Korematsu vs. us (1944) |
The purpose of this mock trial was to gain extensive historical knowledge of Japanese internment during World War II, and to be able to apply this historical knowledge in a mock trial that would allow us to experience and engage in the legal processes of court. We began by examining the effects of war hysteria on racial prejudice by learning about the 9/11 attacks and subsequent increases in security across the country. Then, to give us a general overview of the background of Japanese internment, we read the novel Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson. We examined racial tensions and war hysteria, and their respective effects on the eventual decision to intern the Japanese. We then read several documents concerning the internment during World War II, including newspapers that were published from within the camps and memoirs from people who had been interned. After we had done extensive research on Japanese internment, we were split into Prosecution and Defense teams and prepared for the mock trial. As a Prosecution lawyer, I focused on strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that is put into effect when the constitutionality of a law is called into question. Executive Order 9066, which granted the military to institute military evacuation areas, and the civilian exclusion orders for Japanese living on the West Coast were the two principles that were being challenged. In my own research, I learned a great deal about the governmental reasoning for the camps, particularly the threat to national security after the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
The majority of the work on this project was done individually. Each lawyer had their own witnesses and roles to prepare for, so everyone was focused on doing research that would help their specific area of the case. It was only during the last two or three days of work time that we came together and worked as a team. Overall, we worked together very well. If one of us came across research that would help another lawyer, we shared it and we helped each other come up with a line of questioning for our witnesses. During the trial, it was evident that my team was strong because we were all encouraging each other and coming up with last minute questions for our witnesses as well as writing the closing statement.
In the first draft of my opening statement, I was very heavily focused on pathos, and I was using the attack on Pearl Harbor to appeal to the audience's emotions. Despite this being very powerful, I added a great deal to my speech to incorporate more logos by discussing the death statistics of the attack and the government's logic due to the threat of attack on military installations on the coast. This rationale allowed me to emphasize to the audience that the decision to intern the Japanese was based in very real fears. Another major revision that I made to my opening statement was that I added information about past Supreme Court cases that dealt with the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066 and pointed out that the court had ruled in favor of the government in both cases. By bringing in the precedent of Hirabayashi vs. the United States and Yasui vs. the United States, I reminded the court that it was important to remember that the application of a law to a minority was ruled to be justified in times of war. I believe one of the strongest pieces of my speech was my closing line because it left the audience questioning their own morality when faced with immediate danger: "When staring down the barrel of a gun, do you close your eyes and pray? Or do you stand up and fight against your enemy at all costs?"
Overall, I enjoyed this project. Japanese internment was a subject that I knew very little about going into the project, and it was a great educational opportunity. The subject matter was often hard to deal with on an emotional level, as most historical sources of controversy are. Despite this, it was still a very interesting project, mostly because I had the opportunity to take the role of a lawyer and understand how to properly behave in court. Although I am grateful for the enlightening experience of acting as a government lawyer, this project was stressful and frustrating. It's very difficult to argue that the mass internment of innocent people is ever justified, and overcoming my own personal feelings was a continual source of hardship for me. Not only this, but I felt very unprepared for the trial for the majority of the project. As most of the work was independent, it was hard to find a direction to start in, and as a result, I often felt lost. I would say that the project should incorporate more group work so that each member on the team has a strong support system. Looking back on the experience, I wish the lawyers would have spent more time analyzing the government documents as a team, and crafting our argument before we started working with our witnesses.
The majority of the work on this project was done individually. Each lawyer had their own witnesses and roles to prepare for, so everyone was focused on doing research that would help their specific area of the case. It was only during the last two or three days of work time that we came together and worked as a team. Overall, we worked together very well. If one of us came across research that would help another lawyer, we shared it and we helped each other come up with a line of questioning for our witnesses. During the trial, it was evident that my team was strong because we were all encouraging each other and coming up with last minute questions for our witnesses as well as writing the closing statement.
In the first draft of my opening statement, I was very heavily focused on pathos, and I was using the attack on Pearl Harbor to appeal to the audience's emotions. Despite this being very powerful, I added a great deal to my speech to incorporate more logos by discussing the death statistics of the attack and the government's logic due to the threat of attack on military installations on the coast. This rationale allowed me to emphasize to the audience that the decision to intern the Japanese was based in very real fears. Another major revision that I made to my opening statement was that I added information about past Supreme Court cases that dealt with the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066 and pointed out that the court had ruled in favor of the government in both cases. By bringing in the precedent of Hirabayashi vs. the United States and Yasui vs. the United States, I reminded the court that it was important to remember that the application of a law to a minority was ruled to be justified in times of war. I believe one of the strongest pieces of my speech was my closing line because it left the audience questioning their own morality when faced with immediate danger: "When staring down the barrel of a gun, do you close your eyes and pray? Or do you stand up and fight against your enemy at all costs?"
Overall, I enjoyed this project. Japanese internment was a subject that I knew very little about going into the project, and it was a great educational opportunity. The subject matter was often hard to deal with on an emotional level, as most historical sources of controversy are. Despite this, it was still a very interesting project, mostly because I had the opportunity to take the role of a lawyer and understand how to properly behave in court. Although I am grateful for the enlightening experience of acting as a government lawyer, this project was stressful and frustrating. It's very difficult to argue that the mass internment of innocent people is ever justified, and overcoming my own personal feelings was a continual source of hardship for me. Not only this, but I felt very unprepared for the trial for the majority of the project. As most of the work was independent, it was hard to find a direction to start in, and as a result, I often felt lost. I would say that the project should incorporate more group work so that each member on the team has a strong support system. Looking back on the experience, I wish the lawyers would have spent more time analyzing the government documents as a team, and crafting our argument before we started working with our witnesses.