2. The Defendants argument was that the bill was going to be a helpful thing for the illegal immigrants. That it could potentially save them from dangerous temperatures and other things that could fatally injure them. That immigration needs to be adressed
Defense witnesses-
- Jan Brewer
- Russel Pierce
- Robert Watchorne
3. The most significance piece of evidence was about how the police could arrest a person because the person looks like "they are thinking about a crime" and how that was racial profiling.
4. That you can't just arrest a person or an illegal immigrant unless they committed a crime, and if the only crime they committed was existing then you can't arrest them or anything because that would be racial profiling which is also against the law.
5. Well, at first I was apart of the jury and I do believe they violated the spirit of the United States' immigrant history through AZ SB1070 and HB2162. I agree with the jury because I was part of the jury and also because they were going against a federal law. Which a law clearly states that a state law cannot override a federal law.
I think I deserve a 47 out of 50 points because during the Mock Trial Court session I was neutral. I was biased to either side, because I honestly knew that I was going to learn a lot more than what I already knew. I took lots of notes, I payed close attention to what witnesses were saying. I was a help rather than a distraction. But, towards the end of the court session, I began to notice that I started to lean to one side because I felt that one side was giving more evidence, making more sense, and got the opponents witnesses to break down and agree with them. As a result I do agree with the jury's verdict.
3. The most significance piece of evidence was about how the police could arrest a person because the person looks like "they are thinking about a crime" and how that was racial profiling.
4. That you can't just arrest a person or an illegal immigrant unless they committed a crime, and if the only crime they committed was existing then you can't arrest them or anything because that would be racial profiling which is also against the law.
5. Well, at first I was apart of the jury and I do believe they violated the spirit of the United States' immigrant history through AZ SB1070 and HB2162. I agree with the jury because I was part of the jury and also because they were going against a federal law. Which a law clearly states that a state law cannot override a federal law.
I think I deserve a 47 out of 50 points because during the Mock Trial Court session I was neutral. I was biased to either side, because I honestly knew that I was going to learn a lot more than what I already knew. I took lots of notes, I payed close attention to what witnesses were saying. I was a help rather than a distraction. But, towards the end of the court session, I began to notice that I started to lean to one side because I felt that one side was giving more evidence, making more sense, and got the opponents witnesses to break down and agree with them. As a result I do agree with the jury's verdict.
