Greetings!  The Board of Student Advisers at Harvard Law School would like to invite you to serve as a judge for the 2017 1L Ames Moot Court Program.

In the 1L Ames program, first-year students brief and argue a fictional appellate case.  Every 1L student participates in an oral argument judged by a three-member panel, ideally comprised of one practitioner, one faculty member, and one upper-level student.  Judges probe the legal logic of participants’ briefs and prompt students to articulate their arguments.

Practitioner judges provide a tremendous benefit to first-year students by giving constructive criticism based on their real world experience.  In addition, judging 1L Ames provides an opportunity to connect with students as they consider future job opportunities.

This year’s 1L Ames program will be held April 3rd through 6th, with arguments beginning at 7:15pm and 8:30pm each night.

By late March, judges will be sent copies of the students’ briefs, the appellate record, a comprehensive bench memo with sample questions, and feedback forms to help students improve.  During the 1L Ames program, dinner will be provided to judges before the first argument each evening, starting at 6:00pm.

If you are interested in judging, please register by completing the Harvard Ames Moot Court Judge Sign-Up Form.  Brief descriptions of this year’s cases are included on the next page.  For our planning purposes, we request that you please respond by Monday, March 6th.

 More information about the 1L Ames Moot Court Program can be found on our website.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Richard Schwartz, our 1L Ames Moot Court Program Director, at rschwartz@jd17.law.harvard.edu or (781) 956-2039. 

 We hope to see you in April!

2017 First-Year Ames Case Descriptions

 

Beckett v. Wingate Rifle Co.: presents a question of first impression for the Nevada Supreme Court, which must decide whether a gun manufacturer may be held liable for the wrongful deaths of those shot with the manufacturer’s high-powered weapon.  The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, but the plaintiffs, on appeal, have pressed their theories of negligence in the marketing and distribution of Wingate’s weapon.  Wingate hopes to persuade the Court that it should adopt the majority rule against imposing special common law duties on gun manufacturers.  Appellants, meanwhile, will need to convince the Court that summary judgment was inappropriate, and that the principles of tort law and public policy are on their side.

United States v. Hark:  This case presents several appellate issues stemming from Archibald “Archie” Hark’s conviction for distributing more than 100 grams of heroin.  After the jury delivered its verdict at trial, Hark moved for acquittal on the basis that federal drug enforcement officials, including Agent Paul Lopez, had induced him to deal the drugs and that, therefore, he was entrapped as a matter of law.  Three days after trial, Hark moved separately for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence—several affidavits casting Agent Lopez’s testimony into doubt.  The district court denied both motions.  On appeal, Hark hopes to persuade the Ninth Circuit that the district court erred in rejecting his motion for acquittal for entrapment as a matter of law and in refusing to grant him a new trial.  The Government must persuade the court that the lower court was correct in both its rulings.

Weston v. Good TV, Inc.:  Sally Weston, a 13-year-old girl, cut off two of her fingers while attempting to slaughter a chicken as a contestant on Good TV’s newest reality show, Kid Nation.  Weston then sued Good TV for damages, and in the process attempted to disaffirm the liability waiver she and her mother were required to sign for Weston to participate in the show.  The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant.  On appeal, Weston hopes to convince the California Court of Appeals that she successfully disaffirmed the liability waiver or that the waiver was invalid as a matter of public policy.  She also hopes to persuade the Court that she was not an employee of Good TV and thus that Good TV’s liability is not limited by California’s workers’ compensation regime.  Good TV, by contrast, must persuade the Court that summary judgment on all issues should be upheld.

Smith v. The Daily Muckraker, Inc.:  The Plaintiff, James Smith, is a public school teacher and the Head of the English Department at North Ames High School.  After the Defendant, The Daily Muckraker, Inc., published an online article claiming Smith, among other things, had a criminal history and plagiarized his master’s thesis, Smith filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Ames, invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction.  The Muckraker answered by filing a Special Motion to Dismiss under the State of Ames’s Anti-SLAPP Act, which, if applicable, would shift the burden to Smith to prove that he is likely to succeed on the merits.  The first issue on appeal is whether the district court was correct when it held that the Ames Anti-SLAPP Act is a substantive law under the Erie framework and therefore applicable in this diversity suit.  The second issue is, assuming that the Anti-SLAPP Act allows The Muckraker to file a Special Motion to Dismiss in federal court, whether the case should be dismissed on the ground that Smith is a “public official” who has not alleged that The Muckraker acted with actual malice.