1. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
Arizona is being accused of violating the immigrant history of the US. The prosecutors were D'Vaughn and Ben.
Evidence: Their state law conflicts with the Constitution, because international affairs are to be dealt with by the Federal Government not the state. The Declaration of Independence amendments were violated by AZ's bills. The Statue of Liberty states that our country will take in the poor, homeless, etc. of other countries. The Boston Massacre where John Adams defended a British soldier even though he wasn't an American citizen, because he thought it was more important to protect the innocent rather than punish the guilty. The McDonalds woman arrested because of racial profiling, held in custody for four hours and then released with the excuse that it was a mistake. Operation Wetback and Proposition 187, brought up and explained by Raul Grijalva, were failed laws trying to remove illegal immigrants in the past.
Their witnesses: James Madison, John Adams, and Raul Grijalva.
2. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the defense. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
Arizona says new bills don't violate US immigrant history. The defendants were Hallie and Dorian.
Evidence: Law is not unconstitutional because it deals with crime not immigration in particular. The bill was approved by various government officials such as Pearce and Brewer. Law is said to protect citizens and saves immigrants the grief of suffering the harsh temperatures of AZ. Various scenarios were presented, including "pulling over a driver because of suspicion of theft/possession of illegal substances/etc.", violent and disruptive illegal immigrants, and things saying that they/the police of AZ were not using racial profiling. Ellis Island was a piece of evidence that described a place where people went to come into America legally.
Witnesses: Jan Brewer, Robert Watchorn, and Senator Russell Pearce.
3. What was the most significant piece of evidence, in your personal opinion?
The Constitution and Declaration of Independence on the prosecution's behalf. They presented the evidence well and brought up good points.
4. What was the most significant argument made, in your opinion?
That the bills violate the Constitution and Declaration of Independence because of the 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments, etc... That people have a fair right to trial, they can't be seized or searched for no reason, that a state cannot make laws against/because of international affairs...
5. What do you personally believe the correct verdict should be? Do you agree with the jury? Why or why not?
I agree with the jury (I was on it), I think that the defense was guilty. They didn't make a very good argument, in my opinion, and the prosecution presented a good case and evidence and invoked sympathy. The bills didn't seem fair, well thought out and/or thoughtless, and appeared to be illegal and a crime and an attempt and excuse for racism.
I was a juror. I think I deserve a 48 out of 50 points because I played my role sufficiently and participated. I paid attention during the trial, and I did this well because I took notes in my head and on paper and formed my opinions about the facts. I could have done better at taking notes by doing it more often but in the end I knew enough facts to help decide the case.
I was a juror. I think I deserve a 48 out of 50 points because I played my role sufficiently and participated. I paid attention during the trial, and I did this well because I took notes in my head and on paper and formed my opinions about the facts. I could have done better at taking notes by doing it more often but in the end I knew enough facts to help decide the case.
