1
Moo Moot Cour Courtt Ba Basi sics cs •
Moot Court competitions are based on the simulation of an appellate court proceeding.
•
Teams are given a fictitious case with an established set of facts and are expected to use real life case law in constructing an argument for or against the lower courts ruling. The fictitious case is called “the problem”
•
In each proceeding, proceeding, two teams will go up against each other with one represen representing ting the petitioner petitioner and one representi representing ng the respondent. respondent. The petitioner petitioner is the party that lost at the lower level. The respondent is the party that won at the lower level.
•
There There are two two people people to a team. team. Typical ypically ly,, the cases cases are set up so that there there are two major constitutional issues in question, allowing a neat division between team member’s member’s arguments. arguments. This year, year, there is a First Amendment Amendment free speech issue and a Fourth Amendment search issue.
•
Each team is allotted allotted an accumulativ accumulativee of 20 minutes to give their argument. argument. Teams can divide the time up as they wish, however there is a 7 minute minimum per person.
•
Petitioners have the option of reserving uo to three minutes for rebuttal, but must request to do so prior to the beginning of each round.
1
2
Making an argument
Where do I start? •
Read the problem - http://falcon.fsc.edu/mootcourt/
•
Use the Opinion of the lower court to help construct the basic gist of your argument (this is the case problem - it is a majority opinion and a dissent from the fictions lower court that already ruled in this area)
•
Both the majority and the dissenting opinion give concrete legal arguments for both sides
•
At the end of the Opinion, there is a list of other cases that you can use to support your argument.
•
Read the cases cited in the problem for your issue
•
Use these cases to expound on the argument given in the opinion and make it your own.
•
Back up all claims with Case Law - If possible, try to cite at least two cases for every major point. - Become very familiar with the cases that you cite:
– Know the split: If it’s a 7-2 decision it gives it more strength, if it’s a 5-4 decision you should try to avoid pointing that out.
– Know the facts, and the reasoning behind the ruling. – Case law is the backbone of your argument. A better understanding of the case law will lead to a stronger command of your argument.
2
How to Brief a Case Write briefs for all of the cases cited for your side. •
Name, year, vote court
– Ex: Texas vs. Johnson, 1989, 5-4 – Petitioner vs Respondent, Appellant vs Appellee, Loser at previous lvl vs. Winner at previous lvl
FACTS
– 4- 9 sentences... SHORT – Who did what to whom? Source of law - statute that infringes on a rt or liberty - what’s the battle about?
ISSUE
– Single sentence, yes/no question – “Is X constitutional?” is NOT sufficient
REASONING
– No more than half a page! – Why is the Ct deciding the way it’s deciding? - Stare decisis - precedent - common law decision stands (Ikemen - Kennedy sides to protect flag burning bc of TX vs Johnson)
HOLDING
– 2-3 sentences – Summarizes rule of law, who won, who lost 3
How do I write an argument? I) The theory of your case: This is a single sentence which explains your broad argument of why your side should win. 1) Big point one: This is your first legal reason explaining why your broad argument in your theory is the best. a) Subpoint one: A case or a reason supporting big point one b) Subpoint two: A case or a reason supporting big point one 2) Big point two: This is your second legal reason explaining why your broad argument in your theory is the best. a) Subpoint one: A case or a reason supporting big point two b) Subpoint two: A case or a reason supporting big point two Conclusion: This is a single sentence you can deliver while maintaining eye contact with the judges, persuading them why your side should win.
What do I say in a round? •
Introduction May it please the court, my name is ————–, and along with my co-council ————– we represent the petitioner/respondent. I will be addressing the ————– issue and my co-council will be addressing the ————–, issue.
•
Statement of the facts If you are the first speaker of the petitioner: Ask the Judges if they would like to hear a brief statement. If they say yes, be sure to make it as brief as possible without skipping over the main points. Less time on the facts = more time on your argument.
4
•
Statement of your issue - The issue before the Court is whether the federal government’s issuance of an administrative subpoena requiring a commercial Internet Service Provider (ISP) to turn over the content of a subscriber’s chat room dialogue violated the Fourth Amendment?
•
Answer the issue and road map It was (or was not) a violation of the Fourth Amendment for two reasons: one) Big point one and two) Big point two.
•
Discuss your argument - State Big point one and use sub point one and two to explain it. Cite relevant case law and apply them to the relevant facts. - judges will begin to ask you questions so you have to be comfortable with your argument
•
Move on to Big Point Two
•
Conclusion - In light of Big Point One and Big Point Two, I respectfully request that this Court would find in favor of the petitioner/respondent and reverse/uphold the ruling of the lower court. Thank you.
•
Rebuttal (For Petitioner ONLY) : Hit on one or two points, most important point first. - Attack misstatements and weaknesses of Respondents argument
5
3
Court Room Etiquette •
Dress is business formal.
•
Be extremely respectful. When addressing judges, refer to them as “Your Honor.”
•
Keep hand gestures to a minimum. Hand movement can distract judges, and should only be used for emphasizing a main point.
•
Always stand when the judges enter the room. Do not sit down until they tell you to.
•
When at the podium, do not have a clutter of notes. Try to just bring a single manila folder.
•
4
Keep good eye contact with all of the judges.
2011-2012 Tournament Schedule •
TUMCA Tournament - Texas Wesleyan School of Law - Ft Worth, TX Friday Oct. 7 and Sat Oct 8
•
Southwestern Regional Tournament (National qualifier) - Texas Tech University School of Law, Lubbock, TX - November 4-5, 2011
•
South Texas Regional Tournament (National qualifier) - Baylor University School of Law, Waco, TX - December 2-3, 2011
•
National tournament - Regent University School of Law, Virginia Beach, VA - Jan 2012
•
TUMCA Tournaments - UNT, Baylor and OKC School of Law - Spring 2012
•
NOTE: You may only attend one regional tournament. The top performers at the regional tournaments will qualify for the national tournament. 6
