Monthly Archives: February 2024

By Marley Nervais

For rookies coming into youth and government is a new experience. It may not be what they might have expected. For anyone, this could be the case.

No matter what age or grade as a newcomer it’s a very different environment. Although it can be nerve-wracking many people are here to help the rookies.

“I would probably say to have confidence. Your case could suck but if you go up there and just talk with some mediocre level of confidence you’ll be fine. I wish someone would’ve told me that every case is different and the way you have your case set up the way you have your witnesses to talk, the way you have your opening, your introduction, and your pretrial is going to be different than everyone else’s and that is fine. It’s normal and nothing to worry about.”  Delegate Izy Black said.

For another viewpoint student Anna Kate Beck “A piece of advice I would give someone coming in would be to listen to all your evaluators and judges. The reason you’re there is to learn new stuff. If you listen to all their critics it will definitely improve your first to last round.”

“Something I wish someone told me was to not be afraid to object because even if your objection is wrong it still proves that what you know and that you can attempt it.”

Aaron Esquivel and Syed Humaide give a very popular piece of advice by both saying

“Fake it till you make it”

This advice seems to have paid off due to this team winning their first round of prosecution.

“Fake it till you make it and act confident in whatever you have prepared because basically you only succeed in this when you’re confident in yourself and I believe that especially in public speaking confidence is key. Syed Humaide said.

On February 2, 2024, the court trial over the death of a woman at the hands of a police officer took place. Prosecutors Addison Hobbs and Haley Hillhouse gave their evidence on why they believe the officer to be guilty and used their share of witnesses to further prove their point.

The prosecutors institute legal proceedings against the defendant. (Oxford).

The trial had a couple of memorable moments, which eased some of the stress that our delegates were experiencing. Eleven-year-old Sage Alexander, the young nephew of the woman murdered, gave his testimony on how he witnessed the scene. After a while of arguing whether he made burnt fish sticks or cookies that night, the defense grew a bit impatient with the witnesses, giving the prosecutors an advantage in the trial. After the prosecutors asked a question to a witness about their feelings in the matter, the defense interrupted with an objection. A relevance objection is based on the argument that the evidence is not relevant to the case (Robinson). After being overruled, the witness gave touching insight into their personal feelings on the matter. As the defense’s witness gave their testimony, the Judge decided that their arguments were just not strong enough. With the prosecutor’s following witness being a forensic pathologist with knowledge on the wounds of the deceased, the outcome of this trial had come to an end. The Judge declared the police officer to be guilty of murder, and the prosecution was declared victorious.

Written by: Andrea Jimenez

By Lynette Huang

The county court’s Mock Trial case on February 2, 2024, was Bill R Johnson CTE against First Baptist Christian Academy, with the accused, Alex Green, facing charges for the alleged murder of an innocent victim. The prosecution was led by attorneys Hillhouse and Hobbs representing First Baptist Christian Academy, while attorneys Abraham and Lincoln defended Alex Green on behalf of Bill R Johnson CTE. The prosecution built a strong case, presenting a trio of compelling witnesses. Sage Alexander, the victim’s nephew, provided emotional insight into the impact of the alleged crime. Latin Shield, a coworker of Alex Green, offered perspectives on the suspect’s behavior, and an expert pathologist meticulously detailed the fatal bullet wounds, establishing a narrative of intentional harm. On the defense side, attorneys Abraham and Lincoln called forth witnesses to counter the prosecution’s claims. Alex Green took the stand to testify in his defense, providing his perspective on the events leading up to the tragic incident. Additionally, a contract expert was brought in to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence. The prosecution strategically presented physical evidence to strengthen their case, notably the forensic analysis of the bullet wounds. The pathologist’s testimony revealed multiple gunshot wounds, crucial in establishing a narrative of premeditated murder. Despite the victim having a firearm, the prosecution effectively argued that it was solely for self-defense and was not discharged during the altercation. The trial unfolded, with each side making their arguments. The judge, after careful consideration of the evidence and legal arguments, delivered a verdict of guilty for Alex Green. This marked the conclusion of a comprehensive and thought-provoking mock trial, underscoring the complexities of legal proceedings and the importance of a thorough presentation of evidence in reaching a just conclusion. Following the trial, Delegate Haley Hillhouse expressed feeling nervous during the proceedings and shared a sense of relief upon winning the verdict.

By Gabriel Iara

The first bill that was introduced at the 77th Youth and Government Legislative Senate Committee was presented by Elliot Copeland. Delegate Copeland introduced his bill (FS21) an act increasing the safety of laborers in extreme heat workplaces. This bill would provide workers with protection against the hot Texas weather. The first provision included a requirement for employers to install thermometers in work sites to keep track of the temperature outside. The second provision mandates workers are provided with 8 ounces of water every 20 minutes and workers are mandated to take breaks. Many delegates were skeptical about the provision as they believed 8 ounces was “too small” or “unrealistic” as some said. The penalties in this bill included a class c misdemeanor (500$ fine). Delegate Copeland ended his speech by stating: “A vote in favor of this bill is a vote in favor of the life of a fellow Texan”. The debate that ensued after Delegate Copeland’s presentation was lively and engaging. Some delegates voiced concerns about the practicality of enforcing the provisions, especially in smaller businesses or rural areas where resources might be limited. Others argued passionately for the necessity of such measures, citing instances of heat-related illnesses and fatalities among workers in Texas.

Several delegates proposed amendments to the bill, suggesting modifications to the water provision quantities or proposing alternative methods to ensure worker safety in extreme heat conditions. These discussions led to a deeper exploration of the challenges faced by laborers in various industries across the state. Eventually, the committee decided on amendments including, The bill shall only be in place in areas hotter than 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Although the delegates were mostly in unison over the amendments often mostly ye or mostly ne. The most controversial amendment was one that introduced shaded areas and air-conditioned vehicles. Many delegates were against this because of the economic downside. Many family-owned and rural businesses may not be able to meet the requirements.

At the end of deliberations, Delegate Copeland Reminded the committee that ” we should not put money over the lives of real people”.

By Naomi Alexander

The use and abuse of deep fakes.

Austin, TX – Living in the 21st century, we can use advanced technology to make everyday life easier. Year by year technology improves unlocking new ways we can use it. In 2024, one of the most popular forms of technology is social media. And the main concern in this article is the use of social media, particularly sharing A.I. Artificial intelligence has been taking the world by storm with 77%of devices in use featuring some form of A.I. (Fact by AuthorityHacker January 10, 2024.) Its use isn’t just shared on social media but also in businesses, health care facilities, film production, and many other areas. 81.6% of digital marketers think content writer’s jobs are at risk because of A.I. Today in first committees, a State Affairs proposal presented in Committee 5 spoke on this very issue. Delegate Gali and Delegate Iyengar presented their proposal concerning deep-fake regulations. Their major area is affecting the general population of Texas and social media companies operating in Texas.

In summary from the proposal book, they proposed that the Texas legislature will be enforcing social media corporations including, but not limited to Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube, to ban all deep-fake content concerning real-world individuals or events with the intent to harm the general public. All major social media companies and search engines would have to implement this policy regardless of their status and inform their viewers/ subscribers of these changes before the policies take effect.

Adding on, to platforms that have sections for children 14 and younger, all deepfakes will be banned irrespective of their content or intent. These policies will not ban or restrict comedy because these are forms of free speech and artistic expression. These policies would also have consequences ranging from account cancellation to legal prosecution. This proposal sparked debates on the advantages and negative effects of deep-fake A.I. on the real world. Regardless, current data suggests that A.I. adoption will keep rising faster as technology keeps improving. It is up to jobs and platforms to see how they’re going to regulate it in regard to human rights and dignity.

By Amarys Rodriguez

On February 2nd, 2024, the case of the State of Texas vs. Alex Greene was brought to trial. The prosecution, consisting of attorneys from District 5, Alli Mitchell and Jake Kleinjan brought forth evidence that the defendant, Officer Alex Greene, should be found guilty of felony murder in the first and second degree. To prove their case they called forth three witnesses, Sage Alexander, the nephew of the victim Kamari Jenkins, Leighton Shields, a fellow police officer of Alex Greene, and Breslin Barajas, a forensic pathologist that examined the body of Kamari Jenkins. Through each witness they built their case brick by brick, that the “reckless actions” of Alex Greene should be the reason for his conviction, because as attorney Alli Mitchell emphasized in her opening statement, “Kamari Jenkins was simply trying to protect her castle”.

In contrast, the defense attorneys, Keri Collins and Adelaide Cowden from District 2, argued that Officer Greene had to make a “split-second decision, in a life or death situation”. Through the testimony of their three witnesses Ferrin Glass, Officer Alex Greene, and Bellamy Fraye, they emphasized that Officer Greene acted in accordance with his department policies in taking the shot against Kamari Jenkins that resulted in her death.

As each side defended their case, in an effort to prove or disprove the burden of the prosecution, in the end with the two bangs of a gavel, the “Prosecution has not met their burden on count one, felony murder, but has met their burden on count two, they will be charged for count 2, felony murder.” This was ultimately a trial of responsibility, in a case like this how does one hold an officer accountable for defending his life, yet ending the life of another?