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

The prosecution was arguing that the new law being put in place goes against the American spirit of immigrant history because it is an immigration law, and that it violates peoples constitutional rights. They also argued that the law results in racial profiling and they used john adams, raul grijalva, and james madison.

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

The defense was arguing that the new law does not violate the spirit because it is merely a law to lower crime rates within the state. Also, we (the defense) argued that it is a state crime law, and not a federal immigration law. Also, we argued that it does not promote or allow racial profiling in any way.For our witnesses, we used jan brewer, russell pearce, and robert watchorn.

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

The most significant piece of evidence was the constitution. Out of all the evidence, this is the one that is set in stone, and i feel that it has a lot of information that could be used against us during the trial.

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

I think the most significant argument made was the argument about whether it is a state crime law, or a federal immigration law because it really sways the case either way.

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

It hurts to say, but I think that the verdict was correct. Although Hallie and I put a good amount of time into preparing for this trial, we were still defeated by a worthy opponent that had more cross examinations and valid points. Even though some of our team members weren't as prepared as they should have been, we still have no excuse for the lack of questions asked because we are all a team in the end. I agree with the jury in their decision because d'vaughn and ben seemed like the stronger side, but I think we were a very close second and Im proud of the work we did together as a team.


I think I deserve a 49/50 because I truly put in a lot of time, thought, and effort during the course of this trial, and I think that I embraced the workload and did my part. The strongest point was the writing and presentation of my closing argument, but I think I did well with some of the questions I asked during cross examination as well. I think I did these things well because I tried to write them in a sophisticated way, as well as delivering them with articulation. I think I could have done better at getting more cross examinations during the trial since we ended up being short on them. Also, I think I could have spoken louder during parts of the trial to make more of a point, but I tried to fix this by being loud during my closing argument. Overall, I am proud of the work I did during the trial and think that it was a success.