by Joe Wilhelm Jr.
Staff Writer
The University of Georgia brought the Hulsey-Kimbrell Florida-Georgia Moot Court Competition trophy to Jacksonville for a visit Friday, and they were able to take it home for the second straight year.
The annual moot court competition, held in conjunction with the Florida-Georgia game, has now marked its 28th year and provides law students with a chance to practice their future trade in a real courtroom in front of sitting judges.
Just like the teams, the bench is comprised of judges from Florida and Georgia. The five-judge panel acted as the U.S. Supreme court in a hypothetical case argued by two, two-person teams from each school.
“This competition gives them the best practical experience they can possibly have,” said Lanny Russell of Smith Hulsey. “It fosters a degree of excellence in advocacy. It’s unique to have real judges interact in a close-to-real situation.”
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Tjoflat presided as the Chief Judge. The panel consisted of competition veterans Circuit Court Judge Waddell Wallace, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Judge John Moore and U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Judge Avant Edenfield. New to the competition was U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Judge Lisa Godbey Wood.
Russell instructed the audience that the judges would be deliberating over the quality of the arguments presented by the advocates. The advocates from the University of Florida were Charlie Roberson and Shawn Taylor, while James Derrick and David Younker represented the University of Georgia.
The respondent in the case had been convicted of a “lewd and lascivious act” with a minor. He was sentenced to 15 years confinement, but if he was released on parole he was ordered to receive medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) injections to treat the condition for which he was convicted. After serving eight years of his sentence he was paroled and ordered to start the MPA treatments. The respondent failed to report to his parole officer and was sent back to prison. He appealed the original conviction because he felt the prosecutor conducted their case in an unlawful manner. His appeal was granted and he filed a suit against his prosecutors.
The appeal was granted because prosecution failed to reveal the bias of one of its witnesses, an inmate that testified that the respondent confessed his guilt. The inmate had a history as an informant and received reductions to his sentence for his testimony.
The advocates were charged with developing arguments for the following questions:
Is a prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity for her decisions to promulgate an unconstitutional policy and to train her subordinates to abide by that policy?
Does the order requiring treatment violate the 8th or 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?
The UGA team represented the petitioner and the UF team the respondent.
Each member was given 15 minutes to present an argument and answer questions from the bench.
“It was a very close case and it was very well argued on both sides,” said Tjoflat. “It was about as evenly divided as possible and a tough decision, but we tip it to Georgia.”
A crowd of about 40 watched as the arguments were presented and the UGA team earned their second straight victory. Among those watching was competition founder Mark Hulsey.
“We try to emphasize that you shouldn’t go in to this profession to make a lot of money,” said Hulsey, explaining why the competition was developed. “These judges were tougher on them then what they normally get.”
A member of last year’s UF team agreed, but acknowledged the experience is well worth the stress.
“I feel for them. A small percentage of people in the world go through what we go through during that competition,” said Dana Israel, of Boyd & Jenerette. “It’s a great experience. I hope competitors can look back on it and feel the way I felt, knowing it’s where they want to be in the future and not feel intimidated.”
Another important part of the competition is the correlation to the Saturday football game.
Throughout the ‘90s the team that won the moot court competition would lose the football game. That trend has changed with UF winning football and moot court in ‘05 and ‘06, and UGA winning the football and moot court last year.
“Back when the winner of the moot court was losing the game,” said Lanny Russell, of Smith Hulsey. “I think the Florida judges would deliberately vote for the Georgia team so they would win the football game.”
356-2466