THE 2014 HERBERT WECHSLER MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Transcription

1 THE 2014 HERBERT WECHSLER MOOT COURT COMPETITION RESPONSE TO COMPETITORS QUESTIONS [Feb. 17, 2014] INCLUDING ATTACHED ORDER OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, DATED FEBRUARY 17, 2014, SUPPLEMENTING AND AMENDING THAT COURT S ORDER OF JANUARY 15, 2014 AND EXTENDING THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE IN THIS MATTER BY ONE WEEK ***** Eight Questions Were Received From The Competitors By The February 10, 2014 Deadline For Questions. Those Questions And The Competition s Answers Now Follow. Competitors Should Note That The Answer To Competitors Question No. 3 Is Cross- Referenced To, And Incorporates, A New Order of the Court, Dated February 17, 2014, That Is Attached To This Document. Competitors Attention Is Also Directed To The Answer to Competitors Question No. 6 Concerning the Consultation Of Prohibited Sources. Competitors Question No. 1 Are teams permitted to review the opinion below, People v. Riley, 2013 WL , for additional facts? A: Yes. In addition, for purposes of this Competition, the factual record as set forth in the Riley opinion is also to be understood in light of the further determinations concerning what is established by that case s record that are set forth in the hypothetical U.S. Supreme Court Order of January 15, 2014 that is the basis of the 2014 Wechsler Problem and that same Court s further hypothetical Order dated February 17, 2014, released and posted today as part of the Competition s Response to these Competitors Questions. Competitors Question No. 2 Since a lengthy record was not provided, do we just use citations from the Court of Appeals opinion (People v. Riley, 2013 WL ) when giving facts? A: Yes. To the extent that Competitors may wish to cite to any of the additional determinations contained in the hypothetical Supreme Court Order of January 15, 2014 or today s additional hypothetical Order of February 17, 2014 concerning what is established by the record in Riley, they may also cite to those Orders.

2 Competitors Question No. 3 Are we expected to argue the general question presented or the question as it pertains to the facts set forth in the Riley opinion? A: The general legal questions are to be addressed in relation to the facts set forth in Riley as those general legal questions are raised by Riley s facts. The model for competitors briefs should be the briefs that would be filed by real-world counsel representing a party to the case. The 2014 Wechsler Competition is today releasing an additional hypothetical U.S. Supreme Court Order, dated February 17, 2014, to clarify and resolve the issues raised by this Competitors Question. This new Order also extends the deadline for the filing of Competitors briefs to March 10, This new Order, dated February 17, 2014, should be deemed to be incorporated here as part of the response to this Competitors Question. Competitors Question No. 4 Should we include in our brief a Summary of the Case and Facts section? A: Competitors should abide by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States when formatting briefs. Competitors Question No. 5 Are we allowed to consult and cite to the United States v. Wurie opinion? A: Yes. Competitors may use any decision or opinion by any court to the extent that they find doing so to be helpful and permissible under applicable law and judicial rules. Competitors may not consult any papers filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by any party, person, or amicus curiae at any phase of the U.S. Supreme Court proceedings in the pending cases of People v. Riley and/or United States v. Wurie. Competitors are also referred to the Answer to Competitors Question No. 6 below for further illumination with respect to the matters raised by this Question. Competitors Question No. 6 During the course of research, I came across the following case (United States v. Salinas, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22029), but upon opening it and reading the citation, I see that there is a current petition for certiorari (1/27/14). Is this case related to the problem and therefore barred to competitors? A: As noted above in response to Competitors Question No. 5, it is perfectly fine to consult and use the Fifth Circuit opinion/decision in United States v. Salinas, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS to the extent that doing is permissible under applicable law and

3 judicial rules. The fact that a certiorari petition is pending does not matter in this regard, except as to how it may affect the accuracy of a competitor s eventual citation of this Fifth Circuit case. It is, however, the intention of the organizers of the 2014 Wechsler Competition that the proscription against the consultation or use of any papers filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in People v. Riley and United States v. Wurie shall extend to any and all other cases in that Court, such as Salinas, that raise the same issues as those presented in Riley and Wurie. Competitors should thus consider themselves to be barred from looking at the Salinas certiorari petition and barred from using any of the work that went into writing that certiorari petition. This prohibition should be understood to apply as well to any papers filed in any and all other cases that may be pending, or that may hereafter come to be filed, in the U.S. Supreme Court that raise the same issues as Riley and Wurie. If any competitor has consulted such papers in any pending U.S. Supreme Court case prior to the issuance of these Answers, that competitor must notify the organizers of the Wechsler Competition at once, so that appropriate corrective measures may be implemented to restore fairness to the Competition. These corrective measures shall not include the imposition of any penalty upon the reporting school or team. A failure to provide the required notice prior to 5 pm EST on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 shall be grounds for the imposition of a penalty, however. Competitors Question No. 7 Can we have a non-competitor read our briefs? A: Please refer to Rule I(C)(iii), which states that the brief must be the work product solely of the named members of the team. See also Rule VI(A)(i), which states that no team shall receive any assistance in the writing of its brief or in preparing for oral argument this rule shall not be construed to prevent preliminary general discussion of the issues with faculty, the judging of an intramural tournament by faculty or others, or the giving of general critiques on such arguments by judges, provided such discussion, judging, or critique shall NOT change the substance of the brief or oral argument. Competitors Question No. 8 The rules say that the margins must be 1" all around. Can we set the document up with 1" margin but have slight indentations on the left side to allow for binding? A: It should be possible to complete the binding process without having to change the margins of the brief. If it is not possible to do so, however, competitors should use their discretion with respect to indentations.

4 ORDER OF FEBRUARY 17, 2014 AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ORDER OF JANUARY 15, 2014 **** THE 2014 HERBERT WECHSLER MOOT COURT COMPETITION ******* In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term 2013 No David Leon Riley, Petitioner v. State of California, Respondent. ***** Order of February 17, 2014 Supplementing and Amending in Part This Court s Order of January 15, 2014 (1) THE COURT ISSUES THE PRESENT ORDER, DATED FEBRUARY 17, 2014, IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS ORDER OF JANUARY 15, (2) THE COURT HAS DETERMINED, notwithstanding (and superseding) any ambiguity or imprecision that may appear in the opinion of the court below, that the record in this case establishes that significant evidence obtained from each of the two searches of the digital contents of petitioner s device that are at issue in this case was admitted into evidence and

5 used against the petitioner at trial. This determination concerning the record below is made in addition to, and not as a substitute for (or qualification of), any of the similar determinations (enumerated 1-7) that are set forth in the Court s Order of January 15, All of the determinations concerning the record in this matter set forth in the Court s Order of January 15, 2014 continue to be fully valid and applicable to consideration of this case. (3) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE COURT S ORDER OF JANUARY 15, 2014 SHALL BE AMENDED WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND QUESTION THAT THE PARTIES ARE REQUIRED TO ADDRESS. In place of the second question set forth for argument by the parties in the Court s Order of January 15, 2014, the parties to this matter are now hereby ordered to direct their written and oral arguments instead to the following rephrased second question: 2. If the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for all such searches, was the evidence obtained from petitioner s device that was introduced against him at trial obtained in accordance with applicable Fourth Amendment standards concerning the reasonableness of warrantless searches? The parties should be clear that this rephrased second question is a substitute for the second question set forth in this Court s Order of January 15, The Court notes its belief that its ultimate consideration of this rephrased second question will likely require it to consider at some point the more general legal issues that were raised in the second question as originally phrased in the Court s Order of January 15, The first question set forth for argument by the parties in the Court s Order of January 15, 2014 is unaffected by this rephrasing of the second question. (4) THE TIME BY WHICH THE PARTIES MUST SUBMIT THEIR BRIEFS IN THIS MATTER IS HEREBY EXTENDED BY ONE WEEK. THE BRIEFS OF ALL PARTIES SHALL NOW BE POSTMARKED AND ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN MARCH 10, /s/ CLERK FEBRUARY 17, 2014