertise! On one end, you had Representative Giovanni Capriglione, who brought the weight of a lawmaker who has actually written Texas’s AI frameworks. Then there was Mario Rodriguez, whose experience operating Sophia the Robot moved the conversation from “what if” to the reality of humanoid engineering.

Instead of debating a “future” version of AI, Brad Groux spoke from the perspective of someone building cloud-based AI for organizations right now, while George Ploss, a Marine veteran and Oracle director reframed the tech as a critical piece of national security and the defense industrial base.

The pro-capability side framed AI as an urgent geopolitical race. One speaker argued that democratic nations cannot afford to slow innovation, emphasizing that AI is already defending critical infrastructure such as power grids and financial systems. In their view, prioritizing safety through heavy restrictions risks ceding technological leadership to authoritarian regimes. The argument was straightforward: in a world of rapid advancement, falling behind is more dangerous than moving too fast.

They also highlighted some of the benefits AI is delivering right now such as early cancer detection and more access to education, pointing out that slowing development isn’t just cautious; it could delay life saving breakthroughs and prolong existing inequalities. Their main message was that democratic values, combined with existing legal frameworks, are enough to guide responsible innovation without stifling progress.

On the other side, the safety-focused speakers challenged the very framing of the debate. Rather than a race, they described AI as a strategic system more comparable to nuclear technology than consumer software. Drawing on lessons from Cold War deterrence, they argued that unchecked capability without control creates instability, not strength. In this view, safety isn’t a barrier to progress, it’s what makes progress sustainable.

They pointed to real-world risks, including simulations where AI systems behaved unpredictably, as evidence that reliability and oversight must come first. Without embedded safeguards, even the most advanced systems could become liabilities. One speaker emphasized that democracies should not try to “win” by mimicking less accountable regimes, warning that doing so would undermine the very values that give them legitimacy and global influence.

What really stuck with me from the safety side was their focus on trust. They argued that long term leadership depends not just on what a nation can build, but on whether allies and citizens trust those systems. In a world shaped by alliances like NATO, credibility and shared values may matter as much as raw technological power.

The audience Q&A added another layer to the discussion, with individuals–including Robin and Mikaela–asking practical and philosophical questions.

What made the debate especially engaging was how much common ground existed beneath the disagreement. Both sides acknowledged the importance of innovation and the inevitability of AI’s growth. The real divide was about sequencing and emphasis: should capability lead with safety following, or should safety be built in from the start?

Like many World Affairs Council events, the debate didn’t aim to deliver a definitive answer. Instead, it encouraged critical thinking and deeper engagement. As AI continues to evolve, the question raised that evening will only become more urgent: how do we balance the drive to innovate with the responsibility to protect?

For LEAP, the evening carried an extra layer of significance beyond the debate itself. This was Michelle’s final event with us, and having her there to lead the way one last time made the night feel like the end of an era. It was a reminder that while we spent so much time discussing the “inevitable” growth of technology helping us better our world, it’s actually the people and the mentors we work with who help us become better versions of ourselves.

Walking out of the O’conner building, I couldn’t shake the idea that the tech is actually the easy part. The hard part is the governance. We aren’t just building faster tools; we’re deciding who or what gets to stay in the driver’s seat of our society!

Bridging Academia and Real-World Experience at SHSU

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.

Master the Art of Courtroom Advocacy with Moot Court

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.

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.

Building Future Leaders: Lessons from TX Supreme Court Justice James Sullivan

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.

Pre Law Society and Public Safety

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.

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 10^th 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 10^th 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 10^th 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 2^nd 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 10^th 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.

	Multi-Platform Media… on Fun and Flavor: Chilly at the…
	Highlights from the… on Glazing-A-Trail with Lauren…
	The Civic Leadership… on Foundational Activities of the…
	The Civic Leadership… on The Philosophical Foundations…
	LEAPing Into Action… on The Philosophical Foundations…