Welcome to the CRCL 2013 Ames Moot Court Semi-Finals Liveblog!

Tonight’s judges are:

The Honorable Sandra Segal Ikuta (9th Circuit)
The Honorable Catherine C. Blake (District of Maryland)
The Honorable Paul J. Watford (9th Circuit)

[JI = Judge Ikuta; JB = Judge Blake; JW = Judge Watford]

(for coverage of the second night, please click here)

April 3, 2013 - 07:53:44 pm by David Hanyok

AND THE WINNER IS: Ashwin Phatak for best oralist! Petitioner for best brief! And the petitioners win it all.

April 3, 2013 - 07:52:41 pm by David Hanyok

Drumroll………..

April 3, 2013 - 07:52:29 pm by David Hanyok

JB: Briefs are also excellent. “Reply brief was actually a reply brief.”

April 3, 2013 - 07:51:19 pm by David Hanyok

JW: Difficult decision for best oralist. Most impressive thing — what Kozinski says is most important for oral advocates — was how well the advocates listened.

April 3, 2013 - 07:50:00 pm by David Hanyok

JI particularly impressed with “flexibility” and breadth of precedent they used, and that they kept their cool very well in the face of tough questioning.

April 3, 2013 - 07:49:13 pm by David Hanyok

JI: Ames lawyers were amazing. If only real lawyers were as good as law students! Etc.

April 3, 2013 - 07:48:04 pm by David Hanyok

All rise! We’re back for the results.

April 3, 2013 - 07:31:02 pm by David Hanyok

Nice work, y’all. I think the petitioners got the better of that one, but I am on CR-CL and might be a little biased.

April 3, 2013 - 07:29:46 pm by Alexander Chen

Thanks for joining us for the CR-CL live blog! Good night and good luck.

April 3, 2013 - 07:29:19 pm by David Hanyok

AP: above age of consent, government bears the burden of showing abuse or exploitation before pictures like this can be prohibited. Aaaannnnd that’s the show.

April 3, 2013 - 07:28:15 pm by David Hanyok

AP: this rule wouldn’t threaten the federal child pornography statute.

April 3, 2013 - 07:27:37 pm by David Hanyok

Maybe not a good idea to bring up weird self-consent arguments during rebuttal?

April 3, 2013 - 07:27:22 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: How can you consent to do anything to yourself?

April 3, 2013 - 07:25:59 pm by David Hanyok

AP up for the rebuttal.

April 3, 2013 - 07:25:30 pm by Eric Rice

PB: Overbreadth analysis would involve imagining entire universe of possibilities and would be overly speculative

April 3, 2013 - 07:23:57 pm by David Hanyok

Wait why are children sexting their doctors and why is that okay?

April 3, 2013 - 07:23:33 pm by Eric Rice

PB: This statute means sexually explicit images of minor that depict nudity or partial nudity based on OED and sister state anti-sexting statutes

April 3, 2013 - 07:21:32 pm by David Hanyok

Sex offender registration rears its ugly head.

April 3, 2013 - 07:21:09 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: Your whole case rides on whether it’s under the child pornography exception. If it isn’t, I can’t see how you win.

April 3, 2013 - 07:20:43 pm by David Hanyok

JW: fully protected speech might fall into the wrong hands later, so we should prohibit it now? SMH.

April 3, 2013 - 07:20:17 pm by Eric Rice

PB: We think that even if this was fully protected speech the statute would meet strict scrutiny

April 3, 2013 - 07:20:10 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: If these images are fully-protected speech, we can criminalize possession?

April 3, 2013 - 07:19:13 pm by Eric Rice

PB: You could imagine a less effective statute that only criminalized sending the images, but then receivers would have no incentive to delete it

April 3, 2013 - 07:16:23 pm by Eric Rice

PB: You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube

April 3, 2013 - 07:16:15 pm by David Hanyok

JB: not a 12-year-old; a 16-year-old (which is age of consent in Ames). So why not just penalize distribution?

April 3, 2013 - 07:15:26 pm by Eric Rice

PB: Once a minor creates an image and puts it out there they never know if that will be passed on

April 3, 2013 - 07:14:55 pm by Eric Rice

PB: There is a difference between hamsters and children

April 3, 2013 - 07:14:51 pm by David Hanyok

PB: “on the harddrive of a 45-year-old man in Nevada” — vivid imagery.

April 3, 2013 - 07:14:28 pm by Eric Rice

PB: Circuit courts in digital-morphing cases held that those images were child porn despite lack of underlying criminal conduct

April 3, 2013 - 07:14:08 pm by David Hanyok

PB: this would be the first time that a court ruled that an image that met the definition of child pornography was not child pornography.

April 3, 2013 - 07:12:26 pm by David Hanyok

Watford is really going in on these guys. On both sides.

April 3, 2013 - 07:11:34 pm by David Hanyok

JW: “I’m still waiting for an answer to my question.” Ouch.

April 3, 2013 - 07:10:55 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: Free Speech is very much about child porn. “Where the speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the First Amendment.” How do we get around that?

April 3, 2013 - 07:10:20 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JI: Ferber limited to images the product of criminal conduct?

April 3, 2013 - 07:10:02 pm by Eric Rice

PB: State has compelling interest in protecting kids from harmful consequences of these images and that passes strict scrutiny

April 3, 2013 - 07:09:17 pm by Eric Rice

PB: about 25% of images do get out and then they spread rapidly

April 3, 2013 - 07:08:59 pm by Eric Rice

PB: A sixteen year old girl who takes explicit pic of herself and presses send has reduced herself to sexually explicit image that she no longer controls and which might have life altering consequences

April 3, 2013 - 07:08:37 pm by David Hanyok

Finally using the word “sexting.” None of that weaselly “texting sexual photographs” or whatever the petitioners said.

April 3, 2013 - 07:08:05 pm by Eric Rice

Patrick Brown (PB): The question here is whether the State of Ames can prevent harm done to minor by transmission of nude pictures

April 3, 2013 - 07:08:01 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JB: What is the harm when the picture is voluntary?

April 3, 2013 - 07:07:15 pm by Eric Rice

April 3, 2013 - 07:07:12 pm by Eric Rice

ZH: The reason Chadwick distinguished Robinson and Edwards was to say that items on arrestee have reduced expectation of privacy

April 3, 2013 - 07:06:20 pm by Alexander Chen

JW apologizes for speechifying, but not because he isn’t sure he’s right.

April 3, 2013 - 07:05:48 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: There is no reduced expectation of privacy. The rationale is once you’ve been taken into custody, you have a reduced expectation of privacy literally with respect to your person. This rationale has never been extended to searching a diary, notebook, or cell phone.

April 3, 2013 - 07:05:38 pm by David Hanyok

Apparently a lot of stuff “doesn’t make sense” in this oral argument. Reasoning kinda faltering when detached from rationales.

April 3, 2013 - 07:05:06 pm by Eric Rice

ZH: There is a reduced expectation of privacy in items confiscated at arrest

April 3, 2013 - 07:04:28 pm by David Hanyok

ZH: if search can be conducted at time of arrest, it can be done soon after as well.

April 3, 2013 - 07:03:27 pm by David Hanyok

Can’t just go with “what SCOTUS said” if it makes no sense.

April 3, 2013 - 07:03:17 pm by Alexander Chen

SI: All this seems incredibly arbitrary. Where’s the rationale here?

April 3, 2013 - 07:02:55 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: I see an officer walk over and I hand it to my girlfriend – can’t search that?

April 3, 2013 - 07:02:30 pm by Eric Rice

ZH: the phone in the hand is probably the same as the phone in the pocket

April 3, 2013 - 07:02:20 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: So if my cellphone is in my hand, that’s fine, but if it’s in my jacket pocket, it’s not? That doesn’t make any sense!

April 3, 2013 - 07:02:05 pm by David Hanyok

ZH: distinction between cell phone in your hand and in your pocket. Hm.

April 3, 2013 - 07:01:26 pm by David Hanyok

[And then if you can look at already-downloaded emails, can you look at the ones that automatically download when you open the email app??]

April 3, 2013 - 07:01:24 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: Is my luggage on my person under your rule?

April 3, 2013 - 07:01:15 pm by Eric Rice

ZH: Would draw the line at what is stored on the hard-drive so its stored on the person

April 3, 2013 - 07:00:49 pm by David Hanyok

ZH: search limited to information on the phone, which is on the person, not email, which is in the cloud or something? [But what about already-downloaded emails?]

April 3, 2013 - 06:58:13 pm by David Hanyok

ZH: cell phones are drug-related possessions — satisfying Gant requirement of linkage between crime and search.

April 3, 2013 - 06:57:34 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JI: If Gant says there needs to be closer linkage, and the fact that cell is different than cig container, isn’t that enough to make a new rule for cells?

April 3, 2013 - 06:56:59 pm by Eric Rice

ZH: When a cop takes a cigarette package he knows he won’t be harmed by it and no evidence in it wil be destroyed

April 3, 2013 - 06:56:41 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: Only two reasons you can search: Needing to secure the situation, and risk of evidence being lost. If the phone is in officer’s position, he can safely go to the station and get a warrant.

April 3, 2013 - 06:55:30 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: We’re not talking about a separate exception that the court just made up out of nowhere. If you’ve got the situation under control, you don’t get to search the car, and you don’t get to search positions inside. So it just turns on whether the phone happens to be on the person or put down right next to them.

April 3, 2013 - 06:54:17 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: Posits the same hypo as before – phone isn’t searchable in the car as long as the situation is secure.

 

April 3, 2013 - 06:54:05 pm by Eric Rice

ZH: No SCOTUS case has held that cops can read every page of a diary that happened to be on arrestee.

April 3, 2013 - 06:53:22 pm by Eric Rice

Zach Howe (ZH): Conceptually speaking the 4th A protects privacy and privacy is only tangentially implicated by storage capacity

April 3, 2013 - 06:53:01 pm by David Hanyok

SORRY GUYS it’s Zach Howe.

April 3, 2013 - 06:51:57 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JB: Shouldn’t police just be able to look at what phone company has access to?

April 3, 2013 - 06:51:28 pm by David Hanyok

PB: SCOTUS should rule about cell phones if there’s going to be a carve-out.

April 3, 2013 - 06:50:43 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JI: Converse of my other question! Aren’t cellphones different? Number of courts have recognized this– seems like we’re free to rule that found electronic storage device means different rules apply.

April 3, 2013 - 06:50:40 pm by Alexander Chen

Whiplash here in the Ames courtroom as JI asks: “But aren’t cellphones different?”

April 3, 2013 - 06:50:34 pm by David Hanyok

Introducing oralist Pat Brown for the respondents. Good luck explaining cell phone = cigarette case.

April 3, 2013 - 06:48:40 pm by Andrew Mamo

time’s up

April 3, 2013 - 06:48:37 pm by Jacob Reisberg

April 3, 2013 - 06:47:44 pm by Alexander Chen

“So a child walks into a bar with a nude oil painting of themselves that they commissioned to text…”

April 3, 2013 - 06:47:22 pm by Eric Rice

AP: The statute would apply to a minor who commissioned a painting of himself or herself.

April 3, 2013 - 06:47:04 pm by Andrew Mamo

now we are talking about sexting oil paintings

April 3, 2013 - 06:46:56 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JI inquires about child wanting an oil painting which they then text.

 

 

April 3, 2013 - 06:46:53 pm by Alexander Chen

court not buying the oil painting argument.

April 3, 2013 - 06:46:35 pm by Andrew Mamo

the hypothetical of sending naked pictures to the doctor — strained hypos, welcome back to law school, judges

April 3, 2013 - 06:46:13 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: If we construe this to apply only to child porn, don’t see the unconstitutionality.

April 3, 2013 - 06:45:43 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: the only possession that’s criminalized is when a minor sends a picture of themselves. exceptions you cite (doctors/patients, etc.) aren’t covered

April 3, 2013 - 06:45:06 pm by Eric Rice

AP: In statutes that regulate speech there are always exceptions

April 3, 2013 - 06:44:48 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: You could certainly bring an overbreadth challenge. But let’s say we construe the statute so it applies to child porn – how can that be substantially overbroad?

April 3, 2013 - 06:44:14 pm by Eric Rice

SI: SCOTUS loves the First Amendment but child pornographers have no constituency

April 3, 2013 - 06:43:15 pm by Eric Rice

AP: In Stanley v. GA you cannot ban possession of images in order to prevent future distribution

April 3, 2013 - 06:42:51 pm by Andrew Mamo

JB: Is this part of the unfairness – that the problem is that he just didn’t delete the picture? You’d be making different arguments if he passed this along. Can the legislature foresee that possibility and draft statutes to prevent that, if they have a bad breakup, for example?

April 3, 2013 - 06:42:19 pm by Eric Rice

AP: This is just a possession statute, nothing more

April 3, 2013 - 06:41:45 pm by Eric Rice

AP: With morphed images there are abuse and consent issues

April 3, 2013 - 06:41:43 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: Why in Williams did Court leave open the question of morphed images? Child depicted was not subject to any abuse whatsoever!

April 3, 2013 - 06:41:31 pm by Andrew Mamo

The 9th Circuit contingent pushes back against the petitioners’ interpretation of the requirements for child pornography exception

April 3, 2013 - 06:41:17 pm by David Hanyok

Judges have AP on the ropes.

April 3, 2013 - 06:40:53 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: Stevens had nothing to do with child porn.

April 3, 2013 - 06:40:46 pm by Eric Rice

AP: US v. Stevens is very recent

April 3, 2013 - 06:40:11 pm by Alexander Chen

JW looking for a case in which such a defense has been allowed.

April 3, 2013 - 06:39:46 pm by Andrew Mamo

Statutory interpretation battle between AP and Watford — seems like Watford may be winning this one

April 3, 2013 - 06:39:31 pm by David Hanyok

SI pretty sketched out by the petitioner, despite stipulations that this situation/relationship is all above board.

April 3, 2013 - 06:39:29 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: child porn statute applies to every child under 18.

April 3, 2013 - 06:39:08 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: So I’m a defendant in a child porn case and I can say to a judge, I can track down the performer and producers and prove that everything was voluntary – that is an inquiry necessary in every case?

April 3, 2013 - 06:37:47 pm by Alexander Chen

Yes well, who worries about child porn?

April 3, 2013 - 06:37:46 pm by Eric Rice

AP: I don’t think we should be too worried about the Federal Child Pornography Statute

April 3, 2013 - 06:37:24 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: Fed. child porn statutes don’t have that element of factual inquiry.

April 3, 2013 - 06:37:07 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: Are you saying that in every case to figure out when the 1st Amendment applies we have to have a factual inquiry of whether every picture constitutes child abuse? What case supports that?

April 3, 2013 - 06:37:04 pm by David Hanyok

Judges REALLY want bright line rules around child porn. Can’t say I blame them.

April 3, 2013 - 06:36:32 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JI: Just because it is voluntary doesn’t take it out of the exception.

April 3, 2013 - 06:35:56 pm by Andrew Mamo

AP: no exploitation and abuse of children – that is the basis for the precedential cases

April 3, 2013 - 06:35:19 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JI: Freespeech Colation narrowed categorical rule, that child porn falls outside 1st amendment? How can we say that Freespeech overrules categorical rule, when Scotus took pains to say they weren’t?

April 3, 2013 - 06:35:12 pm by David Hanyok

AP: Not child pornography because it “portrays no crime and creates no victims”

April 3, 2013 - 06:34:37 pm by Eric Rice

AP: in US v. Stevens court explained that child porn exception to the First Amendment existed to prevent speech with underlying criminal conduct

April 3, 2013 - 06:33:47 pm by Andrew Mamo

JB: Why doesn’t this fall under child pornography?

April 3, 2013 - 06:33:44 pm by Eric Rice

Ashwin Phatak (AP): The statute at issue here criminalizes a teenage boy’s possession of nude photographs of his girlfriend sent to him consensually while they were in a legal relationship.

April 3, 2013 - 06:33:22 pm by Andrew Mamo

The second oralist is up. Nice voice.

 

April 3, 2013 - 06:32:16 pm by David Hanyok

GC: This wasn’t a specific search. Just generally looking for evidence of crime. Reverse the lower court! Suppress the evidence!

April 3, 2013 - 06:32:11 pm by Eric Rice

GC: We need to prevent general rummaging which is what Officer Bell was doing!

April 3, 2013 - 06:32:07 pm by Andrew Mamo

Petitioners argue that we don’t need iPhones, as in the case fact pattern – dumb phones are deserving of the expectation of privacy too

 

April 3, 2013 - 06:31:43 pm by Eric Rice

GC: Even the dumbest of phones nowadays contains a huge wealth of information and so they fall on the other side of the footlocker in Chadwick.

April 3, 2013 - 06:31:35 pm by David Hanyok

GC: “Even the dumbest of phones.” (Who knew “dumb phone” was legit terminology?)

April 3, 2013 - 06:31:04 pm by Eric Rice

GC: We don’t need a bright line rule

April 3, 2013 - 06:30:54 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: What’s the bright line? What’s the quantity of info above which an object can’t be searched? Officers in the field need to know what they can search.

Does it matter how dumb the phone is? What if the phone doesn’t contain much info?

April 3, 2013 - 06:30:54 pm by Andrew Mamo

We’re involved in some interesting discussions about quantitative data storage on phones – but Watford wants some bright lines

 

April 3, 2013 - 06:30:31 pm by David Hanyok

GC: “Challenge the framing” of making a new rule. Actually, there is a presumption that you need a warrant, no exception should be extended.

April 3, 2013 - 06:29:22 pm by Eric Rice

JI: You’re talking about what cellphones are containing but saying that they’re not containing.  This metaphor is not working for me.

April 3, 2013 - 06:29:06 pm by David Hanyok

GC: “Stored intimate text messages on his cell phone.” Obvious expectation of privacy.

April 3, 2013 - 06:28:48 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JI: Contains? Container?

1. Have or hold (someone or something) within.
2. Be made up of (a number of things); consist of.

April 3, 2013 - 06:28:26 pm by Andrew Mamo

JB: We’ve been focusing on the container analogy – do we need to get to the expectation of privacy and the 4th amendment’s central concern with rummaging through personal effects? Can we talk about the expectation of privacy with phones?

April 3, 2013 - 06:28:21 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: You can also take a briefcase or a purse back to the station to be searched.

April 3, 2013 - 06:28:01 pm by David Hanyok

GC: Cigarette carton can be searched, locked footlocker can’t. Cell phone is more like the latter.

April 3, 2013 - 06:27:15 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: What about briefcases and purses? How is a cellphone different? Not buying the “physical container” distinction.

April 3, 2013 - 06:27:10 pm by David Hanyok

GC: Gant and other physical container cases are distinguishable. “Physical evidence” distinguishable from digital evidence.

April 3, 2013 - 06:27:05 pm by Eric Rice

CG: Container cases are premised on physicality of container — they can contain weapons or physical evidence

April 3, 2013 - 06:26:41 pm by Alexander Chen

JW: Let’s go back to Gant. Where officer is outnumbered by occupants of the car and can’t secure the scene, everything within reach can be searched. Let’s say cellphone is sitting in the center console. Can the officer pick up the phone and search the files?

April 3, 2013 - 06:26:18 pm by Andrew Mamo

Gant is getting a lot of attention now

April 3, 2013 - 06:25:15 pm by David Hanyok

Do you have to “link up” the extent of the search to the rationale for the search? Talkin’ bout Gant.

April 3, 2013 - 06:25:11 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JI: Categorical rule hammered home again. Gant might help you, though– have to link up search to your arrest. 556 US 332 if anybody wants to check it out.

April 3, 2013 - 06:23:48 pm by David Hanyok

Are text messages a lot more private than phone numbers? (Aren’t they more like the content of a phone conversation? Or a voicemail? Can cops listen to voicemails?)

April 3, 2013 - 06:23:33 pm by Jacob Reisberg

JI: Doesn’t whole argument turn on “cellphones are qualitatively different? If they are, doesn’t supreme court have to tell us that?”

April 3, 2013 - 06:23:23 pm by Eric Rice

GC: police officers can record numbers and recent contacts from a phone, but accessing text-message folder is much greater intrusion because you see private convos

April 3, 2013 - 06:22:33 pm by David Hanyok

Limited search of cell phones? Can you draw meaningful limits?

April 3, 2013 - 06:22:33 pm by Andrew Mamo

Judge Blake [JB]: Is there some way to distinguish between contents of a cell phone? suppose that it were happening on the scene and there was an accomplice — something more serious –  what about the numbers on the phone?

April 3, 2013 - 06:22:04 pm by Eric Rice

 

How is a wallet different from a cell-phone?

Gerald Justin Cedrone (GC): A cellphone can contain a record of one’s entire life; a wallet cannot.

April 3, 2013 - 06:21:59 pm by David Hanyok

“Cell phone can contain a record of a person’s life”

April 3, 2013 - 06:21:58 pm by Alexander Chen

Watford: how can you distinguish searching a wallet from searching a cell phone?

April 3, 2013 - 06:21:19 pm by David Hanyok

How has the Supreme Court never addressed wallets??

April 3, 2013 - 06:21:17 pm by Alexander Chen

Watford asks whether searching a wallet would be a 4th Amendment violation.

April 3, 2013 - 06:20:50 pm by David Hanyok

Re: Chadwick, I never knew a footlocker was an actual thing. Thought it was just a shoe store.

April 3, 2013 - 06:19:41 pm by Eric Rice

Evidence on a cell phone is not distractible because the police can ensure that it is not wiped remotely.

April 3, 2013 - 06:19:16 pm by Alexander Chen

Watford says evidence can also be lost on a cell phone.

April 3, 2013 - 06:19:08 pm by Eric Rice

Robinson can be limited to the facts of the case — a physical container is different from a cell-phone because it can contain weapons of destructible evidence

April 3, 2013 - 06:19:06 pm by David Hanyok

Judge: “If you find something on a person, you can search it.” But a cell phone isn’t a physical container.

April 3, 2013 - 06:18:34 pm by Jacob Reisberg

But it’s a per se rule– doesn’t matter how strong the link is. If you find something on the person, you can search it. “Plain, categorical rule.”

April 3, 2013 - 06:18:17 pm by Eric Rice

While the search incident to arrest doctine is an exception to the warrant requirement the justifications for it do not exist here

April 3, 2013 - 06:18:03 pm by David Hanyok

“Warrantless searches are per se illegal,” except for a few exceptions. Cell phones aren’t one of those.

April 3, 2013 - 06:17:53 pm by Jacob Reisberg

Ikuta asks: Isn’t an arrested search exception relevant here?

April 3, 2013 - 06:17:12 pm by David Hanyok

Hopefully oral argument in People v. McNulty will be full of The Wire puns. First, searching cell phones.

April 3, 2013 - 06:16:55 pm by Eric Rice

And the respondants are the Daniel K. Inouye Memorial Team after the late Congressman from Hawai’i and Medal of Honor winner.

April 3, 2013 - 06:16:54 pm by Andrew Mamo

Cedrone opens for the petitioners.

April 3, 2013 - 06:16:27 pm by Andrew Mamo

Thanks as well to the BSAs, whose hard work has made the competition possible

April 3, 2013 - 06:14:35 pm by Eric Rice

Martin Ginsberg Memorial Team (ie petitioners) have named their team after the husband of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg who lived a balanced life full of love, respect and support for his family.

April 3, 2013 - 06:13:30 pm by Andrew Mamo

And now, Minow’s congratulations to the moot court participants.

April 3, 2013 - 06:12:06 pm by Andrew Mamo

And last, but certainly not least, Blake, HLS alum, Marylander.

April 3, 2013 - 06:10:56 pm by Andrew Mamo

Watford – another Kozinski clerk on the 9th circuit. A suspicious pattern emerges.

April 3, 2013 - 06:10:05 pm by Jacob Reisberg

….Judge Trivia Master surprised to find J. Ikuta also the first female editor-in-chief of a national martial arts magazine.

April 3, 2013 - 06:09:11 pm by Andrew Mamo

Judge Ikuta worked for the Governator before joining the bench

April 3, 2013 - 06:08:28 pm by Eric Rice

And now a commercial interruption from Dean Minnow

April 3, 2013 - 06:08:09 pm by Andrew Mamo

Dean Minow opens the 102nd annual Ames Moot Court

April 3, 2013 - 06:07:18 pm by Andrew Mamo

The judges enter.

April 3, 2013 - 06:07:18 pm by Eric Rice

The Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Ames have arrived!

April 3, 2013 - 06:06:57 pm by Andrew Mamo

And It Begins

April 3, 2013 - 06:06:27 pm by Jacob Reisberg

Answer: Judge Sandra Ikuta.

April 3, 2013 - 06:05:30 pm by Jacob Reisberg

Judge Trivia: Which Judge clerked for both Alex Kozinski and  Justice Sandra Day O’Connor?

April 3, 2013 - 06:03:42 pm by Andrew Mamo

Oralists for the respondents are Patrick Brown and Zach Howe.

April 3, 2013 - 06:03:17 pm by Andrew Mamo

The oralists for the petitioners are Gerald Justin Cedrone and Ashwin Phatak

April 3, 2013 - 06:02:03 pm by Andrew Mamo

Tonight’s teams are the Martin Ginsburg Memorial Team, representing the petitioners, and the Daniel Inouye Memorial Team, representing the respondents.

April 3, 2013 - 05:50:21 pm by David Hanyok

Here are the briefs and lists of the team members if you need them: http://www3.law.harvard.edu/orgs/bsa/semi-final-round-ames/

April 3, 2013 - 05:48:31 pm by Andrew Mamo

Welcome to CRCL’s Live Blog for the 2013 Ames Semi-Finals!