Moot Court
The bad news is, in order to keep up with my writing schedule, I’ll have to read a 275 page book this weekend. It’s Saturday night, I’m to page 60. Who knows how far I’ll get by Sunday night.
I got the book Thursday, but I started reading it today because I was preoccupied with another assignment...Moot Court.
Preparation consisted of me reading through the majority and dissenting opinion once a day-ish for about a week and a half. After getting a handle on the situation and case law, I wrote a brief.
This morning, me and my pledge brother Derek took the side of the petitioner and the respondent in an appeal of a case modeled after the current Buono v. Salazar case. We each argued slightly distinct portions of the case. Then we switched from one side to the other for the second round.
My greatest strength was that I knew the case frontwards and back (limited information was provided about the case law) and thus I was able to easily cite and apply precedent. My argument was strong and I didn’t get backed into any corners because I mispoke, misquoted, or misunderstood. For the most part, I was able to field questions well.
However, I didn’t do a good enough job of persuasively answering the questions. Sometimes I experienced difficulty applying the question to the case. Other times I avoided conversing about the question, instead insisting on sticking to the case. My intent was to avoid reversing myself or going off-topic. But as one of the judges remarked later, if a judge wants to talk about something, you’ll talk about it too.
To conclude, it was a new, substantial experience. The other remark made about my performance was that I lack confidence when answering questions. This tells me I need to concentrate on my delivery while thinking, not just while I'm recalling my argument. Though I didn’t make the finals, I’m glad I devoting the time and energy to this program.
Also, I would like to give a shout-out to Daniel Edward Lesch.