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
Sat. October 21
10:00AM - 12:00PM 3L Nationals Team MCR Mitchell VanLandingham
10:00AM - 12:00PM 2L Nationals 314 Brittany Smith
10:00AM - 12:00PM Crim Pro 3L 307B(Closed)
12:00PM - 2:00PM Tang (Petitioner) - National Competition 219 Karl Johnston Tammy Su Nicholas Ma
1:00PM - 3:00PM Crim Pro 3L 307B(Closed)

See all 130 upcoming practices

Teams

Irene Lee, Brittany Smith

The Tang problem this year is a Fourth Amendment problem based in part on the warrantless search of historical and real-time cell phone data.  The two issues are:

I. Whether the government’s acquisition of historical cell phone records, without a warrant, for the purpose of identifying an individual’s location over the course of several months violates the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures found in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

II. Whether the warrantless use of cell-site simulators to track an individual’s locationand movements in real-time violates the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures found in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Last practice October 30.

View schedule

Nicole Vales, Sandy Gonzalez, and Sierra Luther

Petitioner claims she was harmed by a generic drug manufacturer's failure to update the drug's warning label.  

I. Are Illinoza state law's requirements for warning labels preempted by federal law's updating limitations?

II. Is Respondent entitled to attorney's fees, awarded from the Petitioner?

Last practice October 30.

View schedule

Naomi Strauss, Jonathan Klaren, and John Darin

This year the problem is set in a "Dr. Who" universe and deals with First and Fourth Amendment issues.  The issues are as follows:

  1. Whether a plaintiff alleging violation of her First Amendment rights in a retaliatory arrest suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must plead and prove lack of probable cause as an element of her claim.

  2. Whether a driver of a rental car who booked and paid for the rental but was not contractually authorized to drive it has a legitimate expectation of privacy sufficient to convey standing to sue over an unconstitutional vehiclesearch.

Last practice November 15.

View schedule

Kyle Mclean, Gaa Reid, Miranda Rowley

Laura Kinney, an aspiring local rap artist and LGBT activist, was arrested for possession of cocaine during a pride parade and was later convicted on paraphernalia charges. During her trial, rap lyrics were admitted as evidence of specific intent to distribute despite a motion in limine to exclude them.  During voir dire, the prosecution used its peremptory challenge to strike a juror that was a member of the LGBT community.  The defense raised a Batson challenge, arguing that the prosecution struck him based on his sexual orientation.
The issues on appeal are as follows: 
 
1. Whether the Thirteenth Circuit properly found that the District Court was correct in finding the rap lyrics were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) but that the District Court erred in denying the motion in limine under Fed. R. Evid. 403, and if so, whether the error was harmless.
 
2. Whether the Thirteenth Circuit properly held that the Batson test applies to peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation and, that the defendants established purposeful discrimination.

Last practice November 13.

View schedule

Alexander Padua, Kaitlin Carragher, Paige Adaskaveg

This year the problem is set in a "Dr. Who" universe and deals with First and Fourth Amendment issues.  The issues are as follows:

  1. Whether a plaintiff alleging violation of her First Amendment rights in a retaliatory arrest suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must plead and prove lack of probable cause as an element of her claim.

  2. Whether a driver of a rental car who booked and paid for the rental but was not contractually authorized to drive it has a legitimate expectation of privacy sufficient to convey standing to sue over an unconstitutional vehiclesearch.

Last practice November 15.

View schedule

Holden Bennon, Rachel Lydon, & Karl Johnston

An aspiring local rap artist, activist, and founder of an LGBT organization, was arrested for possession of cocaine during a pride parade and was later convicted. During her trial, rap lyrics were admitted as evidence of specific intent to distribute despite a motion in limine to exclude them.  During voir dire, the prosecution used its peremptory challenge to strike a juror who had accessed services from an LGBT organization and who voiced his support of the Supreme Court case invalidating DOMA.  The juror also indicated he was gay.  The defense raised a Batson challenge, arguing that the prosecution struck him based on his sexual orientation and that it was impermissible in the same way that gender and race may not be used as the reason to strike a juror.
 
The issues on appeal are as follows: 
 
1. Whether the Thirteenth Circuit properly found that the District Court was correct in finding the rap lyrics were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) but that the District Court erred in denying the motion in limine under Fed. R. Evid. 403, and if so, whether the error was harmless.
 
2. Whether the Thirteenth Circuit properly held that the Batson test applies to peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation and, that the defendants established purposeful discrimination.

Last practice November 13.

View schedule

Yuping and Laura

This year's Crim Pro problem address issues on the cutting edge of Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence.  The first issue considers Fourth Amendment protections at the border as well as what protection will be afforded electronic devices.  The second issue addresses how new technology such as drones and radar devices will affect society's expectation of privacy and the definition of a search.

Last practice November 8.

View schedule

Fiona Duffy, Jordan Olson

Was the government’s search of Respondent’s laptop at a border station a valid search pursuant to the border search exception to the warrant requirement?

Did the use of a PNR-1 drone and handheld Doppler radar device constitute a search in violation of Respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights?

Last practice November 8.

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.