Welcome to Hastings Moot Court! Please support our team by signing up to judge a practice argument!
Spring 2019 Competition Teams are practicing now!
Fall 2019 Competition Teams will start having practices September 2019.
|DATE AND TIME||TEAM||ROOM||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE|
|Tue. March 19|
|1:00PM - 2:30PM||Wagner||MCR||Madison DiZinno||Yena Kim||Holly Locke||Jessica Savelli (1-2pm)||Molly Edgar|
|6:30PM - 8:30PM||Kaufman||MCR||Eric Schmoll||Maxim Gorbunov||Eileen Han||Yoo Jun Cheon||Paige|
|Wed. March 20|
|3:30PM - 4:30PM||Prince Evidence||MCR||Madison DiZinno||Maya Galicia-Canto||Kaitlin Carragher||Holly Locke||Karl|
|3:30PM - 5:30PM||Traynor||F||Joe Dietrich||Swetha (till 4:30pm)||Emily Tripodi||Neriah Yue||Mikayla|
|7:00PM - 9:00PM||Kaufman||MCR||Yena||Amrita Sethi||Swetha Gopalakrishnan||Maya Galicia-Canto||Brittany|
Laura Anderson and Miranda Rowley
I. Whether, under the Fourth Amendment, the government must secure a warrant issued upon probable cause to directly obtain, from a non-medical commercial service that performs DNA analysis, genetic information related to a medical condition.
II. Whether, under the Fourth Amendment, the government must have reasonable suspicion to perform a forensic search of an electronic device seized at the United States border.
III. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 106 applies to the remainder of or related oral statements, and whether the Rule permits the receipt of otherwise inadmissible evidence.
Last practice March 23.
Alex Padua, Engram Wilkinson, Shandyn Pierce
Last practice March 19.
Jonathan Ebneyamin, Casey Trang, and Ryan Fallgatter
(1) Did appellant consent to a blood draw by virtue of California’s implied consent statute and his decision to drive on California roads after drinking?
(2) Did appellant expressly consent to a blood draw when he applied for a California driver’s license? Alternatively, does the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply here if police believed they were conducting a lawful search in light of Vehicle Code section 23612 section 13384 ?
Last practice April 3.
Eisha Perry, Monika Darwish, and Gian Gualco-Nelson
The US Supreme Court granted cert on the following two issues:
1. Whether claims challenging certain statements describing a company’s environmental commitments, practices, and risks are inactionable under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) as a matter of law, and whether those claims adequately plead scienter.
2. Whether a claim for control person liability under 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a) requires an allegation that the control person was a culpable participant in the primary violation.
Last practice March 28.