Judicial Branch Information
The Judicial Branch gives delegates the opportunity to participate in the Judicial
system. Delegates in the Judicial Branch serve as private attorneys (defense
attorneys), state attorneys (prosecutors), or judges. The central feature of the
judicial program is a mock trial. Delegates are divided into teams and work
together to prepare their cases for presentation during trial. Delegates will work
with advisors and management team members throughout the program to prepare
for the trial.
Judicial Branch Objectives









Understand the role of the
judicial branch in our state and
federal governments;
Discover how the judicial
process works;
Practice persuasive writing and
public speaking;
Learn the tools of effective legal
analysis and advocacy;
Recognize the role of law in
everyday life and society;
Develop an appreciation for
laws, attorneys, judges, juries
and judicial procedures;
Explore and apply the
fundamental principles of the
Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of
Massachusetts;
Test and explore concepts of
justice, fairness and equality;
and
Gain insight regarding careers in
the field of law.
The main parts of the judicial program are as follows:
(1) Mock Trial: The trial is held on the second day of the annual
conference in “courtrooms” in the State House. Teams of approximately 10
delegates each present their cases. Eight witnesses are questioned on the
stand during each trial. The “attorneys” present opening arguments,
perform direct examinations and cross-examinations of the witnesses,
present physical evidence, raise objections to the form of the other side’s
questions and present closing arguments. Two Justices preside over each
trial. The trials are decided by a volunteer jury.
(2) Pre-Trial Motion/Legal Brief: A pre-trial motion is an argument
presented to a judge on a single issue concerning evidence that is planned
to be used in the trial. Each judicial delegate argues the pre-trial motion in
front of two Justices on the first day of the annual conference (only the
results of the official pre-trial motion will affect the evidence that is
admissible during the trial, but everyone benefits from the experience of
standing up to make a legal argument on their own). When preparing for
the pre-trial motion, each judicial delegate learns the relevant legal tests
associated with admissibility of evidence, reads summaries of precedent
cases that the court will use to make its decision in the pre-trial motion and
writes a short legal brief outlining the arguments they will make during the
pre-trial motion.
(3) Hot Legal Topics: Throughout the program, judicial delegates explore
and debate “hot topics” of interest to teens and important to society. All
delegates look for “hot topics” in the newspapers and on TV to help us
decide what topics to discuss. We run this part of the program like law
school. Our debates are exciting and sometimes controversial. Past topics
include the death penalty, gay marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance and the
“under God” phrase added during the McCarthy era, drug testing in public
schools, abortion, aspects of the Patriot Act and political protests.
(4) Constitutional Challenges: Following Pre-Leg #3, the Attorney
General (with help from the Assistant Attorneys General) reviews all of the
bills that have been submitted by legislative delegates and determines which
2
Revised 10/1/12
ones s/he believes are unconstitutional. At the conference, the AG and
Assistant AGs attend hearings and speak out on certain bills considered
unconstitutional. The bills may be amended or may become the subject of a
constitutional challenge on the final day of the conference. If a bill is the
subject of a constitutional challenge, a hearing is held in front of the whole
conference (judicial delegates represent the bill sponsors and argue against
the AGs). The AG and Assistant AGs also provide legal advice to the
Governor and other legislative leaders at the conference.
Sample Legal Brief
Youth and Government Superior Court
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Plaintiff
V.
LESLIE LANE
Defendant
The Commonwealth’s memorandum in opposition to
Plaintiff Leslie Lane’s motion to drop charges
Lois Lane
South Coast- New Bedford Delegation
Introduction
Defendant Leslie Lane’s motion to drop the charge of incitement to riot should
be denied. Lane’s song and protest presented a clear, present and immediate
3
Revised 10/1/12
danger to the Woodville community. Moreover, her actions and words posed an
immediate threat to the safety of the New Believers and therefore her protest
was not protected by the first amendment.
I.
Statement of Facts
After months of tension in Woodville due to the New Believers, Leslie Lane
had formed a group to take an active stance against the New Believers called the
Concerned Woodville Citizens (CWC). On the night of July 22, 2010 a Town
Council with approximately 500 people in attendance meeting was held to discuss
action against the New Believers. Meanwhile, Leslie Lane and the CWC staged a
protest in a park directly across from the Town Hall. A crowd of approximately
100 people gathered around Leslie who complained about the lack of action
against the New Believers and urged townspeople to take the matter into their
own hands. Lane then repeated many of the negative rumors about the New
Believers and began to chant “Burn ‘em out!” and many in the crowd joined
along. Leslie then preformed a song, and rallied up the crowd of people. The
following are the lyrics:
“They came to the place
Where they thought they could rule
Believers play us for fools
Like we were their tools
Vow of poverty?
Nah! Just beggin’ for change
Believers up in my face
Well I believe they’re a disgrace
How much they wanna control?
On top of all that they stole?
Next thing y’all know
We’ll be wearing their clothes.
They cut down our trees
Chop us off at the knees
They wanna take the land
Without even sayin’ please
Reject the psychopaths
By puttin’ matches to the gas!
4
Revised 10/1/12
Burn ‘em out
Burn ‘em out
They’re the New Believers
Burn ‘em out
Burn ‘em out
Now we’ll tell ‘em to leave us
Burn ‘em out
Burn ‘em out
Ain’t that shockin’
Burn ‘em out
Burn ‘em out
Let the flames do the talking’”
Following the conclusion of the song, the crowd continues to chant “Burn ‘em
out” as Leslie burned a straw effigy of a New Believer. Before the local police
broke up the crowd Lane yelled “You know what we need to do! Tonight is the
night we ruin the New Believers!”Within thirty minutes a large fire had broken out
at the New Believer’s community center.
II.
Argument
Lane’s motion to drop the incitement of a riot charge should be denied. The
United States Supreme Court has held that when words present themselves as a
“clear and present danger” they are not protected by the freedom of speech.
Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 49 (1919). Furthermore, actions presenting a clear
and present danger outweigh First Amendment rights. Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S.
616 (1919).
In the case Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Gitlow was arrested
for advocating for a violent Communist revolution, similar to how Lane was
advocating a violet removal of the New Believers. The holding of the court said
that this arrest was not a violation of Gitlow’s First Amendment rights because “a
state in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this
freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public
morals, incite to crime or disturb the public peace.” Leslie’s drove a mob of
approximately 100 people to chant “Burn ‘em out” and it was by no coincidence
that a fire broke out within thirty minutes later. This holding applies to the
protest, because not only was the public peace disturbed but the fire at the
community center is evidence of the fact that there was incitement of crime.
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) Chaplinsky’s First
Amendment rights were not found to have been violated following his arrest for
violating an Offensive Conduct law. The court upheld that there are kinds of
5
Revised 10/1/12
speech not covered by the freedom of speech which include :”the lewd and
obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or fighting words- those by
which their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of
the peace.” Lane’s “Burn ‘em out” song clearly attacks the New Believers and
even goes as far to say “Reject the psychopaths by puttin’ matches to the gas!
Burn ‘em out!”. The fire that ensued can be considered to be immediately
following the protest due to the distance the rallied protesters or Leslie lane
would have to travel in order to get to the Community Center to ignite the fireand 30 minutes is just the right amount of time to do so.
Based off of the reaction of the crowd gathered at Leslie’s protest, the police
decided to intervene to try and prevent a riot. This justification was upheld in
Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1950). Feiner was arrested for a breach of
the peace after drawing a crowd of about 80 people to his protest where he
encouraged people to ‘rise in arms and fight for their rights’. Similarly, Leslie
encouraged her gathering to take action against the New Believers and to “let the
flames do the talking”.
The defense may use Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 44 (1969) to argue
that the ‘government cannot constitutionally punish someone for merely
advocating the use of force’. However, the statue goes on to qualify how speech
can be prohibited: ‘(1) it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless
action and (2) it is likely to incite or produce such action’. Brandenburg, unlike
Lane, used very vague language and advocated for “revenge” against the
government for “suppressing the Caucasian race”- Lane however clearly states
her intentions as letting “the flames do the talking” which is explicitly directed at
the lawless action of arson (passing the first criteria of the statue). Moreover, as
the crowd began to chant “Burn ‘em out” it was obvious that the speech was
likely to produce the arson- which it did thirty minutes late, thus meeting the
second requirement.
Additionally the defense may argue that, similar to Texas v. Johnson, 491
U.S. 397 (1989), the burring of the effigy was just ‘symbolic speech’. Johnson
had burned a flag while surrounding protesters chanted and the Supreme Court
found that this burning did not amount to ‘fighting words’. However, while the
burning of the effigy may be symbolic, the New Believers outfit that adorned the
effigy combined with the explicit instructions in Lane’s song are to be considered
an immediate breach of the peace and are to be classified as fighting words by
the Chaplinsky statue and therefore the holding of Johnson may not apply.
Finally, the defense could argue the holding of Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S.
105 (1973) and ay that ‘ the fact that the words might have a tendency to lead
to violence was inadequate to meet the requirements of the modern clear and
present danger test’. Hess was arrested for shouting ‘We’ll take the f---ing
streets later’ and there was no further action taken therefore no clear or present
danger was apparent. In contrast to this case, not only does Lane admit to
meeting a group of fans that took the “Burn ‘em Out” song literally but also the
6
Revised 10/1/12
fact that a fire broke out within thirty minutes after the protest broke up shows
that there is plenty of evidence to conclude that this protest did indeed create a
clear and present danger.
III.
Conclusion
Because the words and actions of Leslie Lane presented a clear and present
danger to the Woodville community and because her protest was to incite crime,
her actions therefore were not protected by the First Amendment. The
Commonwealth thus respectfully requests that the court deny the defendant
Lane’s pre-trial motion.
7
Revised 10/1/12