The Jeffersonian

Gun control has become a very sensitive topic in today’s media, particularly because of the heinous actions taken by certain disturbed individuals in cities like Newtown, Sandy Hook, and Columbine. However many people do not fully understand the complexity of the issues behind the topic. In this article, I will address some of the big questions many Americans have regarding gun control.

1. What does the Constitution say about guns? The exact language of the Constitution states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Anti-gun control advocates use this language when arguing that the Constitution explicitly prevents Congress from making laws prohibiting the use and ownership of guns. The opposition argues that the language can mean a whole host of different things. For example, it could mean that only the militia is able to bear arms and not the people, as a whole. gun ownership, but that may not be the final say in the matter. As Law students, we have learned that every sentence in legislation can be debatable with regards to its interpretation, and this is especially true in the Constitution. The Constitution sets up a tradition of private gun ownership, but that may not be the final say in the matter.

2. How many guns are there in America? Based on recent Gun Control legislation, there are enough guns in America to put a firearm in the hand of each citizen, which is about 314 million. Because of recent gun related incidents in our communities, the number of gun sales has skyrocketed since this study was completed. Guns are a part of American history and exist in almost every aspect of our diverse culture. From city dwellers to country farmers, the odds are that somebody you know is packing heat.

3. How many people are killed in America by guns? The most recent study claims that 11,101 homicides have been committed with firearms. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that for every 100,000 persons, 3.6 people will be killed by a gun. No doubt, this is a startling number. But when compared to other statistics, the number may seem far less shocking. For example, 3,287 deaths occur in one day by car accidents. Also consider the amount of people who die in a year from heart disease, which reports state is about 350 /per 100,000 persons. The more immediate question begs to ask, why haven’t these two killers received as much media attention as that of the deaths caused by guns? My best guess would be that gun deaths require a seemingly violent actor, unlike car accidents, and bad diets and genes. However, this opens up another very difficult discussion: should we focus more on the mental well being of the shooters or just place all the ignition on gun control itself?

4. Do states with gun control laws have less gun violence? A contentious argument in the gun control debate is whether the restriction of guns actually prevents criminals from obtaining them. For example, Detroit, Illinois, has one of the highest rates of homicides in the country, coming in at about 5 deaths per 100,000 persons, which is higher than the national average. But it was illegal to carry a concealed gun in Illinois until 2013. Once concealed gun ownership became legal the state experienced its lowest homicide rate since 1958. Still, many wonder how allowing persons to carry concealed guns, which ultimately incentivizes many more Americans to buy them, ends up reducing overall gun related homicides and violence? One major argument suggests if more law-abiding citizens own guns, the less likely criminals will perform acts of violence against strangers. Proponents of this argument support their claims by using Great Britain as an example: a place where there are virtually no guns, yet it suffers from a much higher rate than America in assault and battery related cases. Thus, indicating, the more guns that are legally owned the less likely it will be for our community to suffer from violence.

Only time will tell which side of the debate you fall on. In the words of Madonna, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people." For more information on my column and videos, please visit my youtube channel @SPERASPEAKS.

“Oh my God, they just killed this man... they could have tazed or shot him in the leg, they shot him repeatedly.” Michael Davis, St. Louis Police Release Graphic Video of Shooting of Kajieme Powell near Ferguson, Mo., Youtube (Oct. 27, 2014).

Two weeks and four miles away from the tragic death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, two St. Louis police officers were recorded responding to the scene of a crime. The video shows that roughly 30-seconds after arriving on the scene, Kajieme Powell was dead, after 12 bullets were emptied into the unarmed man’s body. The brazen shooting of Kajieme Powell sheds an unflinching and troubling light on Michael Brown’s killing, and what is a well-documented history of excessive and/or deadly force used by police against unarmed suspects of minor crimes. In 1994 the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology conducted an extensive study on the issue, and found that one-third of all citizen-police contacts in the U.S. where force was used, can be classified as excessive. The most common factor attributed to this abuse of power was disrespect shown to the police officers by suspects.

The Powell shooting offers an unedited, start to finish glimpse of police using deadly force. Unfortunately, the facts are not so kind to the St. Louis police officers responsible for the death of the 25-year old. Powell is shown yelling, “Shoot me! Shoot me now [expletive]!” before defiantly stepping over a small ledge and walking in a semi-circular path, in an effort to create more distance between himself and the police.

Seconds later each officer fires six shots into the body of Powell. One officer flips the man over, while the other officer stands over Powell’s lifeless body, weapon drawn and aimed.These are the facts of the case. Yet still, the St. Louis Police Department’s statement before they knew of the video, is either a straightforward lie or troubling evidence of police incompetence and or lack of training. In the press conference immediately following the killing of Powell, the police reported that, “...he tossed em’[energy drinks] into the street...approached the officers while clutching a knife in an overhand grip... when the officers exited the vehicle, they did not have their guns drawn...he came within 3-4 feet of the officers...both officers fired their weapons, and the suspect was deceased.”

As law students were are trained to look at the facts of a given situation, and objectively apply legal reasoning to those facts to draw a conclusion. Here, the issue becomes whether the gun- wielding police officers used reasonable or excessive force when they shot Powell 12 times. Determining the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct is central to establishing the officer’s liability. In its 1994 study, the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology cited the lack of clarity with the reasonable person standard as a threshold question, which must be answered before conducting further analysis. “One of the obvious problems created by a reasonableness standard is determining the appropriate level of reasonableness...Police officers may justifiably escalate the use of force against a suspect...concluding, if necessary, with the use of deadly force —in direct relation to the reason that they must apprehend that suspect.”

ItmaybethatIamnewtothestudyof law, in which case please pardon my ignorance; but courts have generally not pardoned the use of deadly force when it is in direct relation to non- deadly (or non-existent) threats. The most popular defense alleged by the shooters in Powell, Brown, and even Treyvon Martin, is that they acted in good faith because they were in fear for their lives. In a case directly relevant to both Missouri shootings, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kansas ruled that in instances where the force used by police is already determined to be unreasonable, a “good faith” defense is insufficient to avoid liability, and stated that no officer could reasonably believe that use of unreasonable force did not violate clearly established law. Whether or not Powell had a knife, it is clear he was not threatening the officers with any force whatsoever (or even using his clenched fist to create the appearance of a knife), nor could his proximity to the officers show that he had an apparent ability to effectuate harm, with fist or knife.

Coming full-circle to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, the similarities between to the two shootings are troublingly similar. By comparing Powell’s shooting to Brown’s, the gaps left by the scant amount of solid eye-witness evidence in the latter case are filled in by the solid evidence in the former. Even if the officers responded to Brown shop- lifting, that Brown was in the middle of the street, or that his fists were balled up at his side, it would not amount to the objective fear officers would need to feel in order to warrant the use of this type of deadly force. None of these instances, if proven true, justify three deadly shots to Brown’s head after he walked away from the officer. Consequently, my humble fact-based opinion is that both Powell and Brown should not have been killed, and it was more likely a circumstances warranting arrest. It also leaves the country wondering why the officers involved in both shootings are not being investigated for murder.

Officers should be forced to stand accountable for their actions, despite the dangerousness of their jobs, because they are stewards of public safety and must uphold the great responsibility of that privilege. Due to the split-nature of court opinions regarding this matter, and increased attention and outrage as of late, it is likely that the number of deaths, like Powell’s and Brown’s, will only increase without sweeping reform for a more centralized set of standards concerning police conduct. Sadly though, if precedent is any indication, it may take another 35 years or another shooting of an unarmed suspect to effectuate that change.

I consider myself an active member of what I like to call, “Generation 5 Minutes Ago.” We are those people who don’t possess that patience to wait 3 minutes for a Netflix movie to load or for our computers to connect to the Internet and we are also those individuals who do not like waiting to hear about breaking news. We are the ones who get our news, not from the paper or TV but from Twitter and Facebook. If we don’t know the answer to a pressing question, we Google it and are given an immediate response. This is the world in which we cut our teeth and we wouldn’t want it any other way.

On Sunday, the University of Alabama shut down and searched Tutwiler Hall after reports of an anonymous threat against the women in that dorm surfaced on YouTube. Campus police learned of the threat through the parents of a student at the University and responded quickly but students were not given details of the event until after midnight, nearly two hours after the students learned of the situation online.

I think that is why the students living at Tutwiler Hall and members of the Greek system at the University of Alabama have become so inflamed. Being members of Generation 5 Minutes Ago, it’s hard for them to understand why it would take so long to receive details concerning a threat that was very real for them, even if a present danger was unfounded.

There is a real generation gap between the students and school officials. Students rely on the real-time streaming of news and information and those from different generations have not quite grasped that. That’s not to say they aren’t working on it or aren’t providing for our needs, they are and my experience has been that, schools genuinely want to keep students as informed and safe as possible but perhaps lack the manpower to do that as effectively as we would like.

When I was in undergrad, our school was testing out a new system that sent text messages to students alerting them of present dangers such as fire drills, earthquakes, and when the school is placed on locked down.

These text messages were annoying most of the time, especially for silly things like fire drills and the ever present earthquakes but when they were really needed, like in 2012 when the school was placed on lock down because an armed robber was loose on the campus, it was amazing to know what was going on and to feel like the school was doing its part to keep us aware of the situations.

I can see that this might also be a double-edged sword in that police and school officials probably don’t want to stir panic unnecessarily. This is probably why they held off saying anything to the students for two hours when after searching for 45 minutes they found no indication of weapons or danger. However, the University should understand that their students have grown up with endless access to information for every situation that has arisen and this one would not be an exception.

If I were a student at the University of Alabama, I would rather know from police and school officials than have to find out online on my own. When left to my own devices, I will always jump to the worst-case scenario. At least if it came from the school they could set the stage to quell the fears of students and parents rather than leave them speculating.

Additionally, for a member of Generation 5 Minutes Ago, waiting is the worst form of torture that could be inflicted upon us, especially waiting for news that will directly affect us in an adverse way. Students on campus are still expressing fear over the threats from this weekend.

This is another tribute to the power that social media has for those of us who grew up in the Internet age. Students of this generation are information-hungry and school officials and police in Alabama should address those needs especially in attempting to get the school back to normal.

The NFL’s horrendous fumble to only suspend football player, Ray Rice, for only two games, in their attempt to remedy Rice’s involvement in his domestic violence dispute, has publically magnified the need for social reform for domestic abuse nationwide.

The NFL has implemented new protocols after receiving public backlash for their internal handling of the Rice situation. This has put the NFL at the vanguard of much-needed reform. The NFL’s new policy, which goes into effect this month, is a standalone domestic violence and sexual abuse policy that creates a duty for both the league and every team. The league and every team will have their own Critical Response Teams, consisting of human resource directors, security officers, player engagement directors, clinicians and support services. The objective of the Critical Response Team is to provide resources and a safe environment for anyone involved in a domestic dispute. As for disciplinary actions, the NFL recently enacted a stricter policy consisting of a six game, no pay suspension for the first incident and a lifetime ban for the second incident. A second time offender can petition for reinstatement after the first year, but there is no guarantee on reinstatement. Internal discipline would be triggered by adjudication of a player's case, such as a conviction or plea agreement. Sixteen NFL players have been arrested for domestic violence since 2012, which is more than any other major sports organization.

The NFL is the most watched sport in America; the number of fans viewing and following football on a regular basis puts them at the forefront to be the voice for change. The harsh criticism of their previous disciplinary actions, alongside the wide popularity among young men and adult males, forces the NFL to push for nationwide reform. Reform is not only about implementing new policies, but it is also about spreading the word and teaching young men and women that domestic abuse is not and shout not be tolerated or ignored. The league’s popularity has led organizations, such as NoMore.org, to use the NFL’ and their players as a platform for change.

In 2006, pitcher Brett Myers was not disciplined after punching his wife in the face in public and in front of witnesses; he actually started the very next day. In 2005, outfielder Milton Bradley had three separate domestic violence issues where the police were called; no charges were ever filed and no team discipline was initiated. Ironically, Bradley was nominated for the Roberto Clemente Award that season, which is given annually to the player that best exemplifies sportsmanship, community involvement and team contribution. In 2013, Bradley was charged on nine counts of spousal battery that led to a three-year sentence. Last July, former player and long time manger, Bobby Cox, who has a long list of domestic violence issues in his past, was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. At no time did Selig intervene in any of these cases.

MLB’s current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) contains rules addressing inappropriate or criminal behavior, but it does not address domestic violence on its own. And the current CBA lasts only through 2016. MLB, also known as America’s pastime, is an organization that prides itself on being part of the fabric of who we are as a nation. They “stand up to cancer”, swing pink bats on Mothers Day, and blue bats on Fathers Day. Perhaps, 2016 is too far down the road to ignore such pressing issues that are sure to ensue within the next two years.

Like the NFL and MLB, other top professional sports organizations are being prompted by the recent uproar to restructure their domestic violence policies. The NBA, like MLB, has always taken the passive approach. Over the last three years nine NBA players have been struck with domestic violence charges, and the league disciplined none of these players because their case was either dismissed or is currently pending. Not until last month has the league or any affiliate taken swift corrective action. NBA Commissioner, David Silver, has since said that the league will “take a fresh look” at its domestic violence procedures.

There is a need to restructure policies before athletes or employees corner these major sports organizations into poor decision- making positions. And these organizations must be the voice that spreads a message of reform. All of the major sports organizations have millions of fans; men, women and children of all ages watch, play, live and breathe sports. The opportunity that each league has to change how they address domestic violence is the opportunity of a lifetime. It’s the opportunity to make a social change for the greater good of society and for future generations.

Visual works extend from basic photographs to the drawings and graphics of comic books and video games. Copyright is the main soure of protection for these creative works. Produced and hosted by Professor KJ Greene, this provocative and interactive forum will explore hot topics from transactions to infringement disputes arising from visual works and copyright law. We have an outstanding group of panelists that will parse through the legal issues within these industries. Our panelists include: Stu Rees, an outstanding attorney and a talented comic book artist; Leslie Burns, an indomitable attorney representing photographers; David Lizerbram, a prominent lawyer in the artistic community; and Lacy J. Lodes, a rising young lawyer for video game clients.

Moderated by Professor Jeff Slattery, Director of TJSL's Art and Entertainment Law Project, and directed by Michelle Ribaudo, President of ELS and TJSL J.D. Candidate 2015; the forum will shine light on the fascinating arena of visual works in the digital era. 

Don't miss this FREE event for TJSL Students! $25 for Non-TJSL Attorneys seeking MCLE Credit

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7 AT 5:00 - 7:00PM in ROOM 323; Reception to follow from 7:00-8:00PM

RSVP http://alumni.tjsl.edu/events/index.asp?eventid=385

The Jeffersonian will be publishing a recap of the event for everyone that cannot attend! Look for it in November's print edition!

I consider myself an active member of what I like to call, “Generation 5 Minutes Ago.”  We are those who don’t possess the patience to wait 3 minutes for a Netflix movie to load or for our computers to connect to the Internet, and we are also those individuals who do not like waiting to hear about breaking news.

We are the ones who get our news, not from the paper or TV, but from Twitter and Facebook.  If we don’t know the answer to a pressing question, we "Google It" and are given an immediate response.  

The University of Alabama recently shut down and searched its Tutwiler Hall after reports of an anonymous threat against the women in that dorm surfaced on YouTube.  Campus police learned of the threat through the parents of a student at the University and responded quickly, but students were not given details of the event until after midnight, nearly two hours after the students learned of the situation online.

I think that is why the students living at Tutwiler Hall and members of the Greek system at the University of Alabama became so inflamed.  Being members of Generation 5 Minutes Ago, it was hard for them to understand why it took so long to receive details concerning a threat that was very real for them, even if the threat of present danger ended up being unfounded.

There is a real generational gap between students and school officials when it comes to technology and how students access news.  Students rely on real-time streaming of news and information, and those from different generations have not quite grasped how quickly students can grab news alerts. That’s not to say they aren’t working on it or aren’t providing for student needs as quickly as possible. In my experience, schools genuinely want to keep students as informed and safe as possible, but perhaps school officials lack the manpower to do just that, as effectively as we would like. 

When I was an undergraduate student, my school was testing a new technologically-based system that would send text messages to students alerting the student body to present dangers, such as fire drills, earthquakes, and if the school is placed on a locked-down alert.

At times, the text messages were annoying to students, especially for things like fire drills, and the ever present earthquakes. But when these alerts were really needed, like in 2012 when the school was placed on lock down because of an armed robber loose on campus, it suddenly became amazing to know that our school made the best use of technology to alert students immediately to the danger and to what was going on. We felt like the school was doing its part to keep us aware of the situations in our way: by taking advantage of the fact that students are always glued to our phones, computers, and other technology. 

I can see that this might also be a double-edged sword in that police and school officials probably don’t want to stir panic unnecessarily.  This is probably why the University of Alabama held off saying anything to students for two hours, while they extended a 45 minute search resulting in no indication of weapons or danger.  

If I were a student at the University of Alabama, I would personally rather get my information, via technology or press release, from police and school officials than have to find out online or on my own. When left to my own devices, I will always jump to the worst-case scenario; and this generally happens for most students who find bits and pieces of the news on social media, making judgments on the situation without having the full truth on the situation.  At least if the information came from the school, officials could set the stage to quell the fears of students and parents, rather than leave them speculating online.  Additionally, for a member of Generation 5 Minutes Ago, waiting is the worst form of torture that could be inflicted upon us, especially waiting for news that will directly affect us in an adverse way. End point: find a way to take advantage of alerting us to news in the quickest and most effective way possible. 

Students on the University of Alabama's campus are still expressing fear over recent threats to school security.  This situation is another tribute to the power that social media has for those of us who grew up in the Internet age.  Students of this generation are information-hungry, and school officials and police across universities should address our needs, particularly in attempting to get a school's internal temperature back to normal.

We are halfway through the semester. As students, we can take a moment to breathe before we gear up again for finals. We have a few blessed moments without quite as much planning and stress as our prior week, or as next week.

We also may use this time as self-evaluation. Were my efforts in the first part of the semester enough? Just right? What can I do better and what knowledge did I gain about a professor or an exam that is, perhaps, more helpful than the class content I painstakingly memorized? Whether you are a 1L who has just endured his or her first horrifying educational experience on what a law school exam really is, or a 3L who has repurposed midterms as an exercise in accepting defeat, this time, right now, is whatever you make of it.

I find myself fighting the constant hum of, “just one more year, then life will begin.” I fight this notion of “real life” constantly, as it has been engrained in me since grade school. The reason I fight it, is because if real life has not yet begun, every moment up until the moment I graduate, pass the bar, and have a job, is invalidated. I put forth all the effort for my future, but neglect my now.

The future may be easier, may be more scheduled or more structured, perhaps more whimsical and carefree, or may hold a host of problems we cannot even yet imagine, but right now is still real. In fact, it is so real, that without this moment, you could not have the “real” future you intend on.

So let’s give up the, “if I can just get through this” attitude. This struggle, right now, whatever it may be, is not just a hurdle to get past to get to the finish line, it is something to be embraced, to learn from, and to make you better prepared in the future for whatever may come. And the less you worry about whatever that future is, the easier it will be to get there.

Interpretation is at the heart of the law. It is the task, we soon-to-be attorneys, must master in order to communicate the law and effectively represent our clients. But what happens when there is a breakdown in interpreting what our client communicates? Our ability to make considered decisions and sensible conclusions becomes skewed in the absence of successful interpretation.

Much has been written lately about law schools facing sky rocketing debt, including ours truly, Thomas Jefferson. Most of this press has negatively represented the “current state of affairs” at our school. It has continued to bleed negativity throughout news and social media networks. After all, negative press is always easier to “sell.”

But perhaps, the reason for the press’ success in diminishing our school’s reputation is because readers lacked the ability to appropriately consider and interpret the events surrounding our school. Judgment has become one-sidedly skewed. Alleged holes in the school’s response to the situation have been filled with fears and outcries about what to do if our school closes. But not much has been said with regards to interpreting the positive opposition – that our school’s financial difficulties may not be as bad as the media would like to portray. We have been trained to always consider and conclude for both sides of the argument; in other words, to be well rounded and prepared. And this teaching should be fittingly applied to this situation.

At the Dean’s Forum, on September 17th, many students attended with the hope of getting an opportunity to “fact-check” statements made in the media and to interpret our school’s debt restructuring. Founder of the Business Law Society and current advisor, Jeremy Elias, and myself, have found sensible conclusions to the Dean’s answers that account for the other side of the dispute. Despite the majority of students who still convey a negative opinion of the forum, we share a minority interpretation:

It is important to relay that the Dean was (and still is) optimistic about the negotiations, and that he is steadfast on making sure the outcome is favorable to students.

As Mr. Elias agrees with the Dean’s position, he also shares his business belief that “it’s in everyone’s best interest to restructure.” Bondholders are not in the business of re-selling real estate for an expensive building that has one purpose: to be a school.

In business negotiations, it is important to keep some details confidential. Perhaps, part of Dean Guernsey’s approach in keeping conversations confidential is to avoid announcing details that can create unnecessary panic.

Doing so only “hinders the negotiation process, ” Mr. Elias commented.

We may question, whether as students we have a right to transparent communication from school administrators. To some extent, this may be true. However, consider the fact that when details are released they are then irrevocably plastered over social media, expanding their reach and creating interpretations far beyond the true nature of events. One little detail can turn into something wholly different, as if we are playing “Telephone” as a child. Perhaps, pure transparency from our school may not be in our best interests. Furthermore, the school is likely being strategic in withholding generally confidential facts about its debt negotiations.

Unfortunately the media, and comments made in the Above the Law article, have impacted morale at TJSL. It is understandable, considering its sudden release without the school having an opportunity to properly respond. But articles, such as Above the Law (which are purely blogs in nature) have only unnecessarily placed our school at a disadvantage. Now, it is being forced to respond publically and exclusively address the immediate fears of the students that grow exponentially with every bad article posted. Public forums become breeding grounds for negative judgments and conclusory interpretations of what was – and may still be – happening. Suddenly a spotlight has been placed, front and center, on Thomas Jefferson.

But what we should consider is by reposting such articles, and panicking or bashing the school, we only make the school seem less desirable/reputable to outsiders. Thus, we intensify the spotlight and negative interpretations.

“That lowers the probability that an incoming 1L would want to come here,” Mr. Elias stated. We shouldn’t actively be trying to make it harder for our school to increase enrollment, and thus encumber its ability to rebound after this recession.

Mr. Elias furthered his opinion by stating “the most important thing that students should remember is that we are on the same team as the Dean. He is on our side, and we need to be on his.”

The best way to support our Dean is to focus on doing well in our studies, gaining relevant legal experience, and pass the bar. We have the opportunity to interpret a negative event and turn it into a positive reflection of the great potential we, as students, have and are about to bring into the profession.

Circling back to the theme of a well-rounded argument, I ask my fellow students to actively consider the good things about our school, our Dean, and our futures. We have just as much impact on our school’s ability to succeed as our Dean does through his difficult decision-making. We should trust our school to do what is necessary to protect our interests and the value of our degrees. So, interpret sensible conclusions about the arguments against our school and communicate a more positive image.

“Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people.” - William Butler Yeats

The TJSL Mock Trial Team is well on its way to a successful year. The team welcomed 14 extremely talented members, Sarah Brand 3L, Joshua Brisbane 2L, Precious Harrison Cobb 2L, Jeremy Garrett 2L, Thomas Gennaro 3L, Melanie Guillen 2L, Justin Hall 3L, Katie Jenkins 3L, Puneet Layal 2L, Ravi Mohan 3L, Kevin Retoriano 2L, Kaitlin Shelby 2L, Trini Tang 2L, and Leonel Fuentes 3L.

This year’s well deserving Team Captain is Kierre Coghill 3L. She said of the new team, “Our newest teammates possess creativity, charm and an ability to speak with conviction. We are looking forward to a very promising round of competitions this year.”

The team is currently preparing for three competitions this semester, which include The San Diego Defense Lawyers Competition (SDDL), The First Annual Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL), and The American Bar Association Competition (ABA).

New member Justin Hall, who will be joining Kierre Coghill, Drew Myers 3L and Melanie Guillen in the San Diego Defense Lawyers Competition this October 26-28, spoke of his experience so far, “This has been a rewarding experience!

With only a month into the fall semester, I feel like I’ve unexplainably learned so much and formed a bond with my fellow teammates in such a short amount of time.” Hall went on to say, “I’m definitely looking forward to the advocacy training and competitions to come.”

In addition to the new team members, the TJSL Mock Trial team also welcomed new assistant coaches, Mark Cumba, Ryan Foreman, and Cassandra Hearn who join current coaches Lilys McCoy and Lea Fields-Bernard. The new assistant coaches bring to the team great trial experience and a love for mock trial competition as they all successfully competed on mock trial teams when they were law students. “The chemistry between the team members and the coaches is fantastic!” said Chanel Di Blasi 3L, “One thing is true, TJSL’s Mock Trial Team this year is a force to be reckoned with.”