District Conference

By Nora Kelly, Liberal Arts & Sciences Academy

Appellate trials are a faceoff between two teams of two: one arguing in support of the state’s decision, and one arguing that the previous trial was unjust and that decision should be appealed. Appellate team Jaxie Niles Arguello and Samantha Mason, seniors at LASA, are both first-timers in appellate but have three years of experience in mock trial.

Within the judicial section of YMCA’s Youth and Government program, there is both Mock Trial and Appellate court. The foundation of a trial is replicated in mock trial. In appellate, they are working to appeal a jury’s decision based on procedural errors in the case. Although the two have similar proceedings, there are large differences between mock trial and appeals court.

“In appellate, you are really only looking at procedure, preceding cases, and constitutional law,” Mason said, “While with mock trial, you have to provide some kind of emotional appeal, because you are the one defending the story with personal details and witness testimonies, not with the details of previous criminal procedures and trials.”

Similarly to mock trial, there are two sides in the appellate court room. In a criminal mock trial, it is the defendant versus the plaintiff. But in appellate, it is the appellee versus appellant.

“In an appellate trial, you are trying to argue whether or not the statement made previously in court should be appealed or confirmed,” Niles Arguello said. “The appellant tries to repeal the statement, while the appellee tries to argue that the decision made by the state should be confirmed.”

In order to run a smooth appellate trial, competitors spend months making sure they know the details. Not only do they have to know the case they’re arguing backwards and forwards, but also previous cases that are relevant to be prepared for the questions they are asked by the justices.

“My co-council and I wrote two briefs, one for the appellant and one for the appellee,” Mason said, “wherein we talked about the statement of facts, the two points of contention on trial, and we had to discuss the authorities and how they related to the trial we’re presenting today.”

Niles Arguello and Mason were looking for a new challenge this year in Youth and Government. Last year they were both in mock trial and had a team of eight, but this year they wanted to do something with just the two of them.

“We were looking for something where we didn’t need to be managing six witnesses along with ourselves,” Niles Argeullo said., “We wanted to be able to focus on ourselves and doing our best without being responsible for some of the outside pressure that comes with managing witnesses.”

With so many options to choose from within Youth and Government, Niles Aguello and Mason found appellate trial to be exciting as a new challenge. They combined their knowledge from the last three years in mock trial to have successful trials at the district competition.

Attorneys Samantha Mason and Jaxie Niles Arguello during their second trial of the day. Not only do they present their prepared materials, but they listen and take notes during the opposing sides arguments to use in their rebuttal.

By LeeAnn Partin, Hays High School

The quiet power from the Court of Appeals shines through in today’s YMCA Youth and Government District Conference, hosted this year by Akins High School. The Appellate counsel joins together today to address the case of Larry Bridges (Appellant) vs. State of Texas (Appellee). 

The Court of Appeals is joined by Ingrid Bautista and Evelyn Ortiz, delegates from Akins High School representing the State of Texas, with Kristoff Davela and Teotl Sfuentes, delegates from Del Valle High School, representing Larry Bridges. 

The appeal discusses the case Bridges v. Hutton, which ruled Bridges guilty for the attempted murder and assault of Thomas Hutton. Bridges seeks a reversal of his previous court case on the basis of a violation of the 6th amendment right to confrontation and the use of excited utterance hearsay. 

Davela, the first speaker, began by explaining the incident between Bridges and Hutton, taking place at the Shepard Correctional Complex’s D unit. Officer Johnson found Hutton panicked, quickly running out of the laundry room with red marks around his neck, accusing Bridges of attempting to murder him. The reviewed camera footage showed Bridges leaving the laundry room at 10:40 a.m. Hutton staggered out of the laundry room at 10:41 a.m. where he meets the officers. Davela recognized the excited utterance from Hutton as hearsay, believing it cannot be a statement used as a testimonial, considering it was taken from a place of distress. 

Following Devala and Sfuentes, Bautista presented the appellee’s defense as the first speaker, once again reviewing the incident between Bridges and Hutton, but in reference to the confrontation clause. 

“The 6th amendment of the United States deems every person the right to hear testimonies against them, but there are some exceptions,” Bautista sais as a start to her debate. 

The statement is seen as a valid testimony, considering when the subject of the crime is in distress, the truth comes out and is the most important at that point in time, using Zuliana v. State and Ricondo v. State to support her case. Ortiz, jumped in after Bautista’s end to explain the appellee’s second platform of defense. She supported Bautista, going into detail of the officer’s primary purpose to question Hutton was for an ongoing emergency and not as a testimony, allowing Hutton’s statements to be used without violating Bridges 6th amendment. Ortiz used the past case of Michigan v. Bryant to explain the use of statements from victims, despite them being seconds after the incident happened. 

The speakers ended their defense, with Ortiz making a final statement: “The court did not abuse this discretion.” 

The Judges, Sophia Snider and Foriella Salazar, dismissed to recess to consider the Appellee’s and Appellant’s defense and evidence, before arriving back in session to reveal the final decision. 

”Having considered the arguments of the counsel, this court finds the case in favor of the appellant, reversing the ruling.” decided by Snider as the last word. 

The court adjourned with the final decision being made, and the two sides met in friendliness to remark on a job well done. Devala and Sfuentes left the room with pride, successfully reversing Bridge’s case for trial. 

Evelyn Ortiz, an Akins High School delegate, reads her notes, presenting the second platform of defense against Bridge’s appeal for reversal of the ruling in Bridge v. Hutton.

By Delia Rune, Liberal Arts & Sciences Academy

A new mock trial team from LASA High School is taking on the competition this year at the YMCA Youth and Government (YAG) District Conference. Composed of eight girls, team #209 is excited to experience a YAG trial for the first time. Lilia Marshall, a sophomore at LASA and a lawyer for her team, said the preparation for their first trial has been rigorous.

“We spent a lot of time getting the witnesses ready and coaching them on how to do it,” Marshall said. “We also did a run-through ahead of time, so we could see where the kinks were and adjust timing if we needed to.”

According to Marshall, the most difficult thing about participating in YAG’s judicial section is everything that comes in advance of the trial itself. She explained that not knowing what arguments or questions the other team will ask can be anxiety-provoking. But once the trial starts, things are usually more fun.

“I think the hardest part is getting over nerves,” Marshall said, “Once you’re in there, you’re ready to go… I really love the adrenaline you get during it, being able to argue against other people.”

In mock trial, each team has two lawyers and six witnesses. Sabrine Petusky, a junior at LASA and a witness for Marshall’s trial team, explained that being a witness has a specific set of challenges.

“From a witness standpoint, there’s a lot of memorization, and you have to say the facts in exactly the correct words,” Petusky said, “Often, I’ll have to piece things together in my mind and say how I best remember it.”

Marshall agrees that a lot of what mock trial teaches you is how to organize information in your mind and then deliver it succinctly to an audience. She feels that doing YAG has given her a lot of skills she wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.

“I think [YAG] has mainly taught me how to think on the spot,” Marshall said, “But also how to formulate arguments and shorten what I’m saying into a smaller timespan.”

But according to Petusky, mock trial is not only a learning experience, it’s a lot of fun, too. Getting to think in new ways and meet new people makes the YAG District Conference a very exciting event for first-time participants.

“I love this whole thing, it’s so fun,” Petusky said, “It’s really intellectually stimulating. My favorite part of the trial itself is cross-examination because I’m a witness, but, honestly, I just love everything about it.”

Petusky explained that the community created in judicial is part of what makes mock trial so special. No other sections get to work and prepare with a group of teammates.

“I definitely don’t know everyone, but we’re all talking about our case together, and we’re all communicating and collaborating. It’s just like a really fun community here… it feels like we are all working together as a team to make everything to function.”

Team 209 prepares for their second trial of the day. Grace O’Bryan and Lilia Marshall, the team’s two lawyers, sit in the front row looking over their oral arguments. 

Written by Abby McAdams, Dripping Springs High School 

“Period poverty,” the lack of menstrual products and education, can become a particularly damaging issue in middle and high schools for students from low-income families, deprioritizing their accessibility, or simply placing a stigma on menstrual cycles. This toxicity is what inspired authors Sophia Apolinar, Desiree Calvio, and Terrycinia Pointer to propose an action to ensure adequate period products are administered in schools through donations and providing information to students.

The authors explained how period poverty impacts women and girls negatively throughout the U.S., even affecting students’ grades and attendance. According to them, “58% of women have felt a sense of embarrassment simply because they were on their period.”

The proposal consists of four major actions: implementing menstrual product-providing Period Pantries in school restrooms; hosting donation drives for products; delivering said products to the restroom pantries; and creating school websites to give students menstrual health information.

Pro Speaker Rowan Dooldeniya clarified her support of the proposed action. She asserted that girls need “to be supported during their menstrual cycles,” and this action would not only provide assistance, but help to destigmatize periods and make the process more comfortable.

But the proposal did not receive the support of every delegate. The Con Speaker argued that school nurse offices already provide menstrual products for students, and that holding schools responsible for having these products at hand “adds burden to the administration” and stress to the school’s budget. In response, the authors claimed that nurse office products were usually in short supply and too general for students with varying ages and period types. The subject of the school’s responsibility for providing menstrual products, however, showed itself to be a prevailing issue, and was elaborated in the amendments.

Angela Mariotti, amendment author for the proposal, stated that schools should provide menstrual products “out of pocket.” In response, Con Speaker Dooldeniya countered that conclusion will strain their budgets, and instead suggested working “through charities which will already provide this service.” A consensus was reached that if donations were insufficient, the school was subsequently responsible for providing products.

The next amendment author, Zoe Moreno, counseled to implement school fundraisers for period products. This suggestion was unanimously supported by the delegates, who agreed it wouldn’t inflict too much stress on the school administration while still being able to support the students.

The proposal was passed unanimously by the committee.

An example of a “Period Pantry” as proposed in the legislation.