By Andrew Christensen '08
Associate News Editor

A packed Caplin Auditorium warmly welcomed Judges Edith Brown Clement, Paul V. Niemeyer, and Kenneth F. Ripple ’68 (of the Fifth, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits, respectively). As Moot Court adjudicators, the distinguished trio was tasked with choosing the winner of this year’s two final teams, basing their decision equally on appellate briefs submitted to them and on Saturday’s oral arguments. Rugani and Tenley argued for the Appellant, a fictional U.S. citizen facing an 80-year sentence for supporting al Qaeda and conspiring to kill President Bush, while Riemenschneider and Stavers represented the Appellee United States.

Each team was given 30 minutes to present their arguments on the case, which was designed by fellow Moot Court members to include a variety of controversial and timely issues concerning national security and constitutional law.

Tenley took the first 15 minutes at the lectern, arguing deftly for reversal of the conviction on grounds that the Appellant’s confession of crimes — given outside of U.S. jurisdiction, but in the presence of FBI agents while in Saudi Arabian custody — should have been dismissed because it had been made involuntarily under fear of maltreatment, and was thus not admissible under the Fifth Amendment. Commenting on the preparation behind his smooth performance, Tenley revealed that working with Professors Rutherglen and Schragger had given him a certain advantage.

“Faculty members are always willing to offer their expertise in researching and formulating arguments . . . you can’t help but be prepared with the support that they give.”

Rugani followed up by disputing the constitutionality of the formerly secret Bush-authorized domestic wiretapping program that was used to collect evidence presented against the Appellant, and held his own against an engaged and well-versed Niemeyer. The judge boldly probed his argument from every angle, countering in favor of a broad interpretation of the presidential war powers that would permit executive authorization of warrant-free audio surveillance against terrorists.

Rugani sees such intense grilling to be only one training benefit offered by the seasoned jurists in Moot Court: “I always appreciate the feedback judges give [after a competition]. I really take it to heart and learn from it [and] try to incorporate their advice [so that] each experience adds tools to my repertoire.”

Riemenschneider, up first for the Appellee, masterfully countered her opponents’ claim that the convict’s confession during overseas interrogation was gained in a manner contrary to American due process requirements. She defended the admissibility of this key evidence on the basis of historical practice and procedure in similar cases.

Again, Niemeyer relentlessly tested the finalists’ mettle with point-blank queries, but Riemenschneider never faltered in her argument that the appellate court must not find grounds for a new trial based on faulty detention and interrogation procedure. Even though she made it look so easy, Riemenschneider admitted that Moot Court is consistently a serious challenge, albeit one with big rewards.

“For me, it has been [both] the biggest rush and the most terrifying thing in law school. Ten minutes before every argument I feel like I am going to be deathly ill . . . [b]ut once I walk to the podium, adrenaline takes over, and [what follows] are the most exciting 15 minutes of my life.”

Stavers wrapped it up for the United States, advocating the President’s domestic wiretapping program as a constitutional and congressionally approved means of obtaining evidence against those who oppose us in the War on Terror. Judge Clement challenged Stavers’ assertions with recent search and seizure case law precedent. Niemeyer stayed on his guns, firing incisive hypotheticals and analogies at the unflappable student–litigator, and Ripple joined in with pithy assertions to the contrary on Congressional intent and the distinct legal nature of wiretapping.

Stavers had no noticeable difficulty staying on message. Upon reflection, he found “[t]his final competition [to have] been a great experience. [Through Moot Court] I’ve had the opportunity to argue before a wide variety of jurists, including state Supreme Court justices and federal district judges. The quality of the experience really depends on the level of involvement and preparation of the judges, and today was exceptional.”

After a brief rebuttal by Rugani, the judges broke for deliberation, then reconvened to give closing remarks and announce the winners. Riemenschneider and Stavers were declared victorious for their outstanding brief and live performance (not on the legal merits of their arguments). Riemenschneider was further honored as the 2006 recipient of the S.P. Traynor Award for best final-round oral argument.

Commenting on this special acknowledgement and the overall Lile Moot Court final experience, she expressed gratitude and some very understandable relief: “[The Award] was truly unexpected, and I firmly believe that Scott, Paul and Jason did just as well as I did. It was a tough round, and I’m glad I won’t be up against them again any time soon!”