Post Trial Reflection

The prosecution's argument was mainly morally, and constitutional based and less fact and statistic driven. Their arguments consisted of things like "how would you feel if ... happened" or "do you think that the people would do..." "are they people just like us". Theres nothing wrong with that approach and it won over many of the jurors, but some of it was rather redundant because of its lack of statistics. They interviewed Raul Grijalva, John Adams, James Madison.

The defense took a more factual approach. They presented stories and statistics of jobs, death toles, and weather. Their testimony didn't have very much of a sob story or a moral standpoint (which appeals more to the jury) but they had many more facts than the prosecution. They interviewed Robert Watchorn, Russell Pierce, Jan Brewer.

The most significant evidence was the prosecution's utilization of the U.S. constitution. It stated in plain english that people in the united states, legal or illegal, are still members of society and still are under the protection of all American Laws. That part of the trial was the part that sold me the most.

The argument of making the witnesses read through the bills and constitution aloud was the most significant argument because it was an unscripted part of the trial that showed an unbiased reason as to why the defendant was guilty for violating the spirit of immigration. If the prosecution would have just told the witnesses to say something or read a paper that they themselves had written then the entire argument wouldn't have been valid and all credablity would have been lost. But the laws were set down by our Fore Fathers and states clearly that laws were being broken.

I do agree with the jury because everyone (after the trial in the conference room) was sharing all of their ideas and the ideas presented matched what i was thinking during the trial. Everyone agreed that Arizona was guilty and the conference just solidified that i wasnt the only one thinking the way that i was.

I think i deserve a 45 out of 50 because during the case I was analyzing both sides of the court and going through in my mind and in my notebook everything that was going on to decide which side of the argument i most agreed with. I could have done better at speaking my mind more and said more in the conference room and asking questions.