Welcome to Hastings Moot Court! Please support our team by signing up to judge a practice argument!

 

Upcoming Practices

DATE AND TIME TEAM ROOM JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Thu. February 23
8:00AM - 9:30AM Team Evans K Julia Remer Stephanie Stupakis Rebecca Buchsbaum Michaela Davies Julia Remer
9:00AM - 11:00AM Asylum (MATT & EMILY) 410 (100 Building) Cyril Kottuppallil Julia Remer
1:00PM - 3:00PM Asylum (Kellan & Terry) G Jordan Olson Adam Harris Elisa Vari Adam Truong
6:00PM - 8:00PM Cardozo B
6:30PM - 8:00PM HAP E Ashley Gendotti William Ryan Elysia Rachel Lydon Austin Prouty

See all 98 upcoming practices

Teams

Matt Friedman & Emily Clark

I. Whether a nexus exists between Ms. Sala’s alleged persecution and a protect ground; and

 

II. Whether substantial evidence supports a finding that the San Martino government was unwilling or unable to protect Ms. Sala. Assuming a finding that the San Martino Government was unwilling or unable to protect Sala, does substantial evidence support a finding of reasonable relocation with San Martino?

Last practice March 3.

View schedule

Fiona Duffy and Jillian Kaltner

This matter comes before the Court regarding evidence gathered from the search of Respondent's storage area and of his cellphone and the use of the fingerprint technology to unlock his cellphone. The Court certifies the following questions:

  1. Whether the Respondent's shared, common space in a multi-residential dwelling was curtilage and whether the Respondent lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the space.

  2. Whether the use of the Respondent's fingerprint to access his cellphone was self- incrimination and whether the search warrant issued for the Respondent's cellphone lacked particularity in the place to be searched and the plain view doctrine applies to electronic devices.

Last practice February 28.

View schedule

En-ta Tu & Amardeep Bains

I. Whether a nexus exists between Ms. Sala’s alleged persecution and a protect ground; and 

II. Whether substantial evidence supports a finding that the San Martino government was unwilling or unable to protect Ms. Sala. Assuming a finding that the San Martino Government was unwilling or unable to protect Sala, does substantial evidence support a finding of reasonable relocation with San Martino?

Last practice March 2.

View schedule

Kellan Smith and Terry Finck

I. Whether a nexus exists between Ms. Sala's alleged persecution and a protect ground; and 

II. Whether substantial evidence supports a finding that the San Martino government was unwilling or unable to protect Ms. Sala. Assuming a finding that the San Martino Government was unwilling or unable to protect Sala, does substantial evidence support a finding of reasonable relocation with San Martino?

Last practice March 1.

View schedule

Michelle Freeman and Deborah Rodriguez

Appeal of a denial of a petition for asylum and withholding of removal.

Last practice April 2.

View schedule

Jonathan Klaren and Jessica Dabiri

This year’s Prince Competition problem, United States v. Paul Rutherford, focuses on three distinct, complex evidentiary issues, two of which involve the intersection of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the United States Constitution. In the problem, Defendant Paul Rutherford, the Governor of Boerum State, stands indicted for murdering his longtime aide Victor Smith to prevent Smith’s attendance or testimony in an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1). The Government alleges that the Defendant murdered Smith to prevent Smith from testifying before a grand jury investigating bribery and corruption allegations involving the Defendant as well as to prevent him from disclosing that the Defendant’s computer contained sexually suggestive images of and conversations with teenage girls.

 

The Defendant moved before the District Court to (1) suppress information seized from his computer; (2) exclude a statement Smith made to his fiancée on the night of his death that he had dinner plans with the Defendant; and (3) exclude opinion testimony by a surrogate medical examiner regarding cause of death that relied upon statements from an autopsy report prepared by a different medical examiner.

 

The District Court ruled in favor of the Defendant on all three issues. On the Government’s interlocutory appeal, the Fourteenth Circuit affirmed. The Government successfully sought certiorari, and the Supreme Court certified the following three issues:

 

  1. Whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule announced in United States v. Leon applies to evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant where the probable cause supporting issuance of the warrant has been established with evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) permits admission of a statement of a declarant’s then-existing state of mind to prove conduct of someone other than the declarant.
  3. Whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under Crawford v. Washington is violated by admitting opinion testimony of a surrogate medical examiner concerning cause of death where that opinion is based on statements in an autopsy report prepared by another, unavailable medical examiner.

Last practice March 27.

View schedule

David Casarrubias, Christina Sturdevant, Steven Wall

1.   Whether the District Court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that the speech at issue did not fall under the protections of the First Amendment because it was delivered pursuant to public employment. 

2.   For the purposes of qualified immunity, whether the law was sufficiently clear to put the Board of Trustees on notice that denying tenure to a faculty member in response to a poem she performed was unlawful because her speech was outside the scope of her employment and protected by the First Amendment.

Last practice March 20.

View schedule

Andrew Wu, Francesca Reifer

 To be added

Last practice March 2.

View schedule

Contact team scheduling contacts for questions or changes in judging practices.
Contact Iain Cunningham at iain@hastingsmootcourt.com for questions or comments about this web page.