By Josephine Liu ’08
Managing Editor

Four of the Law School’s most accomplished advocates faced off last Saturday in the Final Round of the 78th Annual Lile Moot Court Competition, with the team of Matthew Madden and Michael Scott emerging victorious over fellow third-years Magdalena Grossman and Christopher D. Jackson. Their appellate briefs and oral arguments were evaluated by three distinguished judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, Judge Thomas B. Griffith ’85, and Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Chief Judge Ginsburg praised all four competitors for doing a “terrific job, in all respects.”

Judge Kavanaugh added, “We read a lot of briefs and hear a lot of arguments. This was at the very highest level.”

Speaking as a UVA Law alumnus, Judge Griffith told the students, “I couldn’t be more proud of the performance of each one of you.”

The problem for the Final Round focused on the federal criminal sentencing enhancements in 18 U.S.C. § 924. There were two primary questions in the fictional case of United States v. Hess: whether felony drunk driving counts as a violent felony, and whether accepting guns as payment in a drugs-for-guns transaction constitutes use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.

At Saturday’s oral argument, Grossman and Jackson had 30 minutes to present their arguments on behalf of the United States. Madden and Scott then had an equal amount of time to argue for the defendant.

Jackson, the first to take the lectern, quickly showed why he was honored with the Stephen Pierre Traynor Award for best oralist in the Final Round.

His secret? “A lot of work and a lot of mooting with other people. [Magdalena and I] had at least four practice sessions, both between the two of us and with other students.”

Grossman, the next advocate, was only one sentence into her argument when Judge Griffith interrupted her with a question. The bench was “hot” for most of the afternoon and asked many probing questions.

“No matter how much you prepare and try to predict what questions the judges will ask, there [will] always be questions that you . . . never expect,” said Grossman. “[The judges] were well prepared and . . . asked challenging questions.”

“They definitely knew our arguments and briefs backward and forward,” said Scott.

Scott, the first to argue for the defendant, surprised the audience when he finished his oral argument three minutes early.

“I talked to the judges later and they said that it was the right thing to do,” Scott said afterward. “I had made all of my affirmative arguments, the panel had said that it had no more questions, and there [was] no sense in speaking for the sake of taking up time.”

The issue that Scott argued, whether a drugs-for-guns exchange constitutes use of a firearm in a drug crime, has just been accepted on certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. Participants in UVA Law’s Supreme Court Clinic, including Madden, helped prepare the legal arguments for the petitioner in that case.

“To keep my Clinic work separate and make sure things were fair for all the participants, Mike did all the research, drafting, and oral argument for the issue the Clinic was working on,” Madden said.

Madden complimented the Moot Court coordinators for coming up with a balanced problem.

“The judges raved about the design of the problem. Jeremy Graves and Colby Slaughter deserve a lot of credit for finding two unanswered questions of law within the same criminal statute.”

Jackson has no regrets about the time he spent on Moot Court.

“Moot Court was by far the most helpful [extracurricular] activity I’ve done in law school,” he said. “For anyone interested in appellate litigation, it’s an invaluable experience.”

Grossman echoed Jackson’s sentiments.

“It is really a fantastic learning experience, no matter how far you make it in the process.”