Role : Prosecution Lawyer
Duties: Deliver the Opening statement, Direct examination with Curtis Munson
Duties: Deliver the Opening statement, Direct examination with Curtis Munson
finisheddrafts.pdf | |
File Size: | 121 kb |
File Type: |
Reflection
Project Description
This project was based on the historic events that occurred in the 1940’s. The attack on the United States made by Japan left a set of chain reactions, which led to the unconstitutional consequences and actions taken by the United States government in the name of national security. As a class we learnt the history behind every event that came after the attack on Pearl Harbor from the Japanese. The US government hired people to investigate the loyalty of the Japanese (months before the attack), and after a few months these people wrote reports based on their findings of the loyalty of the Japanese. One report (the Munson report) found that the Japanese were loyal, 90-98 percent were loyal to the United States and could not be Japanese spies. A few months after the attack, and after the reports were released the US president at that time FDR signed off an exclusion order. Exclusion order 9066 marked certain areas as military zones and so citizens of Japanese ancestry, German-Americans and Italian-Americans were evacuated from these areas and deported to Internment camps. Most of the Germans and Italians were later released from Internment camps and the Japanese remained. When the exclusion order was released Fred Korematsu (an American citizen of Japanese ancestry) got plastic surgery to look less Asian, he ran with his girlfriend and was caught. He was then arrested. In the original Supreme Court case Fred Korematsu was sued by the US government for breaking the law, when my class and I did the Mock trial Fred Korematsu was suing the US government for his constitutional rights. Everyone was assigned a role for the Mock trial, I was Fred Korematsu’s prosecution lawyer.
Which team won? Who had the strongest argument?
This is a close call but also a difficult one. In all honesty I don’t know who won and that’s because both teams put a lot of effort into the case. However, the Defense was aided by a lot of the evidence that we had too such as the Munson report. It all depends on the perception in which the evidence is looked at. The Defenses witnesses were well prepared for the court compared to our witnesses. For example Margaret whom was the last witness addressed and she was a teacher who volunteered to teach at the internment camp. She was familiar with the Japanese culture, and her input of the way that the internment would have prevented the Japanese from freely practicing their culture was vital to the case of the prosecution. This would prove that the camps were depriving the Japanese of their freedom and when asked if these conditions did prevent the Japanese from freely expressing their culture she said no. Also, the closing statement of the defense was powerful they painted Korematsu as a villain and not a hero which put the defense and the prosecution neck to neck. They built their legal case on the theory that Fred Korematsu was probably a spy because he ran from the law also that the Japanese may have still been a threat. Politically they used Pearl Harbor as the standing consequence of letting the national security guard down. The emotional argument was thinking about the people who lost their lives during the attack. Over ally the defense did well.
Furthermore, as for the prosecution I believe they had thoroughly thought the case through as going up against the government isn’t something easy to pull off. There was a lot of documentation that required careful analyzing, especially the reports such as the Munson report. This is because these documents were findings in the investigations of the Japanese and as the prosecuting team we had to be prepared for the other team to make certain arguments using uplifted statements from the reports. For example when Prosecution lawyer Mr. Leavitt asked for the evidence of the defense to be impeached as they had omitted information out of a crucial document to the case therefore this was appealed to the bench of Judges due to abstraction of justice. Also there was some additional evidence which was added that was not in the original case such as the images presented by Ms. Beeman prosecution lawyer, during a cross examination with Margaret. This was brilliant evidence present as it was a logical argument which could not be denied by anyone in the courtroom. The legal argument presented was that the internment of the Japanese was unconstitutional as they were American citizens and innocent people. Furthermore, the political argument was that if the law could not protect people of Japanese ancestry who were American citizens who did it stand to protect? Also the social argument was that Fred Korematsu was a man afraid of getting his rights taken from and so he ran for freedom.
Why I Enjoyed This Project
I enjoyed this project a lot because it was not only learning about a new historic event I had no knowledge about, but this project also allowed me to make this piece of history come alive. Acting out the actual court case was highly motivating and making it real makes it even more unforgettable, I can safely say I will never forget this part of history. Being a prosecution lawyer was never just easy, it kept me busy throughout the entire project and I’m glad I got to be a lawyer for a couple of weeks. Also, going into an actual courtroom and holding up all of the legal procedures taught me a lot about the law and how the system works. Before we were assigned roles we broke down the different branches of the government and what they control such as the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive branches which is more than I knew before.
Project Description
This project was based on the historic events that occurred in the 1940’s. The attack on the United States made by Japan left a set of chain reactions, which led to the unconstitutional consequences and actions taken by the United States government in the name of national security. As a class we learnt the history behind every event that came after the attack on Pearl Harbor from the Japanese. The US government hired people to investigate the loyalty of the Japanese (months before the attack), and after a few months these people wrote reports based on their findings of the loyalty of the Japanese. One report (the Munson report) found that the Japanese were loyal, 90-98 percent were loyal to the United States and could not be Japanese spies. A few months after the attack, and after the reports were released the US president at that time FDR signed off an exclusion order. Exclusion order 9066 marked certain areas as military zones and so citizens of Japanese ancestry, German-Americans and Italian-Americans were evacuated from these areas and deported to Internment camps. Most of the Germans and Italians were later released from Internment camps and the Japanese remained. When the exclusion order was released Fred Korematsu (an American citizen of Japanese ancestry) got plastic surgery to look less Asian, he ran with his girlfriend and was caught. He was then arrested. In the original Supreme Court case Fred Korematsu was sued by the US government for breaking the law, when my class and I did the Mock trial Fred Korematsu was suing the US government for his constitutional rights. Everyone was assigned a role for the Mock trial, I was Fred Korematsu’s prosecution lawyer.
Which team won? Who had the strongest argument?
This is a close call but also a difficult one. In all honesty I don’t know who won and that’s because both teams put a lot of effort into the case. However, the Defense was aided by a lot of the evidence that we had too such as the Munson report. It all depends on the perception in which the evidence is looked at. The Defenses witnesses were well prepared for the court compared to our witnesses. For example Margaret whom was the last witness addressed and she was a teacher who volunteered to teach at the internment camp. She was familiar with the Japanese culture, and her input of the way that the internment would have prevented the Japanese from freely practicing their culture was vital to the case of the prosecution. This would prove that the camps were depriving the Japanese of their freedom and when asked if these conditions did prevent the Japanese from freely expressing their culture she said no. Also, the closing statement of the defense was powerful they painted Korematsu as a villain and not a hero which put the defense and the prosecution neck to neck. They built their legal case on the theory that Fred Korematsu was probably a spy because he ran from the law also that the Japanese may have still been a threat. Politically they used Pearl Harbor as the standing consequence of letting the national security guard down. The emotional argument was thinking about the people who lost their lives during the attack. Over ally the defense did well.
Furthermore, as for the prosecution I believe they had thoroughly thought the case through as going up against the government isn’t something easy to pull off. There was a lot of documentation that required careful analyzing, especially the reports such as the Munson report. This is because these documents were findings in the investigations of the Japanese and as the prosecuting team we had to be prepared for the other team to make certain arguments using uplifted statements from the reports. For example when Prosecution lawyer Mr. Leavitt asked for the evidence of the defense to be impeached as they had omitted information out of a crucial document to the case therefore this was appealed to the bench of Judges due to abstraction of justice. Also there was some additional evidence which was added that was not in the original case such as the images presented by Ms. Beeman prosecution lawyer, during a cross examination with Margaret. This was brilliant evidence present as it was a logical argument which could not be denied by anyone in the courtroom. The legal argument presented was that the internment of the Japanese was unconstitutional as they were American citizens and innocent people. Furthermore, the political argument was that if the law could not protect people of Japanese ancestry who were American citizens who did it stand to protect? Also the social argument was that Fred Korematsu was a man afraid of getting his rights taken from and so he ran for freedom.
Why I Enjoyed This Project
I enjoyed this project a lot because it was not only learning about a new historic event I had no knowledge about, but this project also allowed me to make this piece of history come alive. Acting out the actual court case was highly motivating and making it real makes it even more unforgettable, I can safely say I will never forget this part of history. Being a prosecution lawyer was never just easy, it kept me busy throughout the entire project and I’m glad I got to be a lawyer for a couple of weeks. Also, going into an actual courtroom and holding up all of the legal procedures taught me a lot about the law and how the system works. Before we were assigned roles we broke down the different branches of the government and what they control such as the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive branches which is more than I knew before.