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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics 