Post Trial Reflection

1. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.

The prosecutions main point was connected with the constitution, and how this law violated it and how related to immigration which is a federal issue. A main point that was repeated throughout the trial was a story about a McDonalds raid where a woman told the police officers that she was a citizen but they ignored her and took her to jail anyway. Their witnesses were James Madison, John Adams and Raul Grijalva.

2. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the defense. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.

The facts presented by defense was, the state of Arizona, were directly from the bill and from statistics about the bills approval. The main points had to do with the conditions that the illegal immigrants faced while crossing the border, and how this bill was a state crime law, not a federal immigration law. The witnesses were Jan Brewer, Russell Pierce and Robert Watchorn.

3. What was the most significant piece of evidence, in your personal opinion?

In my personal opinion i thought that the story on the McDonalds raid because i felt that this was a strong piece of evidence on the prosecuting side.

4. What was the most significant argument made, in your opinion?

I thought that the defenses argument about this being a crime law was a very good argument. On the other side, I thought that the prosecution's argument about this being racial profiling was very significant, During one point on the stand they were able to catch one of our witness's off guard because it can be very hard to profile someone besides basing them on their skin color, even though the bill says they will not be judged based on that.

5. What do you personally believe the correct verdict should be? Do you agree with the jury? Why or why not?

I believe the verdict that was made by the jury was a very good one. I didn't like that my side lost since we were on the defense team. I understand how they would come to that verdict, and I would agree with it.


I think I deserve a 40 out of 50 points because I worked hard and had notes and info on my character, i also helped out with looking for info that we could use against the prosecution. I however was unable to come up with cross examination questions which helped lead to my team's loss.