1. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
2. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the defense. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
3. What was the most significant piece of evidence, in your personal opinion?
4. What was the most significant argument made, in your opinion?
5. What do you personally believe the correct verdict should be? Do you agree with the jury? Why or why not?
Then, in a final paragraph (or in a private email to me), complete the following:
Answers
1. In the prosecution side, they provided a lot of evidence and refereed to the constitution a lot, which I think they killed us with. Raul already stated that the author of SB 1070 Russell Pearce was a Neo Nazi, which the jury took in consideration. My defense side shouldn't have cross examined Raul, Lupe stood her ground and didn't allow us to get any "dirt". I liked how they went old school and brought back John Adams and James Madison, the founding fathers, to testify that Sb1070 contradicts the constitution.
1. In the prosecution side, they provided a lot of evidence and refereed to the constitution a lot, which I think they killed us with. Raul already stated that the author of SB 1070 Russell Pearce was a Neo Nazi, which the jury took in consideration. My defense side shouldn't have cross examined Raul, Lupe stood her ground and didn't allow us to get any "dirt". I liked how they went old school and brought back John Adams and James Madison, the founding fathers, to testify that Sb1070 contradicts the constitution.
2. What we did was bring in Jan Brewer, Russell Pearce, and Officer Kenneth Collins. Our arguments was that it was inhumane, economically wrong, and Sb1070 fits right in with current and previous laws. Jan Brewer stated that this bill was very popular. We also pointed out that Phoenix Arizona is the kidnapping capital of the nation, and 316 kipnapping cases were reported in 2009 alone. And other states like Pennsylvania introduced similar bills and asked Jan Brewer was this her intent when she signed.
3. When the prosecution brought up the constitution. I personally thought that that was the hay maker the killed us. When Calvin cross examined Jan Brewer and Russell Pearce they pointed out Amendment 6 and asked them both to read it out loud. It supported their case well and was a great piece of evidence.
4. When Raul came up to testify he pointed out that Russell Pearce was a Neo Nazi and that they brought both the founding fathers to testify that this bill contradicts the constitution.
5. I agree with the jury with their final verdict. When Calvin read his closing statement I actually felt guilty when he was reading it. He got us when he pointed out that the popular vote isn't always right.
I think I deserve a 45 out of 50 points because of the difficulty of the project and the short amount of time we had to formulate questions and finding relevant evidence to back up our questions. I did the following things very well: choosing our witnesses, finding evidence, learning SB1070, and dressing as a lawyer. I could have done a better job of preparing out witnesses for cross examination because thats where I think it hurt us, and preparing better follow up questions. Because in the cross examination the prosecution came hard and we weren't able to bounce back and get the last word out. I've learned that when the prosecution side came up weak in the 1 round and we were strong, they rebounded and came out full force to take it back. We shouldn't done a better job of staying consistent and not letting our guard down. Due to the level of difficulty and the amount of time we had, if only we had one day left I'm sure that we would've done much better and more prepared.
