Post Trial Reflection

1. The prosecution held that SB1070 was unconstitutional because it violated the rights of all people. They brought John Adams and James Madison to the stand to testify in favor of that belief, as they both had parts in writing the Constitution. They both testified to the (apparent) fact that this bill is unconstitutional and presented the 4th, 6th and 14th amendments (among others) as evidence. Most of the explanations were simply based on the wording of the amendments.

2. The defense held that SB1070 was not unconstitutional because it didn't promote racial profiling or violate the history of American immigration. The defense called Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070; Jan Brewer, the Arizona governor; and Kenneth Collins, a police office gunned down in 1988 by two immigrants. I portrayed Russell Pearce, and his main argument was that SB1070 simply asked Arizonians to be able to identify themselves at all times. Kenneth Collins was obviously biased, yet presented good views on immigrant and citizen safety. I couldn't hear much of Jan Brewer's testimony, to be honest.

3. The most significant piece of evidence, in my eyes, was the Constitution itself. It allowed the prosecution and defense to accurately dispute what SB1070 really said/meant. The second more important piece of evidence, then, would be SB1070. As the entire case revolved around it, explaining its every word was very important to both sides' case.

4. The most significant argument was that illegal immigrants have no rights in America. This brought up a lot of controversy and even required the prosecution to take a harder look at everything already presented in the case. Eventually, they were able to prove that notion wrong by using specific wording from the amendments to the US Constitution.

5. I don't agree with the jury. I was representing the defense, so it may seem like a bias, but I truly believe Arizona is not in violation of any federal laws. I personally think the verdict should have gone the other way, but the jury has the final say.

I think I deserve a 50/50 because I was well prepared for my time on the witness stand. I presented a strong case and made plenty of good points. On a side note, I spoke loudly and the judge never once asked me to speak up. I believe that I did very well in preparation and in speaking. However, I could have done better in a few areas. For one, I could have read and summarized the entire bill, seeing as how I was playing the role of author of SB1070. Another thing I could have done is helped the lawyers out more by providing very specific evidence, like quotes, instead of just linking them to the full source. All in all, though, I think I performed very well, and so did everyone else involved.