- Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution. Include relevant witnesses and testimony. The prosecutions case was that the Arizona law was going against the Constitution of the United States. They presented relevant evidence and had witnesses to back everything up. They showed that in the amendments it states that everyone has the right to a speedy trial. James Madison declared that everyone in AMERICAN SOIL has the rights that are state in the constitutions, no matter of their citizenship.
2. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the defense. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
The Defense case was that they are only doing their job, which is protecting their CITIZENS of Arizona. They claimed that the Governor had tried reaching out to Federal offices complaining about the rise of crimes caused by ILLEGAL aliens but nothing was done, so they decided to take matters in their hand EVEN THOUGH IT’S A FEDERAL affair. The founder of the law stated that Constitution only covers the “rights of citizen’s, not the rights of the whole world”
3. What was the most significant piece of evidence, in your personal opinion?
The most significant evidence I heard in the trial was when the Prosecution cross examined the Governor of Arizona. I feel like they really did their job at grilling him. They showed that they is really no right way for a cop to stop a person and ask for their ids and papers without racial profiling.
4. What was the most significant argument made, in your opinion?
The most significant argument made in court was when they argue that
5. What do you personally believe the correct verdict should be? Do you agree with the jury? Why or why not?
I personally agreed with the verdict. I believe that once you are in the United State you should be cover under the Constitution and have the same rights: Everyone wants to a better life for themselves
