Southwestern has one of the most active and successful moot court programs in the country. Members advanced triumphantly against highly skilled adversaries in hard-fought competitions held across the country. Recent top placing events and competitors follow below.
Record of Awards - Past Awards
2010-2011 Academic Year
- Moot Court Team Earns Second Place at National Evidence Competition
- Moot Court Team Wins Best Respondents' Brief
Moot Court Team Earns Second Place at National Evidence Competition
Southwestern's Moot Court team of second-year day student Courtney Martin and SCALE II students Chandler Parker and Bryan Swaim earned Second Place
at the 26th Annual Dean Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition.
Brooklyn Law School hosted the event in which 36 teams competed.
Southwestern's team defeated Georgetown in the quarterfinals and USC in
the semifinals before losing to Georgia State in the last round.
"Preparing
for the competition was challenging, intense, and extremely rewarding,"
Parker said. "What contributed most to our success was that each member
of our team was truly committed to doing their best in the competition
and was willing to put in the extraordinary amount of work required to
succeed. Furthermore, our faculty advisor, Professor Norman Garland,
proved to be an indispensable resource in terms of helping us expand
our understanding of the law and perfect our arguments. The professors
and alumni who donated their time and energy to judge us during the
practice rounds truly prepared us for the difficult judges we faced in
competition."
Professor Garland said it was a joy and a thrill
to take this team to the Prince Competition. "The brief was solid and
the three advocates were each and all worthy of top notch performances,"
he said. "And they delivered. They were on top of the subject and were a
dream to coach. We lost by the narrowest of margins in the final round.
I could not be prouder."
The team tackled a problem with several issues. First, whether
Federal Rule of Evidence 413 includes a criminal defendant's prior
sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old girl which constituted statutory
rape under state law and whether its admission would violate the
defendant's constitutional right to due process. Second,
whether excluding evidence of three prior instances of an alleged rape
victim's sexual conduct violates a criminal defendant's due process
rights, and whether Federal Rule of Evidence 412 bars a prior false
allegation of rape. Third, does a statement made by an unpaid intern
qualify as a party admission under Federal Rule of Evidence
801(d)(2)(D).
"Combining our team members' constant and effective
communication as a team with the support of both our Moot Court board
advisor Trish Rosman and Professor Garland equaled success," Martin
said. "Chandler, Bryan and I really appreciated all of the support and
advice we received from our advisors both in preparing for and during
the competition. We couldn't have done it without them!"
Parker
reiterated the importance of having such a supportive community at the
law school. "This entire process reaffirmed my deep appreciation for
Southwestern and reminded me how lucky I am to attend a school that is
truly committed to seeing their students succeed," he said. "During the
competition, students from other schools would talk about the lack of
support they received in preparing for the competition. My experience
could not be more different. The students, faculty and alumni at
Southwestern went above and beyond the call of duty to help us prepare. I
felt as if the entire school was behind us, and I am very proud to have
had the opportunity to represent such a great school in a national
competition."
Moot Court Team Wins Best Respondents' Brief
Southwestern's team of Britt Karp (SCALE II), Sholom Goodman and Genevieve Younce (both third-year day) won Best Respondents' Brief at the Pepperdine University School of Law National Entertainment Law Moot Court Competition. The team also reached the semi-finals, finishing in the top four out of 26 teams from law schools throughout the country. Southwestern defeated competitors from DePaul University College of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School and George Mason University School of Law.
According to Professor David Fagundes, the team's faculty advisor, "Pepperdine annually hosts the nation's premier entertainment law moot court competition. This year's problem required participants to master complex statutory interpretation and policy issues relating to the Federal Copyright Act. All three team members demonstrated impressive mastery of this challenging subject matter. In both preliminary and elimination rounds, judges singled out oralists Sholi and Genevieve for their poise, professionalism and preparation, while Britt, the team's writer, received glowing praise from tournament directors for her first-place brief."
Younce explained that the brief was approached as a team effort, but gave the most credit to Karp, who served as the head writer and worked diligently to make the brief accessible to readers who were not necessarily copyright experts. Karp also finished the brief while she completed her SCALE finals. "Sholi did a ton of research and really worked hard to understand the problem from every possible angle so that we could include original and creative arguments," Younce said. "And I really worked hard to make sure the brief was presented well, and our language was clear. It was a great collaboration, and we're really proud of the result!"
Younce also credited Southwestern's faculty and alumni with helping the team prepare so well for the competition. "Our faculty advisor, Professor Fagundes, several other Southwestern law professors, and some alumni, as well, volunteered their time to judge our practice rounds, which gave us the opportunity to break down the issues even further with their feedback and thoughts," she said. "We would not have been able to do so well without their help! Once we reached competition, Professor Fagundes gave us detailed notes after every round so that we continued to improve throughout the competition."
The problem the team argued and wrote about focused on an artist suing a promotional company for copyright infringement. In an effort to recover losses after a record flopped, the promotional company began selling songs from the album on iTunes, even though the contract with the musician was to only sell physical copies. The artist sued the promotional company for copyright infringement. The problem focused on two emerging issues of copyright law: 1) does copyright registration occur once the application is received by the Copyright Office or after a certificate by the Office is issued and under section 504(c) of the Copyright Act and 2) how many awards of statutory damages are proper for the infringements of the songs in an album if an album is found to be a compilation.
