1. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 2162 are laws that were written primarily by Richard Pearce, and were recently signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. This law allows police to ask for the papers of people when "reasonable suspicion" tells them that a person is an illegal immigrant.
This law violates the spirit of United States immigrant history because it takes away the rights of people--and The Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence applies to all people, not just citizens. This law is also unconstitutional because international affairs are meant to be dealt with by the Federal Government. "Reasonable suspicion" is no where defined in this law, and is an open door for racial profiling.
Recently, an American-born Latino citizen was brought into custody by the police of Arizona, who were trying to catch illegal immigrants. She repeatedly told them that she was a citizen, and had her papers, but they wouldn't listen. She was released after four hours. This was evidence for racial profiling as well as going against the 4th Amendment (that protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures).
The new law is going against the 4th (protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures), 5th (gives people the right to a jury, court, and to not be prosecuted for the same reason twice), 6th (gives people the right to a fair trial), and 14th Amendment (No state shall make a law that abridges the rights of people). This was proven by their witness, James Madison.
Their witness, John Adams, brought up the Alien and Seditions Acts, which was a law similar to this one when a state law tried to deal with immigrants, which was later proven unconstitutional. This was also true for Operation Waterback, and Proposition 187.
Raul Grujalva, their final witness, explained his experience with immigration, Operation Waterback, and Prop 187, and explained that they failed because they were unconstitutional, because state governments cannot make laws about international affairs, such as immigration.
2. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the defense. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 2162 are laws that were written primarily by Richard Pearce, and were recently signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. It is not unconstitutional because the law is dealing with crime, not international affairs. Police can't pull over a person or ask people for their papers unless a crime has been made, or "reasonable suspicion" is present. In the law, it specifically says that racial profiling is not allowed, still illegal, and cannot be used. These methods are similar to those used in Ellis Island-- a method that worked well in making sure illegal immigrants didn't get through.
This law is not violating the spirit of immigrant history because it is protecting not only the citizens of the state from danger, but the immigrants from the extreme temperatures of Arizona, which many illegal immigrants may be living out in.
Statistics show that most people in the country, including government officials, support this law.
Their witnesses Jan Brewer and
3. What was the most significant piece of evidence, in your personal opinion?
Well, I was a lawyer for the prosecution, and the most significant pieces of evidence to me was the fact that America has been based on always progressing, and equal rights for everyone. For example:
The Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienablerights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish itI also thought an extremely significant piece of evidence was the fact that Federal Government is the only level of government that is allowed to deal with international affairs such as immigration. It also really helped to have examples like Prop 187 and so on that were removed due to the same prosecutions of being unconstitutional for that very reason.
4. What was the most significant argument made, in your opinion?
Once again, I was a lawyer for the prosecuting side, so I can't help but say that my side had the most evidence, biggest points, and included the morals America has had since it became it's own independent country. We also had the most history, which was a big factor in this argument, and we did a lot of cross examining.
5. What do you personally believe the correct verdict should be? Do you agree with the jury? Why or why not?
I do agree with the jury. I can't see anyway that this law is not going against the fact that this state law is dealing with an international affair, and there were just too many ways that racial profiling could be brought up in the future due to this law, whether it says it's not permitted or not, it is something that is bound to happen, and from the looks of it, already did happen from what we can see in this Arizona news broadcast.
Rights are already being violated before the law is put into action. Chances are, this kind of thing would only continue. I think there has to be a better way to handle the immigration issue, and police cannot learn how to look at a person and know that they are an illegal immigrant based on clothing, or something like that. It just doesn't make sense to me. But I hope that another more reasonable, and legal solution is found sometime soon.
I, as a prosecuting lawyer, think I deserve a 53.5 out of 50 points (which is 107%) because these past few weeks have been dedicated to building my case. I stayed up late hours doing more research, picking out witnesses, researching valuable American documents such as The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (though I didn't use it in my case, because I thought it might go a little off topic), and so forth. I also did hours of research on the witnesses my partner and I chose so we could completely understand the topics we wanted to focus on with them, what points we were proving, and how well we could explain this to the jury. This is the hardest and longest I've worked on a short project, and it was very new to me. I had never really seen how real courtroom cases worked, or understood what kind of work lawyers really did. I just knew a lot of methods of debating.
I also feel like I came a bit more out of my shell with this project, because I would cross examine, and question with little hesitation, and I didn't feel nervous in front of the small crowd we had, and to be honest, I barely even noticed them. I was focused throughout this entire project, so much so that I couldn't remember what day it was, or what was even going on around me, even at home. I helped all of my witnesses and my partner as much as I could. I feel like I deserve 107% because I went beyond my usual 100% limits. I lost hours of sleep to research and develop my understanding of my case, the defendants case, and witnesses. I went to sources other than the internet to get my information (such as teachers, family, etc.), and the only times I did "relax", I was watching courtroom cases so I could learn how to ask questions, and what is to be expected of me in the court. I feel like I bettered myself through all the work.
However, I certainly could have tried harder to learn objections, and make sure that the jury fully understood my argument. It was hard to find ways to teach the jury about the amendments I was using in the case. It was also hard to make my point obvious. To understand what I was saying, you'd need a general understanding for the constitution, and most of the jury, as I found out during the time I questioned them, didn't know much about it. I think I also could have done a little better at the way I worded some of my questions. A few of them really made sense in my head, but I couldn't find the words I needed to get my message through. I had all or most of the answers, but they weren't always clear.
