On October 3rd and 4th, Sam Houston State University’s Moot Court Team had the incredible opportunity to compete in the Triton Tidal Invitational, hosted by the University of California–San Diego.
The first day consisted of three preliminary rounds, each with pre-assigned competitors and arguments. Interestingly, both of SHSU’s teams had one round arguing as Petitioner and two rounds arguing as Respondent, allowing each team to practice both sides of the case and adapt their arguments to different perspectives.
After each round, the teams had the chance to regroup, discuss feedback, and prepare for the next argument. Between rounds, we were also grateful to have snacks graciously provided by Stephanie Fors, which kept everyone fueled and ready to take on the next challenge!
Once the preliminary rounds concluded, we anxiously waited for the results. The standings would determine which teams would advance to the “Sweet Sixteen” and return on Sunday for another day of competition. Despite some skepticism about our chances (editor’s note: deserved skepticism), both of SHSU’s teams made it into the “Sweet Sixteen”! We were thrilled to have the opportunity to compete again and prove ourselves against some incredibly talented teams.
On Sunday, both teams returned to the courtroom ready to give it their all. Although neither team ultimately advanced to the quarter-finals, making it to the “Sweet Sixteen” was an accomplishment we were extremely proud of.
Beyond the results, the scrimmage gave our Moot Court teams something even more valuable: experience. Throughout the weekend, we were able to test our arguments in a competitive setting, identify some of our strongest points, uncover weaknesses in our cases, and come away with new ideas for strengthening our arguments. Every round gave us something to learn from, and we made it out with a much better understanding of what we can do to prepare for our next competition.
We are incredibly grateful to UC San Diego for hosting such a valuable and exciting scrimmage. We are proud of how far both teams made it and are looking forward to putting what we learned into practice. We are all excited for competition at Texas A&M on October 30th, and we can’t wait to see what the team accomplishes next!
Allie and the Tools of Success: Cherry Fritter, Notes, Ring Light, Notes, Coffee-Flavored Sugar from Seven Bros., Half-Hearted Smile, and More Notes
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.
Moot Court Team Awaits Its Assignment
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.
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.
The moot court competition in Fort Worth was a great experience that challenged our critical thinking skills (or the extent of them, anyways) and gave us a chance to grow as advocates. Fort Worth was the perfect host city, combining a world-class law school with a great cultural scene and history.
For the competition, we stayed at the Hilton in downtown Fort Worth, where President John F. Kennedy spent his final night—which was definitely not a good omen for our performance. The competition itself was held at Texas A&M’s School of Law, which happens to neighbor the Philip Johnson-designed Water Gardens.
As one of LEAP’s favorite architects, Johnson’s work always stands out, and the Water Gardens is an immersive way to experience architecture and ease both law students and moot court competitors’ nerves.
When we had time to explore, we made the most of it. We ensured to make a stop at the Richard Haas mural downtown in Sundance Square.
In the same area, we were lucky enough to stumble across works by James Surls…
…Lichtenstein, and Noguchi—all in one building! Just around the corner, we also found an Alex Katz…
…and Jesus Moroles sculpture.
One of my favorite stops was the Sid Richardson Museum, where we got an extensive look at the works of Frederic Remington and Charles Russell. Both are staples of Western art, but the range of their work was impressive. The museum also gave us a chance to try our hand at some art of our own, offering postcards for visitors to draw and send.
This ties to Remington, who was not well-versed in writing, and would use illustrations to communicate when words fell short. While some of us had more success than others (we’ll leave the details out), it was a fun and creative way to engage with the experience we shared at the museum.
The trip wasn’t just about law and art—we also enjoyed a range of food experiences. While I stayed on the safe side with a soufflé (my first, and it was great!), Maggie stepped up as the group’s culinary adventurer, trying calf fries, escargot, and quail all for the first time. One of the best parts of LEAP trips is the chance to try new things, and this trip was no exception.
After the competition ended, we headed to Dallas. We made a quick stop to see a giant eyeball sculpture…
…which was interesting to say the least, before heading to Thanksgiving Square, another Philip Johnson design.
The Square offers myriad interesting features, including a Norman Rockwell mosaic…
…a “ring of thanks,” which has an echo feature…
…and, of course, Johnson’s beautiful Chapel.
The spiral design, and the beautiful stained glass capture the “infinite upward reach of the human spirit”.
We ended the trip with a visit to Dealey Plaza, the site of JFK’s assassination. Seeing the Grassy Knoll and the surrounding area was a very fitting end to our adventures in DFW.
Overall, this trip showcased what LEAP is all about: taking multidisciplinary experiences—law, art, history, and food—and tying them together in a way that broadens our understanding and appreciation of the world. Fort Worth and Dallas proved to be the perfect destinations for this, with plenty of firsts, surprises, and connections along the way.
Sometimes unusual things happen, and one of those happened last night, when we found out that we had made it to the “Sweet Sixteen.” This is our first time at Moot Court, and we were expecting to observe–not participate in–day 2 of Moot Court.
Thus, it was early this morning that we arose and prepared–as much as one can prepare at the last minute–for another round of Moot Court. Our opponents were from TCU, Reagan Stephens and Dominic Mendlik, and they were highly ranked.
We soon saw why. Mr. Mendlik…
…and Ms. Stephens…
…were very polished, articulate, and they knew the facts of the case.
For our part, we did the best we could, and we probably performed better during this round than we had all tournament. Maggie was more fluent in her delivery…
…and Olivia did well responding to and, at times, deflecting questions.
The judges, too, were excellent. We had three judges, and they all knew the case, brought different perspectives to the case, and they provided good feedback. Their questions were very good, designed to see whether we knew our facts and could think on the spot.
But, with this level of competition, we saw the writing on the wall…
…but, even as we obtained our results, losing in a split decision (2 ballots to 1), we very much believed we ended on a high note.
With another hour or so before we needed to leave, we watched the next round of coin flips…
…and then we split up and volunteered to be bailiffs, providing us with another perspective on the tournament and allowing us to learn from those with more experience, skill, or both.
It was enlightening–and it was also somewhat gratifying to see that Mr. Mendlik and Ms. Stephens won their next round (the Elite Eight), and the next round (the Semi-Finals), and lost in a split decision in the finals. They will be going to the Preliminary Nationals, and that is a well-deserved berth.
Our experience in Moot Court was overwhelmingly positive. Although we and our coach were beginners, we learned a lot, and it’s almost certain to benefit us as undergraduate students, preparing for law school, in law school, and in the “real world.”
We received much help along the way. Godfrey Blacin spent a lot of time organizing a scrimmage, and this was very helpful to us. Tournament Officials and other coaches also went out of their way to welcome, especially Kinzie Craig Hall, Jennifer Ellis, Kimi King, and Anne Dutia. On campus, Dr. Gene Roberts and Dr. Diana Brown proved very helpful on approaching justices and working on our logic; Stephanie Fors provided logistical support and overall advice; Victoria McClendon-Leggett was generous with her time and support; and students such as Saara Maknojia, Michelle Moya, Emely Garcia, and Jacob Wessels showed support along the way. And many thanks to Madison Cawthon for serving as bailiff!
While most students are pleading for extra credit at the end of the semester, LEAP students were pleading their cases, literally, in moot court. Facing off against teams that came from eleven different universities across four states to compete in the South / Texas Regional American Moot Court Association tournament held in Fort Worth, with its rich history and home of Texas A&M University’s Law School. This tournament is one of sixteen regionals across the United States that will help select the top U.S. moot court team.
LEAPsters depart SHSU for their first moot court tournament
This was the first time in seven years that SHSU fielded a team. Olivia Discon and Maggie Betancourt stepped up this fall to engage in weekly meetings, much “homework,” and a lot of learning to serve as Bearkat mooters. They also received help from Dr. Diana Brown (COBA, SHSU), Dr. Gene Roberts (SLMS, SHSU), Victoria McClendon-Leggett, Stephanie Fors, and Maddie Cawthon–the latter serving as bailiff, and a potential mooter in future years.
Day one of the contest was an all-day affair, a Saturday of three rounds. For Olivia and Maggie–team 419–this involved facing off, first, against Kathryn Dearing and Julia Daniel from the University of North Texas, one of the most active universities in the moot court universe over the past two decades, largely a result of the efforts of Dr. Kimi King. This year, King was on hand, along with Dr. Adam Whitten, both of whom served as coaches for their two UNT teams.
The SHSU team was designated as representing the petitioner, in this case a “William DeNolf,” who may, or may not, be responsible for recklessly goading a Ms. Bronner into suicide.
With the fate of DeNolf in their hands, Betancourt and Discon took turns arguing his case to two “Supreme Court Justices” (actually, law-school professors).
Tackling issue one (the 5th Amendment), Betancourt began, using her nine minutes to argue that the State violated DeNolf’s protection against self-incrimination when using biometric access to the contents of his phone.
Olivia Discon, meanwhile, argued the second issue (1st Amendment), making the case that the State violated DeNolf’s freedom of speech by criminalizing the case for suicide.
They were countered by Daniel and Dearing, who ably argued that the State was justified in their steps to access and regulate DeNolf’s speech.
Delving deep into the cases and the record, Daniel and Dearing demonstrated a strong grasp of the material, and they edged out the SHSU team, winning both ballots.
For their second round, the SHSU students faced Ethan Ellis and Amanda Parker-Chavez of Lamar University. With their first round jitters somewhat abated, the LEAP students performed better this time, winning both ballots.
The third round, then, would likely determine whether the LEAP/SHSU team would make it the “Sweet Sixteen,” a prospect that, no doubt, brought back some of those early jitters.
In this round, which featured the most aggressive of the judges and a “hot panel,” Discon and Betancourt split the ballots, finishing 3-3.
The outcome of this contest was, however, withheld until the Day-One reception and awards, hosted by TAMU Law. Following a discussion of the law-school’s many merits…
…the crowd eagerly awaited news on the leading orators and the teams moving on to day two of the competition.
The top orators were chosen first:
Ashlyn Dodson (UNT)
Quinn Kelly (UNT)
Jordan Peterson (Berea College)
Kylie Kinsella (TCU)
Dominic Mendlik (TCU)
Kaitlyn Allen (TCU)
Landon Reffitt (Benedictine)
Jeffrey Schremmer (Benedictine)
Collin England (Benedictine)
Jacob Hahn (Benedictine)
Following these congratulations, Ann Dutia read off the list of teams competing in the “playoffs,” the “Sweet Sixteen.” Reading in “no particular order,” Dutia listed team numbers…443…437…402…and, finally, after seven teams were announced, we heard “419.” The SHSU students made it to the second day of competition.
Maddie, who served as bailiff for the rounds, look bemused…
…Maggie beamed; and Olivia, in her way, looked equal parts ill and gratified.
With the results in hand and an unexpected day of competition ahead of us, we walked back to the hotel. Along the way, we ran into a reminder of Fort Worth’s rich history, statues of Butch Cassidy, the Sundance Kid, and the “Hole in the Wall” gang, a scene that prompted a selfie.
It also prompted a little gratitude. While we were anxious about the showdown looming the next day, at least we wouldn’t face the fate of Butch and Sundance–who were shot to death in Bolivia. It’s a small thing, we know, but it reminded us that Moot Court is a cause Worth taking, on a trip Worth making!
After a multi-year hiatus, the LEAP Center has revived its Moot Court Team, and SHSU Students Olivia Discon (Team Captain) and Maggie Betancourt will be competing at the Texas A&M Law School Regional Tournament on November 16-17.
What is Moot Court, Anyway?
Moot Court replicates the appellate process. Most people are familiar with the trial courts, where (typically) a jury judges the guilt of a defendant; witnesses are called to testify, are involved in direct and cross examination; and a single judge presides over the proceedings. But in an Appellate Court, attorneys compile documents, provide a written brief, and offer oral arguments, making the case that the lower court erred (petitioner) or didn’t (respondent) in the proceedings.
This fits right in with the LEAP Center’s activities, which already many law-school related activities, including inviting the 10th Court of Appeals to campus once a year to hear cases.
Without knowing it, then, the LEAP Ambassadors have had a mini-preparation for the Moot Court experience.
Moot Court Preparation
Although we may change formats in future years, the Moot Court experience works like this:
May 1: AMCA Releases Case;
August: Students read case and take “Foundations Quiz” to participate;
September: Weekly practices begin;
October: Practices continue and students may scrimmage other teams;
November: Regional Tournament
January: National Tournament
For the students, this means reading the cases (there are 21 cases in all) thoroughly, and developing arguments, modified over weekly practices, that can be used for their “courtroom” appearance.
Moot Court Benefits
In following this regimen, students gain many benefits. They…
Learn how to read and understand court opinions;
Learn how to write appellate briefs;
Sharpen their critical thinking, writing, and communications;
Gain substantive knowledge in the field of law;
Gain exposure to law schools to which they may be applying.
Rules of Moot Court
After familiarizing themselves with the main case and associated cases, the competitors decide which of two issues they will be arguing before the court. This year’s case, which is based on the Michelle Carter encouraging suicide through text-messaging case, involves both the 5th Amendment (self-incrimination, tackled by Maggie) and 1st Amendment (free speech, addressed by Olivia).
The students also (more or less) split the 20-minute time limit, with each student making their case before the judges for about ten minutes.
SHSU Competing in 2016 Moot Court Competition
This can be tricky, because judges can interrupt as often as they want, and the time spent being interrupted counts against the time allotted. (See full rules below).
Although teams may compete in scrimmages that are self-arranged, their first (and probably only) appearance is at one of 15-16 regional tournaments across the United States, which host, collectively, approximately 120 Universities, many of which field multiple teams. The top 25-percent of these teams then compete in nationals in January.
SHSU Moving Forward
With help from Dean Gene Roberts, Stephanie Fors, and Victoria McClendon-Leggett, the students have gone through increasingly rigorous practices…
…culminating with a scrimmage on October 19, 2024.
This scrimmage, which took place on Zoom in three different states, involved 12 teams. Organized by Blacin Godfrey from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, the students competed in three rounds, twice representing the petitioner and once representing the respondent.
Although the results have not yet been delivered to the teams, the SHSU team was able to enhance its practice in more realistic conditions, hear perspectives from more people, and commiserate with other moot court participants across the country.
Importantly, the scrimmage identified weaknesses in the team’s arguments; highlighted applications of other cases that should be considered for incorporation; and spotlighted weaknesses in delivery and presentation.
The team will continue its practice through November 16-7, when they will be one of 24 teams competing at TAMU Law School.
Getting Involved
For students who would like to be considered for SHSU’s Moot Court team next year, please contact Olivia Discon at oliviadiscon@shsu.edu or Professor Mike Yawn at mike.yawn@shsu.edu.
With help from former LEAP Ambassador and SHSU Alum Jessica Rodriguez, several Pre-Law Society Students learned courtroom procedures as South Texas College of Law’s Moot Court team prepared for an upcoming contest.
Rodriguez was on the team three years ago, when she was a 3L at STCL; she is now coaches the team.
Wanting to help pre-law students at her alma mater, Rodriguez generously offered to give students a tour of the STCL Campus and allow the pre-law students to see a Moot Court team in action.
Of course, during the tour, Rodriguez showed off STCL’s trophies…
…the fruits of STCL’s domination of law schools nationally in mock trial and moot court. In fact, STCL has won twice as many championships as any other law school in the United States!
The case involved an undocumented immigrant who was a victim of gang violence. Police were called when neighbors heard a disturbance, and although the gang member was not found, the authorities’ investigation did uncover that the victim of the disturbance was (1) undocumented and (2) was in possession of a gun–in violation of a California law.
STCL law students consisted of two teams, one representing the state and one representing the defendant.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Each team had a 20-25 minutes to make their case to the judges….
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
…while the pre-law students observed the process.
The Pre-Law students had some idea of what to expect. They had previously read the material provided by Rodriguez, and the LEAP Center has hosted its own undergraduate Moot Court team, while also hosting the 10th Court of Appeals at SHSU every year. Still, having Rodriguez’s insight made this more educational.
The Pre-Law Society and the LEAP Center would like to thank Jessica Rodriguez and South Texas College of Law for their hospitality on a Saturday morning to remember.
