Thanks to the University's Supreme Court clinic, a group of Law School students recently had the opportunity to prepare an argument heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The clinic offers third-year Law students hands-on experience working with potential Supreme Court cases, clinic Co-Director Prof. Daniel Ortiz said.
"Rising third-year students apply for [the clinic] in April of their second year and we're looking for about nine to 12 people," Ortiz said. "They're accepted before they go off for the summer."
During the summer, accepted students read decisions by lower courts and search for cases that may interest the Supreme Court, such as areas of the law the court has not previously addressed, Ortiz said.
The students' efforts paid off last Wednesday, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Indiana v. Edwards. Ortiz said clinic participants prepared arguments for the appellant, Ahmad Edwards.
Clinic participant Winn Allen said Edwards was caught shoplifting and was attempting to flee when his weapon misfired, wounding a bystander. Edwards was initially deemed mentally unable to stand trial but was later given a hearing after doctors declared him competent.
At trial, Edwards desired to represent himself rather than be represented by a professional attorney, Allen said. He was not allowed to do so when the trial judge ruled that he was competent to stand trial but mentally unable to represent himself.
Ortiz said the clinic took special interest in this case because it raises questions about sixth-amendment rights that have not been settled in the past.
"The question presented was whether a state can deem someone competent to stand trial but not competent to defend himself," Ortiz said. "On the simple level, if the state wins, they'll be denying the right of self-representation to a whole class of defendants."
Allen echoed that sentiment and noted the complexity of the issue at hand, as some would argue the state should protect mentally incapable defendants from harming themselves by mounting a poor defense.
"The self-representation right is really undeveloped," Allen said. "If you think about it, on one side you have the state's interest in fairness and ensuring a fair trial, but on the other hand, our client has a really strong interest as well."
Clinic participant Katie Burke said she enjoyed the team aspect of working with 10 other students and three professors.
"The brief writing was a very collaborative experience," Burke said, adding that the clinic leaders were especially helpful in framing their argument. "I learned so much this year about how to write persuasively and what arguments are more persuasive than others," she said.
Allen said having such a personal connection to a Supreme Court case was highly rewarding.
"It was utterly amazing to see the justices sit there and mull over the same issues we've been mulling over for six months," Allen said. "It was really a tremendous experience that I feel privileged to have had."
Ortiz said the clinic has another case pending before the Supreme Court, which will be heard in the fall.
Read More
Administrators and faculty paint conflicting pictures of May 4 encampment clearing
By Cecilia Mould | 2 days agoThe details contested between the town halls included the clarity of the University’s tent policy and the presence of suspicious individuals at the encampment.
Faculty Senate calls for an external review of May 4 clearing of encampment
By Priya Kommu | 2 days agoSenators had questions about the lack of direct communication between University administrators and the students and faculty present at the encampment.
University's last minute update to EHS tent regulations document creates confusion, frustration
By Arshiya Pant | 2 days agoRyan said that he did not believe there was confusion among protesters about the permissibility of tents due to warnings from University officials on several occasions to remove tents.
