Korematsu vs. Us government (1944) Mock trial reflection
Below you can see the two witnesses I embodied for this project. Beside their pictures is a witness testimony I wrote about them. I needed to write a short biography about their life up until the trial took place (1944) as well as answer a few questions my teacher, Ashley, posted depending on who the character was. I also created a biography for a character Mayor Fletcher Boron, we ended up scrapping him in the trial at the court house but I enjoyed writing and reading about his part in all that happened with Executive order 9066 and civilian order #34, his biography is the very last one below.
Reflection Paragraphs
This project was one of the more interesting ones I have pursued. It was interesting being assigned to fight for the US government against Fred Korematsu when I agreed with the other side. For this project I was assigned to be a witness for the defense. The two people I was assigned were General John DeWitt and Mayor Fletcher Bowron. My job was to become these people. I had to research their lives and everything they had to do with Pearl Harbor, Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Order #34. I needed to know as must about them as there was to know for the trial. While preparing for the trial my teacher told me to scrap Bowron and instead be Margaret D’ille Gleason. So I did just that. I wrote testimonies for all of these characters as well as worked with my lawyers, who were other students in class assigned to be lawyers for specific people on the defense. With the lawyers we created questions that followed professional lawyers guidelines, such as not asking leading questions or questions that ask for our opinion, and that would help fight for our side of the case. I then needed to create questions that I thought the prosecution could and/or would use against me. I needed to dig up all the dirt I could on my person and find ways to deflect the question or answer it in a different light that would help our case. We learned a lot during this project about the legal and historical content of what went on. We learned from lawyers who came into the class how to for questions so they weren’t leading questions or questions that the other side could object to. We also learned a lot about war hysteria and what fed not only the leaders a the time making those decisions but the public in growing a fear against the Japanese living in America.
I believe the prosecution won our case. I believe this because their team presented evidence against ours that contradicted what we were trying to prove as, specifically with Margaret Gleason, and they also proved that the Final Report of the Evacuation of the Japanese Internment Camps on the West Coast was an unreliable piece of evidence in that part of it was omitted and seemed to be untruthful. This report was used for most of our evidence so in the trial we held when the judges first impeached the evidence and agreed with the prosecution that this evidence was unworthy of being used our case pretty much fell apart and crumbled right then and there. Later the judges decided that they would impeach the impeachment and deemed only part of the Final Report to be untruthful. At this point our case looked bad still, but this did our team a shot to some back. The other team proved to the court that one of the three or four pieces of evidence that we had was corrupt in a way. This to me at least showed me that our team was not only not prepared to counter this and relying on this one piece of evidence too much but that our case was built on something the judges first deemed unworthy of being used. This was a huge mistake on our part and definitely took a large part out of our chances of winning.
Another thing the other team did well was reflecting the point we were trying to make into something that would help their case. For example as Margaret my role was to help the defense by showing the internment camps in a good light. Showing that the internees had freedoms and lives in the camps and that they were in no way held down. The defense then questioned me and showed pictures to not only the court but myself of the camps and their overall discomfort. This proved that the culture of the Japanese, who really value privacy, weren’t being respected of given as well as that the camps weren’t as good as we were trying to show. They deflected what we were trying to show and did it in a way that made you want to believe them and side with them using rhetoric. The way they used this made me believe that they won the case when they seemed to be prepared for curveballs as well as the arguments they posed and the questions they posed about our evidence and points.
In my opinion this project was, well interesting. I wouldn’t have chosen this one if I had a choice out of a few projects but I’m glad we did this project. I enjoyed learning about the camps and looking at the legal side of all of this and stepping into someone else's shoes to see what it was like to be in a trial. One thing that was a huge struggle for me and I believe several others in the class was the teamwork aspect. During the project I remember thinking that my team and I were doing great in that department but reflecting back in it and thinking if the day if the trial we could've done better, much better. Like I worked with my lawyers in building the questions but we didn't rehearse them much and I'm the day if the trial when one of my lawyers asked me a question that we didn't really talk about I was unprepared and didn't answer to show the point we were trying to get at. I also think it would have helped for the class or te defense and the prosecution to have practiced actually going through the questions and the judges there. This would have benefited not only us and our little skit but also the judges to go through the motions and practice what they needed. We did do this a little bit in class with when people go up and where they sit but I think we should have also used that skits we made in this because frankly we all were a little shocked and unprepared when it came to the day if the trial. Overall I enjoyed this project and am proud of what we accomplished as a class.
I believe the prosecution won our case. I believe this because their team presented evidence against ours that contradicted what we were trying to prove as, specifically with Margaret Gleason, and they also proved that the Final Report of the Evacuation of the Japanese Internment Camps on the West Coast was an unreliable piece of evidence in that part of it was omitted and seemed to be untruthful. This report was used for most of our evidence so in the trial we held when the judges first impeached the evidence and agreed with the prosecution that this evidence was unworthy of being used our case pretty much fell apart and crumbled right then and there. Later the judges decided that they would impeach the impeachment and deemed only part of the Final Report to be untruthful. At this point our case looked bad still, but this did our team a shot to some back. The other team proved to the court that one of the three or four pieces of evidence that we had was corrupt in a way. This to me at least showed me that our team was not only not prepared to counter this and relying on this one piece of evidence too much but that our case was built on something the judges first deemed unworthy of being used. This was a huge mistake on our part and definitely took a large part out of our chances of winning.
Another thing the other team did well was reflecting the point we were trying to make into something that would help their case. For example as Margaret my role was to help the defense by showing the internment camps in a good light. Showing that the internees had freedoms and lives in the camps and that they were in no way held down. The defense then questioned me and showed pictures to not only the court but myself of the camps and their overall discomfort. This proved that the culture of the Japanese, who really value privacy, weren’t being respected of given as well as that the camps weren’t as good as we were trying to show. They deflected what we were trying to show and did it in a way that made you want to believe them and side with them using rhetoric. The way they used this made me believe that they won the case when they seemed to be prepared for curveballs as well as the arguments they posed and the questions they posed about our evidence and points.
In my opinion this project was, well interesting. I wouldn’t have chosen this one if I had a choice out of a few projects but I’m glad we did this project. I enjoyed learning about the camps and looking at the legal side of all of this and stepping into someone else's shoes to see what it was like to be in a trial. One thing that was a huge struggle for me and I believe several others in the class was the teamwork aspect. During the project I remember thinking that my team and I were doing great in that department but reflecting back in it and thinking if the day if the trial we could've done better, much better. Like I worked with my lawyers in building the questions but we didn't rehearse them much and I'm the day if the trial when one of my lawyers asked me a question that we didn't really talk about I was unprepared and didn't answer to show the point we were trying to get at. I also think it would have helped for the class or te defense and the prosecution to have practiced actually going through the questions and the judges there. This would have benefited not only us and our little skit but also the judges to go through the motions and practice what they needed. We did do this a little bit in class with when people go up and where they sit but I think we should have also used that skits we made in this because frankly we all were a little shocked and unprepared when it came to the day if the trial. Overall I enjoyed this project and am proud of what we accomplished as a class.