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
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
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
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!