Law – Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics

Lunch, Law, and Learn

BY Saara Maknojia

Capitalizing on the hard work of Professor Kurt Smith with the Political Science department, the LEAP Ambassadors and Jocelyn Vazquez recently enjoyed a short but informative lunch with Judge Jamie Rene Roman and Dr. Kurt Smith, learning about law, politics, and life.

Judge Roman served as a Judge in California after being appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. He has also worked for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). Although Judge Roman acquired his J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of Law, he continued his education after law school at Boston University to obtain his L.L.M, allowing him to specialize in International Banking law!

Upon entering the room, Judge Roman began his greetings and empowered us with his experience as a young attorney working. As we talked about our career goals and what would be next after we graduated from SHSU, Judge Roman, Dr. Kurt Smith and the LEAP members began to unravel the packaged deli sandwiches catered by Aramark for our small group lunch.

Stressing the importance of education and a great work ethic in law school, Judge Roman advised us on what to look out for once we begin our careers and what to expect in law school.

His advice for not only law school, but the LSAT gaged us to have a deeper understanding of the importance of what steps are needed to go to the law schools that we want.

Judge Roman discussed the hardships that he faced in his career as he witnessed the dynamic yet bitter truth about family law and shared with us how busy every day would be with the incoming cases. He shared his insights regarding any questions we had, some of which related to the BAR exam for California and how it compared to the Texas Bar exam.

We also asked Judge Roman questions relating to the difference in court structures in California and in Texas. Judge Roman explained how he got a good grounding in the law by rotating, spending two years as a judge in one type of court, two years in another, and four years in another. This gave him the kind of all-around foundation that we one day hope to achieve.

On behalf of the LEAP Ambassadors , a big thank you to Judge Roman for taking the time to speak with us and and offer advice, and another thank you to Dr. Smith for setting up such a meeting. And Thank you for visiting SHSU!

Appeals on Wheels: 2017

By Bianca Saldierna and Makayla Mason

For the past seven years LEAP students have been honored to receive the Tenth Court of Appeals at Sam Houston State University. The normal schedule is to bring in the 10th Court on the first Wednesday in April, and this year was no different. Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Mike Yawn, SHSU, LEAP Center, Center for Law Engagement And Politics, LEAP Ambassadors, Pre-Law

Three oral arguments were heard in the Beto Criminal Justice Center’s Hazel B. Kerper Courtroom.

Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Mike Yawn, SHSU, LEAP Center, Center for Law Engagement And Politics, LEAP Ambassadors, Pre-Law

As part of our duties as LEAP Ambassadors, we divided ourselves and rotated, with some working while others watched the case. Among the audience was Dr. Veasey, a professor at SHSU as well as an attorney and a doctor! LEAP students were astonished to meet someone with such a wide-ranging resume including: being a prosecutor, a medical examiner, a flight surgeon, a defense attorney, and a medical investigator for military plane crashes. The justices actually let Dr. Veasey and his graduate forensic pathologist students sit in the jury box.

Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Mike Yawn, SHSU, LEAP Center, Center for Law Engagement And Politics, LEAP Ambassadors, Pre-Law, Sparks Veasey

Of the three oral arguments, the last one (Kenny Jones v. NRG Texas, LLC.), captured my attention the most. The case involved a dispute over an alleged retaliatory termination as well as whether the correct company had been sued. As a current student of the Human Resources Management Law class, I was pleased with the Tenth Court of Appeals’ selection of this oral argument. To be able to take the knowledge I have gained in the classroom and to experience it the “real world” was a thrilling experience!

Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Mike Yawn, SHSU, LEAP Center, Center for Law Engagement And Politics, LEAP Ambassadors, Pre-Law

On top of that, the oral argument also sparked a particular interest because Chief Justice Gray recused himself from the case; meaning that he abstained from reviewing the oral argument because of a possible conflict of interest. He provided a brief overview of the recusal process, which involves filing a motion of recusal to the Texas Supreme Court. Next, it becomes the Texas Supreme Court’s job to appoint another person to take that seat. In this case, the District Court Justice, Fancy Jezek from Bell County, was appointed.

Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Mike Yawn, SHSU, LEAP Center, Center for Law Engagement And Politics, LEAP Ambassadors, Pre-Law

After covering the recusal process, Chief Justice Gray was kind enough to ask both attorneys to turn to the audience and to briefly explain the path the case had taken prior to arriving at the Court of Appeals.

Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Mike Yawn, SHSU, LEAP Center, Center for Law Engagement And Politics, LEAP Ambassadors, Pre-Law

Knowing the background information of the case allowed us to better understand the oral arguments both attorneys made. Each party had approximately 20 minutes of argument time and, as we learned, the Appellant who presents the argument first, also receives five minutes for rebuttal after the Appellee has concluded his argument. During the last five minutes, the Appellant’s purpose is to counterclaim the argument(s) delivered by the other attorney. After the oral arguments had concluded, Chief Justice Gray made himself available for any questions the audience might have…

Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Mike Yawn, SHSU, LEAP Center, Center for Law Engagement And Politics, LEAP Ambassadors, Pre-Law

…although, as some audience members mentioned, he had already done an excellent job at covering most of them himself.

Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Mike Yawn, SHSU, LEAP Center, Center for Law Engagement And Politics, LEAP Ambassadors, Pre-Law

As a final touch, we, as part of the LEAP center, had the privilege to take some photos with, not three, but four Justices!

Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Mike Yawn, SHSU, LEAP Center, Center for Law Engagement And Politics, LEAP Ambassadors, Pre-Law

We were also fortunate to have lunch with the Justices. While helping ourselves to delicious sandwiches, salad, and cookies, we were able to have one-on-one conversations with the justices and their staff.

Texas 10th Court of Appeals, Mike Yawn, SHSU, LEAP Center, Center for Law Engagement And Politics, LEAP Ambassadors, Pre-Law

Some of us asked questions about where they went to law school and what their average day looks like, while others were able to share small-world similarities with them. After a hurried lunch, it was back to business!

Once the justices were finished hearing cases for the day, we enjoyed a small reception hosted by the President of the University, Dana Hoyt. While snacking on cheese, fruit, and drinks, we were able to have intimate conversations with the justices, as well as some of the most important members of the University and community. In attendance were Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Richard Eglsaer, Vice President of Student Affairs Frank Parker, Dean of the College of Criminal Justice Dr. Phillip Lyons, Former Huntsville Mayor Mac Woodward, and more. It was a great way to end an even better day.

President Dana Hoyt, SHSU, Pre-Law, LEAP Center, LEAP Ambassadors, Center for Law Engagement And Politics

Appeals on Wheels: 10th COA Rolls into SHSU

If it’s spring, it’s time for the 10th Court of Appeals to hear four cases at Sam Houston State University. This year’s cases proved remarkably diverse, and students received a live, up-close education on the application of the law.

The 10th Court of Appeals first came to SHSU six years ago, in 2011. It was the brain-child of Chief Justice Tom Gray, and his colleagues Justice Al Scoggins and Justice Rex Davis enthusiastically agreed to come to Sam Houston. Professor Mike Yawn and the group “formerly known as the Junior Fellows” soon got into the act, and there has been much legal fun since then.

The education isn’t only watching the cases in action; it’s also seeing the courtroom procedure unfold. From the “All Rise, Oyez, Oyez, Oyez”

…to Justice Gray’s explanations of courtroom decorum…

…to the attorneys, who are able (only in this setting) to explain the facts of the case to us…

…to watching the attorneys’ behavior outside the courtroom…

..the education is unique–and that’s before we even talk about the cases!

Speaking of which, this year’s cases ran the legal gamut. The 10am session (Capstone v. IES Contracting) actually involved SHSU, which believed construction of Sam Houston Village to be faulty. This was a complex case, one involving multiple subcontractors, merges, and much elapsed time.

The 11am session (Annette Knopf and Stanley Gray v. William and Karen Gray) involved a disputed will, which had been written by Ms. Vada Allen. She left property to her son, but confusion resulted from her will. In particular, there was a question as to whether some of the property was a life estate–that is, given to her son for his lifetime–or whether he had outright ownership. This was not only an interesting legal situation, but also a good life lesson about the difficulty of writing your own will. (Interestingly, this case involved the legal firm for which Kaitlyn Tyra works as a courier.)

As has become our custom, the Justices broke for lunch, and we were able to join them, along with other legal professionals in the community. Just before we ate, Justice Tom Gray presented Professor Yawn with a signed copy of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s autobiography, a nice touch to a nice day.

Also nice was the lunch conversation…

…which touched on school issues, our hopefulness about our legal careers, and the cases of the day.

Following lunch, we again worked the doors for the two most interesting cases. The 1pm (in re Troy Paul) session involved Troy Paul and Destiny Spillers, who may or may not have been informally married. They weren’t formally married, but Destiny argued that their relationship constituted a “common-law” marriage, which entitled her to spousal support–support, that is, beyond the $250,000 Mercedez that she was bought by Mr. Paul. The case involves not only the question of support, but also of legal fees to the tune of $425,000.

The final case of the day (Noe Cosino v. The State of TX) involved the cutting-edge issue of a blood draw in the absence of a warrant. The courts have previously held that such draws could be made in “exigent circumstance,” but more recent decisions have blurred the lines.

Following the cases, we spent a little more time with the Justices, taking photos and asking them to sign the case descriptions.

It was a fun morning and afternoon, a wonderful in-depth education for the LEAP Ambassadors, and for more than 200 SHSU students, a nice exposure to our legal system.

Moot Scrimmage: Day One Showdown!

It’s been an educational weekend for SHSU’s first-ever Moot Court team. Following a pleasant evening at the Art Department’s Gala (where the students spent some enjoyable time with Dan Phillips)…

…the Moot Court Team embarked on a late-night trip to Dallas, where the UNT Law School’s Moot Court scrimmage was scheduled. More than fifty teams competed, making this the largest scrimmage in the Texas Undergraduate Moot Court Association’s history.

The set-up for such a scrimmage is as follows:

Day One: There are three rounds of tournaments, which serve as qualifying rounds. Each team is scored in points, with the points determining which team wins and which team loses. The won-loss record then determines whether the teams compete on Saturday (teams need to win two of their three rounds, with a tie-breaker based on a complex system of schedule strength and points). The points are further used to determine individual awards.
- Points: Speakers are scored on four dimensions, each constituting up to 100 points. An award-winning speaker will likely accumulate 360 or more points (90+ average) over the four dimensions: knowledge, response, forensics, and demeanor
Day Two: Day two then follows in a playoff-style system, with winning teams proceeding to the next round. There are four such “playoff” rounds, moving from the “Sweet Sixteen” to the finals.

The logistics alone are a daunting enterprise. Registration, for example, ended at 11:30am on Friday, and only then could tournament directors begin the pairings and room scheduling processes. Between 11:30 and 2:00pm, a series of orientations (e.g., bailiffs, coaches, competitors) took place, while other tournament officials tried to finalize the schedule. It was an impressive display of organization!

We were a bit anxious, but we tried to enjoy ourselves….

…pairing off into teams during orientation…

…

Between orientations and a quick lunch, we grabbed what study time we could come by…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

…with help from our coach.

…but, ultimately, game-time arrived, and we began the tournament.

The Tournament

A typical contest includes an 18 minute argument from the petitioner (split between the two team members), followed by a 20 minutes argument from the respondent (again, split between the two-team members), followed by a two-minute rebuttal from the petitioner (the time for rebuttal can be modified up front, but two minutes is a typical time).

The tournament is run by a tournament director. This tournament’s director was Andrew Sommerman, who is the founder of the American Undergraduate Moot Court Association and a local Dallas attorney. Also helping run the show was Dr. Kimi King, who works tirelessly to help her students and to help keep the tournament moving on schedule.

Three judges oversee the competition, interjecting as they see fit. A “hot” panel interjects often; a cold panel interjects rarely. Some contestants enjoy the give and take; others do not. A good judge will pose questions designed to assess the competitors’ knowledge, strength of arguments, and ability to think on their feet. Some judges are better than others at directing such questions.

Following the contest, the competitors (and audience) leave the room, giving the judges time to complete their ballots and prepare remarks. Once the ballots have been completed, the judges ask the competitors to return and go over the strengths and weaknesses of the competitors. Good judges mix specific and general advice and do so constructively. Less helpful judges speak in vague generalities or offer idiosyncratic advice based on their personal/ideological reactions. Fortunately, few judges fell in the latter category, and even they can be helpful, because such judges exist on the bench in real life.

For our team, the rounds were immensely helpful. While they didn’t turn out well in terms of wins and losses, they did turn out very well in terms of gaining information and experience. For Kaitlyn Tyra, she said it was a good opportunity to “gain a realistic view of the competition in the state.” This, she continued, was particularly helpful for a first-year team such as SHSU, which hasn’t seen the competition before. For Austin Campbell, the trip was helpful because it helped build “synergy among most of the team’s members.” For Kristyn Couvillion, it allowed “observation of the state’s best speakers, and the skills they have, as well as the benefits of receiving specific feedback from judges.”

Photos are not encouraged in the tournaments (especially for those in smaller rooms, where they can be distracting), but we have a couple of action photos. One is of Kristyn…

…and one is of James Perry…

By the end of the evening, teams waited patiently to see which ones would make the cut, and perform on Saturday.

Sadly, this did not include SHSU teams. It was, however, a good end to the day, and the students were satisfied with their work.

For the winning teams, the day would start early the next day, with coin tosses at 8am. Most of the losing teams went home. SHSU’s moot court team, however, didn’t want to pass up the opportunity to see the winning teams in action another day, hear more of the questions that judges ask, and to learn more about the process. In that spirit, we went back to the hotel, to prepare for another day of Moot Court.

LEAP Center Hosts Law-School/Grad-School Seminar

Almost fifty students attended the Law School/Grad School Seminar hosted by the Center for Law, Engagement, And Politics (LEAP) earlier this month. The seminar featured Karissa Morissey from Princeton Review; Stephen Perez, Dean of Students at Texas Tech Law School; Kathryn Meyer, Director of Recruitment from the Bush School at Texas A&M University; and Thomas Leeper, attorney with Smither, Martin, Henderson, and Blazek.

Students and Panelists at the LEAP Center Legal Seminar — Students & Panelists at LEAP Seminar

Their advice was to the point and useful. Karissa Morrissey provded a helpful overview of the LSAT and GRE, offering a timeline for preparing for graduate school or law school. High points included:

The LSAT ranges from 120-180; The GRE ranges from 130-170
The LSAT is offered four times a year (Feb, Jun, Oct, Dec), while the GRE offers more frequent tests
The LSAT should be taken approximately a year prior to when the students wants to enroll in Law School.
The Princeton Review offers Prep Courses at SHSU in the spring of each year.

Dean Stephen Perez stressed the importance of the LSAT Scores and a student’s GPA, while pointing to Tech’s strong rates on bar passage, employment, and the excellent performance of students in Moot Court and Mock Trials. Also, the National Jurist magazine ranked Tech among the top 10 in the country in both “overall value” and “student satisfaction.” Perhaps not surprisingly, more SHSU students are enrolling in Tech, with four Bearkats matriculating last year. Dean Perez seems to be intent on duplicating that success this year, offering the students who attended the seminar fee waivers to apply to Texas Tech.

Dean Perez Discusses Law School Admissions — Perez Discusses Law School Admissions

Kathryn Meyer caught students’ attention when she discussed the programs of the Bush School of Public Service. The Bush School is a top 35 Public Administration across the country, featuring broad programs in Administration and International Affairs and endeavoring to keep students’ costs low. SHSU boasts more graduates at the Bush School than any other University in the nation with the exception of Texas A & M.

Thomas Leeper’s discussion bridged both law and public affairs. Leeper has served as an attorney in private practice, a city attorney, and a political appointee. Leeper discussed life in law school (giving particular attention to the Socratic Method), the kind of work that attorneys do, and the importance of public service.

The Center for Law, Engagement, And Politics (LEAP) promotes learning opportunities across diverse disciplines at SHSU. Over the past seven years, SHSU has significantly increased its efforts in the pre-law field, doubling the number of students accepted to law schools in the United States. Moreover, last year, SHSU moved in the top five percent nationally in the Law School Admissions Council’s (LSAC) ranking of “Law School Feeders.”

Careers in Politics: Day 1–According to Brian King

On September 20th, 2013, seven students (including myself) from Sam Houston State University’s L.E.A.P. (Law, Engagement, and Politics) Program departed from Huntsville, Texas en route to Dallas, Texas for the New Politics Forum Event, which takes place on Saturday, September 21st. This event is geared toward college undergraduates and graduates, who are interested in a future career within the field of politics.

Despite the windy, rainy weather during our travel, we successfully managed to stop for lunch at the Woodbine Hotel / Restaurant in Madisonville, Texas. Madisonville, as some of you know, is the mushroom capital of Texas, so it wasn’t surprising that many of the fine entrees came with mushrooms. The lunch also offered the chance for us to know one another. We had an International Business major, a Criminal Justice major, and, of course, Political Science majors, but we were all united in our desire to be engaged in civics. The Woodbine also offered us a chance to see interesting antiques, the most interesting of which was an antique phone booth.

Continuing through the rough weather and mild traffic, the students arrived in Dallas, Texas around 4:30pm and went to the Sixth Floor Museum, located at Dealey Plaza in Downtown Dallas.

Dealey Plaza Marker, Dallas

The Sixth Floor Museum examined the life, times, death, and legacy of President John F. Kennedy. I really enjoyed the museum’s depiction of John F. Kennedy, along with the countless photographs and memorabilia from the time of his presidency.

Following the Sixth Floor Museum tour, the students ventured to the Spaghetti Warehouse for dinner. At the restaurant, we continued to talk about political and school related affairs, as well as who our favorite presidents were. Some students liked Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Calvin Coolidge, while I opted for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After dinner, the students embarked to the Dallas Museum of Art, which offered a special late night tour. Throughout the Dallas Museum of Art, I admired the American Art, as well as the Egyptian Art. Leadbelly, by Michael Owen Jr., is an example of one of the sculptures I enjoyed, especially given the background of the sculpture only taking a month to create.

Huddie Ledbetter, AKA Leadbelly

I should also note that this piece has a connection to my adopted hometown of Huntsville, Texas, which features a mural of Leadbelly on a downtown storefront.

Coffin of Horankh, representing a coffin in the form of a human body, also caught my attention. This body of art was common within the Egyptian culture, as a means of “magically” assuring eternal life.

Coffin of Horankh

Overall, I enjoyed the first day of the New Politics Event Forum trip, from the Chicken Caesar Salad at Woodbine Hotel / Restaurant to the aspect of engaging in different cultures at the Dallas Museum of Art. Finally, I look forward to sharing my experience from the New Politics Conference tomorrow at Southern Methodist University.