Post Trial Reflection

Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.

Our mock trial was based on the Arizona immigration law. The prosecution claimed that the state of Arizona violated the spirit of America due to racial profiling, harassment, and the violation of the 5^th, 6^th, and 14^th amendments. Racial profiling and harassment was proved through evidence of a McDonalds incident in Arizona. It was also proved through the question, “If illegal immigrants are already committing a crime by being in this country, then how can you specifically point out them if they are just standing on the street?”

Another reason the prosecution claimed Arizona was violating the spirit of America was because of the 5^th, 6^th, and 14^th amendments. The 5^th amendment states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The 6^th amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” The 14^th amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This proved that the state of Arizona could not create any immigration laws; it was solely up to the Federal government.

The prosecution’s witnesses were: John Adams, James Madison, and Raul Grivalja.

Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the defense. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.

The defense claimed that Arizona was not violating the spirit of America because no place in the bill said that they would use racial profiling and that death tolls would decrease because Latinos would be less likely to cross the desert in order to get to Arizona. Their witnesses were Jan Bruer, Russel Pearce, and Robert Watchhorn. All witnesses stated that no racial profiling was used in this bill. Their evidence was the Arizona bill, and they used many quotes from it.

What was the most significant piece of evidence, in your personal opinion?

Personally, I think the most significant piece of evidence was the 5^th, 6^th, and 14^th amendments. I think that the 14^th amendment really fit well with the prosecution’s argument against the defense: how states cannot make immigration laws.

What was the most significant argument made, in your opinion?

I think the most significant argument was the racial profiling argument. I think that was the most discussed topic of the trial, and it could relate to everyone in a sense since most of our class is made up of different cultures. I think the prosecution had a great argument because it asked questions like, “If illegal immigrants are already committing a crime by being in this country, then how can you specifically point out them if they are just standing on the street?” The defense’s argument was not so strong, especially when the prosecution cross-examined Russel Pearce. They asked how a policeman could tell if someone’s illegal, and he said “if they are committing a crime, if they are thinking about committing a crime…” Well, thinking? How can you know someone’s thinking about a crime? I think this really proved that the defense did not pull their evidence or arguments together.

What do you personally believe the correct verdict should be? Do you agree with the jury? Why or why not?

I think the verdict given by our class was correct because the prosecution had great evidence and a great argument. I think the prosecution’s closing argument could have been stronger, but overall the prosecution asked great cross-examining questions, and used a really good interrogating strategy. The defense did well too, but they could've had stronger arguments and stronger cross examination questions. Their points seemed irrelevant especially with their witness who worked at Ellis Island. Overall, everyone did terrific.