Mock Trial Questions

So, since I wasn't in the trial for the last two days, I missed out on a lot. I was left with many questions. One of the questions was what did the witnesses think about the opposing side? For example, when Lupe was up as a witness, she sounded very bias and to me, I felt a little like it was because she had first hand experience of immigration. Even so, she didn't look like she considered the view of the opposing side which I thought was sort of one sided argument.

Another question I had was the witnesses on the defense. I wasn't around to see it, so I really had no idea how the defense was.. well, defending themselves. The only reasons I have now was that they were truing to "protect" their citizens. I read a few blogs from other people and some were talking about how they were taking jobs away from the citizens of Arizona. Was this a point that was brought up in the trial?

Also, there was a few references to prejudices in America like how one of the founding fathers owned slaves. I wanted to know if the trial ever got into that topic because immense skills in connecting things would've been needed. I was personally confused the first time it was brought up. How I envisioned it, the defense would've picked at it and questioned the witnesses of the prosecution to tear apart that argument. Honestly, that probably would've helped the defense more, it would be something that could've perhaps confused the prosecution and made them think twice about who they brought to the stand.

Another question I had was what were some specific events that occurred? How I heard it, there was something about how someone looked like an immigrant and was called out for it. In my perspective, it looks like it has a clear cut answer that it is unjust and unfair. It appears to fall in line with stereotypes and prejudices.

Anyway, I may be rambling, but I thought the prosecution was pretty well organized. From the start, they read the Amendments which was probably one of the best pieces of evidence. I also had the question of how did they support their argument that the Arizona bill was unjust? Did they use examples that compared and contrasted? I would've liked to hear something like, "If blah blah was here, would this person get the same rights?" and have one of those metaphors that really made you think. I think that would've really confused the defense.

Unfortunately, I wasn't there for most of it so I honestly didn't know how it went. I do know the prosecution won, I would've found it a little confusing if the defense won. Even from the limited amount of my knowledge to the case, there was definitely more legal reasoning behind the prosecution then the defense.