Ms. Sonty Moot Court November 13 th, 2014

Answer the following questions: 1.What are the two parts of an appeal for moot court? 2.What is the difference between a brief and an oral argument? 3.Which one matters more? Why?

What is Moot Court? Moot court is a simulated oral argument before a court of appeals along with a written brief covering all parts of the argument. The arguments are evaluated on the application of the law to the facts of the case. Both the oral argument and the written brief are equally important! The brief covers what the attorney intends to say, but the attorney will be peppered with questions from the judge and may not have time to cover everything

SWBAT explain each part of the CREXAC method and what it contributes to the legal analysis SWBAT identify each part of CREXAC in a legal argument

The brief is like a written argument Each side explains to the court why the previous decision was either proper or improper In the brief, the parties rely on the facts from the trial, and any applicable cases, laws, etc.

To organize your argument, it is ideal to separate it into biggest parts, and then the smaller parts within the bigger parts These parts are called units of discourse A unit of discourse is anything in prose that has a beginning and an end: a phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or sub- section A clear outline in your table of contents plus units of discourse help the reader follow your argument logically Let’s quickly review what you might be able to bring up on appeal (from our lesson on appeals)

On appeal, you must use the record to show that the trial court committed some sort of error These can be errors of: – Fact, Law, Application of law to facts, Procedure The record is the collection of testimony, evidence, exhibits, and arguments made to the trial court. The appellate court can only consider what’s in the record

Let’s say you are appealing a decision about whether peanut butter or jelly is the better part of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The lower court decided that peanut butter is the better part, and you are appealing to say that jelly is. On the next slide is a breakdown of one point you might want to make in your argument

1.This court should reverse the decision because jelly is clearly better than peanut butter. A.Jelly is better than peanut butter because it does not stick to the roof of your mouth I.If you have something in a sandwich that sticks to the roof of your mouth, then it is bad because it creates discomfort. II.Discomfort is not something you want when eating a sandwich, so you don’t want something in your sandwich that sticks to the roof of your mouth (citation)

2.This court erroneously did not consider whether peanut butter sticks to the roof of your mouth, and should have done so. A.Peanut butter sticks to the roof of your mouth (citation). Jelly does not (citation). 3.Therefore, because the court should’ve considered whether peanut butter sticks to the roof of your mouth and it does and that’s bad, and jelly does not stick to the roof of your mouth, jelly is better.

Is that the only point I could have made about why the court got it wrong that peanut butter is better? What are some other arguments I could make? Why might it be important to outline your argument? Why do you think I wrote my outline in that specific order? What is a citation? Why would I need citations for certain parts of the argument? What is my conclusion? Where did it appear? Why?

Not all arguments are clearly laid out like this to be logical. Sometimes, you need to set up the right foundation The foundation we will use for our legal arguments has the acronym CREXAC – C: Conclusion – R: Rule – Ex: Explanation – A: Application – C: Connection - Conclusion

Before we delve into what each of these component really mean, it’s important to know what information you want out of them Questions CREXAC answers in your argument: What legal rule governs this issue? What does this rule mean? How should this rule be applied (or not applied) in this case? What impact does that application have on the court’s decision in this case?

C: In the first “conclusion” element of CREXAC, the writer should articulates the specific issue that is begin addressed By stating your issue as a conclusion, you begin to focus your reader not only on the issue that you will be addressing in that section of the argument, but also on the result that your analysis of the issue will reveal

A rule essentially says that “if a certain condition exists, then a certain legal status results” The important thing to remember is the “if…then” idea For example: If you were born before 1987 (certain condition), then you are older than 27 years old (legal status) Sometimes rules are not stated in “if…then” terms, but instead are established rules from statutes, law, or common law

After you have articulated the rule, you must provide your reader with any needed explanation of the rule It helps to scrutinize the rule to decide what words or phrases constitute key terms for that section of the document – these key terms can be called a “phrase that pays” It depends on how ambiguous your rule is how much explanation you need

In your application, you are trying to show the reader how the explanation of the rule intersects with the facts Do the required elements or factors exist (or not exist) in your case? In your connection-conclusion section, you should connect the application to your argument by articulating a how the conclusion is connected to your application Even though you stated a conclusion at the beginning of your analysis, your connection conclusion at the end makes the reader aware of your conclusion and tells the reader that your analysis of this part of the discussion is finished

Let’s go back and work through my argument that jelly is better than peanut butter because it doesn’t stick to the roof of your mouth We’ll identify each part of the CREXAC together

I. This court should reverse the decision because jelly is clearly better than peanut butter. A. Jelly is better than peanut butter because it does not stick to the roof of your mouth – 1) If you have something in a sandwich that sticks to the roof of your mouth, then it is bad because it creates discomfort. – 2) Discomfort is not something you want when eating a sandwich, so you don’t want something in your sandwich that sticks to the roof of your mouth (citation) – 3) This court erroneously did not consider whether peanut butter sticks to the roof of your mouth, and should have done so. Peanut butter sticks to the roof of your mouth (citation). Jelly does not (citation). – 4) Therefore, because the court should’ve considered whether peanut butter sticks to the roof of your mouth and it does and that’s bad, and jelly does not stick to the roof of your mouth, jelly is better.

I. This court should reverse because (first major assertion) – (Introductory material and roadmap to Sections I.A and I.B) A. First major assertion is true because (first reason) is true (CREXAC of A) B. First major assertion is true because (second reason) is true – (Introductory material and roadmap to sections I.B.1 and I.B.2) – 1) Second reason is true because (first sub-reason) is true (CREAC of I.B.1) – 2) Second reason is true because (second sub-reason) is true (CREXAC of I.B.2) II. Even if (first assertion) is not true, (backup assertion) is true (CREXAC of II) III. This court should reverse because (policy reason) is also true (CREXAC of III)

Let’s work through a legal CREXAC together Take a look at your first handout – this CREXAC is about the Fourth Amendment protection to be unlawfully searched. You don’t need to know everything about the law to find the CREXAC parts – we will work on law later! This case is about whether people who bag cocaine near a window in a basement apartment have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not be searched I have not separated out the sections on purpose – you have to read to find the parts!

Take a look at the worksheet you have just been given You are going to identify each part of the CREXAC unit of discourse On a separate sheet of paper, make sure you list out the C, R, Ex, A, and C and next to each, write why you identified each part of analysis in the handout the way you did When you are done, hand this back to Ms. Sonty, or if you did not finish, take it home and bring it back to her at the next meeting

Without looking at your notes, answer the following questions to the best of your ability 1.What does the acronym CREXAC stand for? 2.In your own words, why would you use the CREXAC unit of discourse in a legal argument?