In studying Japanese Internment Camps, students were to study the conflict between national security and the freedom of individual rights. Should the government be able to justify taking away individuals constitutional rights in the time of national crisis or war?
To answer this question, we first read Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson, a book that’s plot surrounded the attack on Pearl Harbor and white supremacist racism towards Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans. In analyzing the characters, plot, and morals of the book, we concluded with a seminar on the relevance of the book to the main question of the project. Proceeding reading Snow Falling on Cedars, the class was then set to work on researching the environment, situation, and accounts of internment camps from people who had experienced them first hand. Authentic documents such as internment camp newspapers were also examined. Throughout researching various documentation of internment life, notes were taken and then used as seminar prep. The question for this seminar was: what was life in internment actually like? After studying
The culture of the age and the life in an internment camps, students turned to the process and etiquette of law. Various lawyers from the community came in to give lectures on how to present a case with evidence, cross-examination, and direct examination. Students were assigned roles as either a witness, judge, and defense or prosecution lawyer. The standing prosecution was the U.S government, and the Defense was presenting Korematsu. In three weeks, students coordinated with their witnesses, direct and indirect, and prepared for the mock trial. Defense ended up winning.
As a lawyer on the team of defense, it was important to coordinate with the other defense teammates. Strangely enough though, as were assigned our roles in the mock trials as well as our witnesses, there wasn’t very much communication between the five of us. We all agreed on the point and theme we were trying to make, but we worked individually without conferencing with each other much. This is something that I thought, if having been improved, would have made our case much stronger in the long run. The largest challenge that was presented to us as a team was how our cross-examinations tied into each other. Thankfully, our team was not presented with any issues during the mock trial and our team dynamics/chemistry was good.
There weren’t very many writing aspects for me as an individual in this project. The most substantial piece of writing was opening statement that I wrote for the defense at the mock trial. This, I must admit, I did not revise in any way, I did conference with Ashley (my teacher), to discuss the structure of the opening statement and how to create a theme. I also went around to the other defense attorneys and discussed their case in order to integrate their individual points into the introduction. My basic writing process does not involve a lot of refinement, which is probably something that I need to work on. Instead, I create a carefully written draft, re-reading it constantly to insure that my points tie together and my paragraphs are cohesive. (Going into Animas, I’ve realized that it’s much more time efficient to create a really rough draft instead of creating a perfect first draft, but for some reason it’s difficult for me.) Writing this opening statement, though, was really successful in helping tie up the defenses case.
My personal experience with this mock trial was eye opening. There is change that’s manifesting in courtrooms all over the world. Most importantly justice is, supposedly, being found. This isn’t always the case of course, (catch that pun?), and that’s what I find frustrating. I guess I would rather not sell my point to a jury and a judge. I find the process and etiquette of the court to be suffocating to the message I’m trying to make. I would much rather do it through the freedom of writing or journalism. Although it is immensely satisfying to rip up the other teams case, (a satisfaction that could probably be questioned), I’ve concluded that I could never become a lawyer. I need a freedom to express the questions of morality and justice that you can’t necessarily find within the courtroom.
For future students who are going to do this project, the biggest suggestion I would give them would to make sure that you and you’re team, (if you are a lawyer), intertwine your individual themes. You don’t realize while you’re prepping for the case that it’s so important to coordinate with your team. Your examinations need to tie into the theme of your case, and the only way to create that theme is through the coordination of your team.
To answer this question, we first read Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson, a book that’s plot surrounded the attack on Pearl Harbor and white supremacist racism towards Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans. In analyzing the characters, plot, and morals of the book, we concluded with a seminar on the relevance of the book to the main question of the project. Proceeding reading Snow Falling on Cedars, the class was then set to work on researching the environment, situation, and accounts of internment camps from people who had experienced them first hand. Authentic documents such as internment camp newspapers were also examined. Throughout researching various documentation of internment life, notes were taken and then used as seminar prep. The question for this seminar was: what was life in internment actually like? After studying
The culture of the age and the life in an internment camps, students turned to the process and etiquette of law. Various lawyers from the community came in to give lectures on how to present a case with evidence, cross-examination, and direct examination. Students were assigned roles as either a witness, judge, and defense or prosecution lawyer. The standing prosecution was the U.S government, and the Defense was presenting Korematsu. In three weeks, students coordinated with their witnesses, direct and indirect, and prepared for the mock trial. Defense ended up winning.
As a lawyer on the team of defense, it was important to coordinate with the other defense teammates. Strangely enough though, as were assigned our roles in the mock trials as well as our witnesses, there wasn’t very much communication between the five of us. We all agreed on the point and theme we were trying to make, but we worked individually without conferencing with each other much. This is something that I thought, if having been improved, would have made our case much stronger in the long run. The largest challenge that was presented to us as a team was how our cross-examinations tied into each other. Thankfully, our team was not presented with any issues during the mock trial and our team dynamics/chemistry was good.
There weren’t very many writing aspects for me as an individual in this project. The most substantial piece of writing was opening statement that I wrote for the defense at the mock trial. This, I must admit, I did not revise in any way, I did conference with Ashley (my teacher), to discuss the structure of the opening statement and how to create a theme. I also went around to the other defense attorneys and discussed their case in order to integrate their individual points into the introduction. My basic writing process does not involve a lot of refinement, which is probably something that I need to work on. Instead, I create a carefully written draft, re-reading it constantly to insure that my points tie together and my paragraphs are cohesive. (Going into Animas, I’ve realized that it’s much more time efficient to create a really rough draft instead of creating a perfect first draft, but for some reason it’s difficult for me.) Writing this opening statement, though, was really successful in helping tie up the defenses case.
My personal experience with this mock trial was eye opening. There is change that’s manifesting in courtrooms all over the world. Most importantly justice is, supposedly, being found. This isn’t always the case of course, (catch that pun?), and that’s what I find frustrating. I guess I would rather not sell my point to a jury and a judge. I find the process and etiquette of the court to be suffocating to the message I’m trying to make. I would much rather do it through the freedom of writing or journalism. Although it is immensely satisfying to rip up the other teams case, (a satisfaction that could probably be questioned), I’ve concluded that I could never become a lawyer. I need a freedom to express the questions of morality and justice that you can’t necessarily find within the courtroom.
For future students who are going to do this project, the biggest suggestion I would give them would to make sure that you and you’re team, (if you are a lawyer), intertwine your individual themes. You don’t realize while you’re prepping for the case that it’s so important to coordinate with your team. Your examinations need to tie into the theme of your case, and the only way to create that theme is through the coordination of your team.