As the plaintiff’s lawyer began his closing argument to the U.S. Supreme Court, a tense air emanated through the courtroom.

Stiff black- and navy-suited attorneys spotted the mahogany lined courtroom. The plaintiff, a woman arguing for her constitutional rights, was nowhere to be seen.

She was absent because she is hypothetical.

Advertisement

“You dream about this stuff,” said Jason Lile, a third-year student from the University of Tulsa’s College of Law. “I wake up and I have dreams about a lady who I’ve never met.”

The SIUC School of Law held its 13th annual National Health Law Moot Court Competition Saturday at the Lesar Law Building Saturday.

The competition, co-sponsored by the American College of Legal Medicine and the SIU Law School, gave students from around the country a chance to compete in an appellate court situation free of consequences.

And students came prepared. Very prepared.

“We get this problem in early August, and we spend about 300 to 400 hours writing a brief,” said Lile. “And then our particular school does two rehearsals every week – three hours each – for six weeks.”

Shannon Connors, chief justice of the moot court board, said these competitions give students a chance to hone their litigation and writing skills when someone’s liberty is not at stake.

“It’s like fencing with a guard on the end of the sword – it’s just as fast,” Connors said. “It’s just that no one gets hurt.”

Advertisement*

Of the 21 teams from 15 schools who entered the competition, two teams remained to fence it out in the final round Saturday.

The University of Tulsa’s College of Law, the returning victors of last year’s tournament, reunited in the competition’s final round with last year’s runners-up, the University of South Texas’s College of Law.

“I’ve got a personal rivalry with the team we just competed against because last year I was here, as well, for this competition, and we went up against Tulsa in the final round,” said Marianne Green, a third-year law student from UST.

Green and her fellow law students Darla Canon and Carrie Martin took first place, topping their opponents by one point and bringing home the school’s 89th national advocacy title.

Cheryl Anderson, an associate professor of law, said SIUC was not able to compete because of confidentiality issues between the judges and students. She said it would be difficult to bring in judges who don’t know the University’s law students.

SIUC Law Professor Eugene Basanta said the competition has developed a good reputation partially because students like the challenging topics.

This year’s hypothetical lawsuit pertained to a pregnant plaintiff, a 26-year-old unmarried woman. The woman was taken in involuntary custody and detained until the baby was born to prevent her from abusing drugs and hurting the fetus. While in custody, the woman says she became addicted to Phenobarbital, but tested negative for the drug. She challenged the constitutionality of her incarceration before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking whether the state had the right to detain her.

“This problem was an excellent problem,” said Martin, a third-year UST law student and recipient of a $500 scholarship for best oral argument. “There were so many different facets to learning different aspects from this problem.”

Teammate Green said the competition always has life-like prominent issues, which students argue before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“There’s no clear-cut answer,” said Green. “While most people think since it’s a moot court, then maybe it’s something that’s been decided before – but no, these are ripe issues that never before have been seen before the U.S. Supreme Court.”

J. Phil Gilbert, a U.S. District Court judge who has resided over the competition 12 of the 13 years, said the students’ written and oral arguments continue to improve each year.

“This is a tribute to not only the students, but to the legal education that they’re having in their respective law school,” said Gilbert. “As people graduate, they’re brighter, and I think that the quality of lawyers, in terms of their oral and written skills, are better than when I went to law school.”

Green, a soon to be graduate, said the most beneficial part of moot court is the everyday experience.

“You can’t get that out of a book. You’ve got to get it out of moot court,” said Green. “I graduate in three weeks, and it’s a great conclusion to be in the final round at such a well-rounded competition here at Southern Illinois.”