Moot Court – Page 3 – Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics

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.

Moot Court Practices

The LEAP Center runs SHSU’s Moot Court team, and students have been working feverishly to prepare for the upcoming scrimmage (October 9-10) and tournament (October 23-24). The Moot Court is a great way for students to prepare for law school, and it combines people’s greatest fear (public speaking) with pre-law students’ greatest anxiety (preparing for law school)!

The Team

SHSU’s Moot Court team consists of six students: Kaitlyn Tyra, Alex Galvan, Austin Campbell, James Perry, Chelsea King, and Kristyn Couvillion. They receive no academic credit for being on the team, but it is something that law schools look at, and if done correctly, can result in enhanced skills, increased confidence, a resume entry, and even a letter of recommendation. Their coach is Jean Loveall, a Program Coordinator for the LEAP Center, professor of the pre-law cohort, and an attorney who received her JD from SMU School of Law. Mike Yawn is the LEAP Center director, and he helps out when needed.

The Process and Timeline

The Texas Undergraduate Moot Court Association provides the Moot Court problem in May, and students and coaches work on the problem over the summer and early fall. After much reading (the entire problem consists of 19 cases, each average 15-20 pages) and many questions, the coach has a better idea of who is ready and who isn’t. If necessary, the coach may cut team members who are not putting in the necessary work or who aren’t showing the necessary improvement. Some students, after getting a better sense of what attorneys do, change their mind about being on the team.

By September, team members should be ready for public, semi-formal practices. In the last month, for example, the SHSU Team has engaged in two practices . Local attorneys served as judges, and the students got their chance to show their stuff in a courtroom setting, while having questions fired at them.

It can be rough going, but it is also rewarding.

Students have the chance to improve their critical thinking skills, their understanding of legal and political issues, and their ability to think on their feet.

October is the month for the formal scrimmage and the tournament. This year, scrimmages will be held at St. Mary’s and UNT Law schools. SHSU chose to participate in the UNT law school scrimmage because all three of its teams could participate (St. Mary’s limited participation to two teams). This scrimmage will take place October 9-10. Although the performances do not count in the point system determining whether a team goes to finals, it’s an important performance. Coaches assess the students’ performances and have the chance to make final team assignments for the tournament.

Teams consist of two members, and both argue in front of the three justices, with time roughly split between the two members.

This year, the tournaments are held at Texas Tech Law School and Texas A&M law school. SHSU is participating in Tech’s tournament on October 23-24. This is the real deal, and the winners of this tournament will go to Nationals in Washington, DC, which are held in January.

Looking Ahead

Loveall and Yawn are always on the lookout for potential members. Some students, for example, watched the practice moot court proceedings to see what might be in store for them next year. Other activities also provide Loveall and Yawn the opportunity to find students who have strong oral communication skills, a knowledge of basic law and politics, the desire to become an attorney, and a strong work ethic.

Jamaus, Brittany, & Beatriz get a head start
on next year’s tournament.

Moot Court Action: An SHSU Weekend in Nacogdoches

By Megan Chapa

After an exciting afternoon meeting David Berg, attorney and author of Run, Brother, Run, we packed up two cars and headed for Nacogdoches! We could feel the excitement build the closer we got to Nacogdoches, anticipation of our observation of a Moot Court Scrimmage and, more immediately, an adventurous evening of zip lining.

We arrived in Nacogdoches around 7:10pm and headed for the Zip Line course, ZipNac. The tour guides quickly suited us up and instructed on how to use the equipment safely and the proper procedures for a fun zip line. It was exciting to say the least.

I won’t forget the adrenaline rush I felt on that first drop down or walking over a suspension bridge in the dark.

Or the fun time we were able to spend together, whether it was Sura Omar and Ariel Traub…

…or Constance Gabel and Jessica Martinez….

…or Jasmine Moss and Megan Chapa…

…or the whole group….

…or whether it was Kaitlyn Tyra flying home in record time…

Kaitlyn Tyra's Finale — Kaitlyn Tyra’s Finale

…we all had a great time.

After zip lining we made our way to a local restaurant called Jalapeno tree, to enjoy a nice Mexican dinner. The appetizers consisted of chips, salsa and queso. My main course was chicken enchiladas, homemade rice and charro beans. The food was authentic and very delicious. At the restaurant we met with Gene Roberts, an attorney who is the Director of Student Legal Services at SHSU. He is in Nacogdoches to judge the Moot Scrimmage, and he will be helping us understand what to expect at the scrimmage, how the performances are judged, and tips for law school.

I am looking forward to another exciting day tomorrow watching the Moot Scrimmage and looking back at the wonderful memories made. It is moments like these that make me appreciate all that the LEAP center and Sam Houston State University do for us…

…After a short night of sleep, we were able to watch numerous Moot Court Scrimmages, which turned out to consist of a series of intriguing contests.

In all, we watched four contests. The morning contest was the most competitive. The students were highly skilled and very knowledgeable. The speakers displayed knowledge of the material, confidence, and spoke articulately about the legal matters they have been given to study. It could have been intimidating.

The second panel wasn’t as intimidating. The students struggled at times to articulate their ideas and occasionally seemed to struggle with the facts of the case. We learned later that we had seen the most and least prepared of the students, giving us a strong sense of the range of competition at these events.

A moot court competition is designed to mimic the appeals court process. Incidentally, the LEAP Center hosts four trials from the 10th Court of Appeals on campus every year, so many of us had seen that action. What we hadn’t seen was students try to replicate the work of appeals attorneys. Even the students who struggled helped us understand the process and, as always, we sympathized with those who have speak in public, a difficult task in almost any circumstance.

The afternoon groups fell within the range we had seen in the morning, and all of the teams taught us something about the law, the process of the moot court scrimmage, and ourselves. We are particularly grateful for Dr. Donald Gooch, the pre-law advisor at SFA, and Gene Roberts.

Following our observation, the general consensus was that we should form a Moot Court team at SHSU, and that many of us were game for the competition!

	The Civic Leadership… on Foundational Activities of the…
	The Civic Leadership… on The Philosophical Foundations…
	LEAPing Into Action… on The Philosophical Foundations…
	Jada Cook on SHSU Students LEAP Across Five…
	Reflections from the… on Kicking off the Semester Right…