Post Trail Reflection;

1. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
Prosecution clearly stated multiple times that law SB1070 is unconstitutional and inhumane. They have also brought to the juries attention that it is against the law to step in for the federal government i.e bringing the issue of Immigration into their own hands. They also stated that the law would create reasoning for racism and bring on another civil war. My own witness (Russel Pearce) was questioned if the Chinese Exclusion Act was inspiration for SB1070

2. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the defense. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
Defense stated that law SB1070 is not guilty for disrupting the spirit of American History and being "unconstitutional" in fact the defence fought that the bill was helping the citizens of Arizona feel safer, and restore families financial instability with more work opportunities (by eliminating Illegal Immigrants, thus providing more job opportunity for Legal citizens) Defense also included throughout the trial law SB1070 was not targeted at one race (Hispanic) or does it create Racial profiling from police officers.

3. What was the most significant piece of evidence, in your personal opinion?
The most significant piece  of evidence is the constitution. Although I am against the law, I feel the constitution has tons of loop holes and therefore it is easy to twist the law and finds was out of it.

4. What was the most significant argument made, in your opinion?
The most significant argue made at today's trail is the fact the law was a way to resolve a crisis in the Governor and Senator's hands; seeing as their plead for help to secure the border was not taken seriously by the Federal Government

5. What do you personally believe the correct verdict should be? Do you agree with the jury? Why or why not?
I feel the jury did not thoughtfully come up with an honest verdict. I felt they were constantly being fed the Constitution by Calvin and Magda (prosecution) and the repetitive statements stuck into the juries mind which caused them to decide we were guilty (defense) Like I said before I am not for the Law and I think it is a terrible, but I fee my arguments were legitimate enough to at least stick to the juries final decision.

I think I deserve a 50 out of 50,  because I did the following things very well I was constantly researching evidence to defend the law to the best of my ability; I was always preparing my witnesses for trail with packets of evidence and reading, although I feel strongly against the law(SB1070 is against the constitution)  and I felt I argued the opposing side very well.