Hale Moot Court Honors to Sam Alavi and Jenny Farrell
-Photos by Josh Ross
Before them, three of the nation’s pre-eminent federal appeals judges sat ready to pounce at the tiniest misstep in their arguments. Behind them, hundreds of their peers, professors and family members looked on intently. It was enough pressure to make almost anyone buckle.
Yet, the finalists at the 2009-10 Hale Moot Court Honors Competition were so excellent that even the panel of federal judges couldn’t pick just one winner.
Sam Alavi ’11 and Jenny Farrell ’11 were named co-champions of this year’s competition after a spirited hour-long round of arguments held at USC’s Norris Theatre March 5.
 |
| From left: Jenny Farrell '11, the Hon. Theodore A. McKee, Cristyn Chadwick '11, the Hon. Rosemary Barkett, Vanessa Roman '11, the Hon. Stephen F. Williams, Sam Alavi '11 |
The other finalists were Cristyn Chadwick ’11 and Vanessa Roman ’11. Along with Alavi and Farrell, they emerged from a field of 40 2Ls that began the competition at the beginning of the academic year, which was eventually cut to 16 quarterfinalists and 8 semifinalists before the final round of competition.
The fictitious case the students argued involved a complex factual scenario about a woman being surveilled and pulled over by police officers, who eventually found a box in her possession containing illegal sex toys.
There were two legal issues argued before the judges. The first issue was whether a person who has been detained during a traffic stop for an extended time and subjected to arguably coercive police conduct is entitled to Miranda warnings before being questioned by police.
The second issue was whether there is a fundamental right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment that protects the right to promote devices intended to simulate human sexual organs and thus renders unconstitutional a statute prohibiting such conduct.
Farrell argued the prosecutor’s side on the traffic stop issue, while Alavi argued on behalf of the defendant on the right to privacy issue.
Judging the competition were the Honorable Rosemary Barkett of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals; Theodore A. McKee of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; and Stephen F. Williams of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Each finalist spent 15 minutes before the panel, deftly navigating the judges’ barrage of pointed questions and challenges, before the judges retired to make their decisions.
“It is really an unbelievably difficult task when you have the level of presentations that we had here today,” Barkett said of choosing the winners.
Also announced at the awards ceremony immediately following the final round of competition were several awards for written briefs submitted by Hale Moot Court participants prior to their oral arguments.
The best brief writers, who received the Barger & Wolen Written Advocacy Award, were Alavi, Natasha Ahmed, Jaysen Chung and Jonder Ho.
Blake Horn, Jessica Mariani and Daniel Shlomi were runner-up best brief writers, and received the LEXISNEXIS Written Advocacy Award.
All four finalists won the Judge E. Avery Crary Award and Alavi and Farrell also earned the BAR/BRI Award, which is a scholarship for half the cost of a bar review course.
The 2L students selected Matthew Crossman as this year’s outstanding participant and Steffi Gascón as this year’s outstanding board member.
The Hale Moot Court Competition was established in the 1948-49 school year and was named for the retired Dean of the School of Law, William Greene Hale. As the program gained prestige over a period of many years, it became one of USC Law’s Honors Programs.
The program is student-run under the direction of Rebecca Lonergan, Associate Director of Legal Research and Advocacy. After participating during their second year, 11 students are chosen to fill positions on the Executive Board during their third year. The Executive Board selects 
the topics for argument, prepares the record and the bench brief and invites the judges, while also assisting the second year students in preparing for the competition.
Participants are selected based on outstanding oral and written advocacy in a first-year qualifying competition. The 40 participants selected then submit briefs and give oral arguments in preliminary rounds, judged by distinguished members of the local bar. The quarterfinals and semifinals are judged by distinguished members of the local, state and federal benches.
Previous Article
