By Jordan Freisleben
To start off recounting my experiences this past weekend at the Duke Moot Court Tournament with the Harvard-Westlake Moot Court Team, I should probably give a brief explanation of what exactly Moot Court is. It’s similar to Mock Trial and also coached by science teacher David Hinden. However, the team is much smaller than Mock Trial, consisting of only four members: Josh Oreman ’09 and Julia Hahn ’09 (Team 1), and Emily Firestein ’11 and myself (Team 2).
We’re given a hypothetical court case and must use Supreme Court precedents and justices’ opinions to know how to argue both sides against other teams. For this year’s hypothetical, we were given a situation in Bristol, North Carolina. An organization called A Fair Future was suing Bristol Public Schools for using family income as a proxy for race to integrate the racially disproportionate schools of East Bristol (73 percent white) and West Bristol (68 percent black). A Fair Future argued that using race as a factor for elementary and secondary school assignments violated the Equal Protection Clause while Bristol Public Schools argued that there was no racial intent, and that if there was, it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Our job was to create these arguments and present them to a “judge” against another team with the opposing argument.
After four weeks of preparation, studying cases from Brown v. Board of Education (1954) to Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), preparing the arguments of our hypothetical, we were finally able to present our hard work at the national moot court competition at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
Friday Feb. 20
5:45 a.m. – We arrive at LAX to make a 7:35 flight to Atlanta and after an hour and a half layover, we get on another flight to Raleigh-Durham.
5:50 p.m. – We finally arrive to Raleigh-Durham and check into the Millennium Hotel (the Moot Court headquarters that is very convenient to the Duke campus). There, we met up with last year’s Moot Court champions Danielle Kolin ’08 and Melissa Saphier ’08 who flew down from their respective colleges to support the team and help us out.
10 p.m. – After dinner with the team, Julia, Emily and I were up for another three hours prepping each other about our arguments. As the newbies, Emily and I were happy to get help and advice from Julia, Josh, Danielle and Melissa.
Saturday Feb. 21
8:45 a.m./Round 1 – Emily and I had our first round of the day. We were definitely nervous and probably did not perform as well as we would have hoped. We were assigned to be petitioner and even though we were uncomfortable; we won against the other team. Ultimately, it was a learning experience and we finally got an impression of how the process worked.
Round 2 – Emily and I were assigned to be respondent (Bristol Public Schools) against one of many North Hollywood High School’s teams there. (For the past few years, there has been a subtle, underlying rivalry between NoHo and H-W). Our judge, a junior at Duke, was probably one of the best in the competition – he was VERY inquisitive and definitely knew how to “grill” a team well. In retrospect, it’s great practice to have such a good judge so early in the competition to teach us how to really be on our game and know how to answer their questions well. His questions were pretty complex and took up a lot of time. When we were put on the spot, it got a little nervous and intimidating, but we stayed calm under pressure and answered his questions as thoroughly as we could.
Round 3 – Once again, Emily and I were assigned to respondent. The practice from Round 2 definitely helped make this round be an easy win for us. We went against a team from Hoover, Alabama. This round made me determine that it’s a lot more fun to listen to opposing counsel’s argument when they say it with a long Southern drawl. (I had to conceal my giggles when I heard the “y’alls”) This was our best round yet, and helped us build up our beginner’s confidence on our first day.
Round 4 – This time, we were assigned to be petitioner against another NoHo team (one that was very competitive with Harvard-Westlake). The NoHo team was definitely a challenging opponent and their arguments were very strong. Even though they won that round, I still felt that we had made huge progress over the course of the first day and that we had very strong arguments in Round 4. By the end of the day, we were able to recognize our weaknesses in all of our arguments and knew what we needed to improve on for the next day. It was 4:45 when we finished the first day and to say that we were exhausted is an understatement.
8 p.m. – After an early dinner at a local Durham pizza place, Julia, Emily and I went to review our arguments with Melissa and Danielle. What started as just hanging out turned into a full-on practice. Josh and Mr. Hinden joined us to review our rebuttals and prep us by asking “mock” questions that the judges could potentially ask us the next day. After learning our lesson from the night before, we decided to keep it an early night.
Sunday Feb. 22
8:45/Round 5 – Emily and I were assigned petitioner for the last round before determining who goes to quarterfinals. We went against another team from Alabama (the accents were still entertaining). I thought that our performances were the best ever. We answered every question well, had very strong arguments and our rebuttals were the best of the entire trip. Regardless if we would win or lose, we both felt really good about the last round.
12 p.m. – Before finding out who made it into the quarterfinals, the all girls a cappella group from Duke “Into the Blue,” performed for the Moot Court competitors. It was a good performance that gave us a nice break between the rounds. The best part was probably when they pulled Josh up to dance with them. Needless to say, Danielle, Emily, Melissa and I were rolling on the floor with laughter. Although hesitant and VERY embarrassed, Josh was a good sport and stayed up there dancing for the whole song. I think we all agreed that this was one of the best parts of the trip.
2 p.m. – Now was the moment of truth. After four weeks of intense after school prepping and a long weekend of arguing the constitutionality of race based school assignments and quoting Supreme Court justices and saying “Good afternoon, Your Honor, may it please the court,” we were going to see who made the quarterfinals and could continue in the competition. The six teams were posted on the overhead: Julia, Josh, Emily nor I were going to continue in the finals. Although disappointing, I feel like Julia and Josh truly were amazing and should have gone on to be in the finals. I wish my team could have advanced, but I feel like we ended strong, so I don’t really have any regrets. This was our first year competing and I feel like we progressed and did very well. Ultimately, it was a good learning experience and is great practice for doing Moot Court next year. By the end of it, I could proudly say that I could define the legal jargon and answer judges’ questions regarding principles established in Supreme Court cases. Being in the presence of Josh, Julia, Danielle and Melissa, really set the bar high as to how to really succeed at Moot Court. After saying goodbye to the two college freshmen, we left Duke and headed to the airport.
11:32 p.m. – After a long weekend and a brief stopover in Atlanta, we finally arrived at LAX after what seemed like a long flight with headwinds and turbulence.