Attorneys in Motion
|
Attorneys in Motion |
|
|
DOT
ATTORNEYS PREPARE ROOSEVELT HIGH STUDENTS FOR TRIAL D.C. STREET LAW MOCK
TRIAL PROGRAM Between
February and May 2003, Sharon Donovan, Ann Gawalt, Damon Whitehead and
I lent our trial advocacy skills to a class of Roosevelt High School seniors
to assist their preparation for a mock trial competition. The mock trial
competition is part of Georgetown University Law Center's yearlong Street
Law High School Clinic. The Clinic pairs law school students with District
of Columbia Public High Schools. The law students teach a yearlong course
introducing high school students to the legal system and how it impacts
their lives. The course focuses on teaching students the skills to resolve
everyday problems through their understanding of legal principles, primarily
in the areas of criminal, tort, family, and individual rights law. Each year the Street Law High School Clinic culminates with a mock trial competition that pits teams from across the District against each other in a test of advocacy. The high school students prepare over a period of several months to be lawyers and witnesses in a complex and controversial case. The law student instructors are paired with attorneys from government agencies and law firms who act as mentors and instructors for the high school students and their law school instructors. This year's case, People v. Andrew Madison, explored the issue of violence toward students on school grounds. The fact pattern centered on students at Street Law High School (SLHS) in the District of Justicia, where a number of students were harassed by non-students on or near school grounds resulting in the principal requesting that the police increase patrol in the area. The day before Thanksgiving Break, Andrew Madison, the defendant and a student at SLHS, was hanging out on a street corner just outside school grounds with his friend Jamie Lincoln. Madison was smoking a cigarette and joking with some students passing by. The police thought that he was an adult and stopped to question him. When the police requested identification, Madison, by his own admission, did not respond immediately. When the officer threatened to arrest him, Madison stated that he reached for his identification at which time the arresting officer attacked him, wrestled him to the ground and broke his wrist. The arresting officer countered that she saw a shiny object, which she believed to be a knife, emerge when Madison reached into his pocket. Fearing for her safety, the officer attempted to disarm Madison. According to the arresting officer, Madison broke his wrist during the struggle. The defendant was charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. To support its claims, the People pointed to the fact that the defendant did not immediately respond to the request for identification, that the defendant was carrying a pocketknife that caused injury to the arresting officer, and the defendant's past history of disrespect toward law enforcement. In response to these arguments, the defendant argued that the officers arrested him without probable cause and used excessive force in doing so. To support his claim of excessive force, the defendant pointed to his broken wrist as well as the arresting officer's past record of excessive force claims. These issues immediately grabbed our students' attention and engaged their curiosity. We introduced the facts of the case through a Jerry Springer-like talk show exercise. To begin a discussion of the facts we asked the students to explain what facts they thought were most important and why. We could see students gaining confidence when they were able to explain the case in their own words. During the classes leading up to the competition we used student-centered methods to teach the necessary trial skills, including role-plays, simulations, large and small group discussions, lectures, and a preparatory mock trial. As mentors, our goal was to assist students in preparation for the mock trial, as opposed to telling them what to think and how to perform. Teaching students to think and act like lawyers had its challenges. Early on the class was divided into prosecution and defense teams. This division taught the students that a lawyer does not necessarily get to choose the side he or she is to represent. They had to learn to take their clients as they found them. Another constant challenge was communicating the importance of preparation. As lawyers, we have learned the importance of proper preparation for success. Many of the students believed that they could put on a trial with very little work outside the classroom. This required us to go over material several times. We were able to convince some students to come to class more prepared after exercises that required the students to conduct direct and cross examinations of the mentor attorneys. Many students became frustrated because they could not get us to answer questions as they wanted. This exercise taught the students that a deep understanding of the facts of the case permits an attorney to more easily adjust questions on the fly for difficult witnesses. Moreover, the students saw firsthand how unprepared they were when, without prior notice, we had the students perform the entire trial. On the day of the competition, despite nerves and stage fright (and the students were nervous as well), the students performed admirably before a proud audience of parents, siblings, and friends. Notwithstanding our concerns that the students needed more practice time, they displayed an easy familiarity with the facts, knowledge of the applicable law, and a confidence in their presentation. This confident display resulted in good scores and compliments from the competition's judges. We truly enjoyed working with the students throughout the mentoring experience. It was especially rewarding to observe the mock trial tournament where we saw weeks of committed work by the students coalesce into an actual trial. All attorneys are strongly encouraged to participate in next year's Street Law Mock Trial Competition. The opportunity to promote critical thinking by the students and to witness their success at trial was invaluable. Our lives were also enriched by the individual personality of each student and by the class as a whole, which showed great appreciation for our efforts.
|
