AP Government Moot Court Allen Eagles (Case #1) Plaintiff and Appellant Alex Doe v.

Defendant and Respondent Alma High School Alma ISD Brief Statement Of The Issue (A Due process and B corporal punishment) Did the District Court err in holding that Alex Doe was given due process. The Students rights were violated by the school when he was not given due process. The District Court was correct in its finding that Mr. Does 8th amendment rights were violated. The students right was violated by the school when the school (the assistant principal) administered corporal punishment. Statement Of The Facts Alex Doe at Alma High School was accused of cheating on his semester final by his Advance Placement English teacher. The student was called into the office of the assistant principal, where he was asked to explain what happened. After the student explains that he was not cheating, the assistant principal administered corporal punishment which consisted of licks with a paddle that leaves no bruising and suspended the student for three day. The student filed a lawsuit contending that he was not given his due process rights at the time of his suspension and the school can not administer corporal punishment since corporal punishment is a violation of the school district. Argument (a) The District Court erred in holding that Alex Doe was given due process. (b) The District Court was correct in holding that the corporal punishment administered was in violation of the 8th amendment. Students have the right to be given due process. Due process is not something to be taking lightly. It is a legal requirement. Due process is a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. There are actually multiple amendments to the great Constitution including the 5th (Deals with the rights of accused criminals by providing for due process of law, forbidding double jeopardy, and stating that no person may be forced to testify as a witness against himself or herself) and the 14th (defining national citizenship and forbidding the states to restrict the basic rights of citizens or other persons) amendments that include a major section on Due Process. It comes in the three parts notice, grieve, and appeal. In Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) students who participated in a civil rights protest were expelled from a state college. They were afforded no right to procedural due process. The court then spelled out the details of the kind of due process standards that apply in a case such as this: (1) The notice should contain a statement of the specific charges and grounds, which if proven would justify expulsion under regulations of the Board of Education. (2) To consider charges of misconduct, something more than an informal hearing is required. Witness reports oral or written should be given as well as give the student an opportunity to present his own defense. (3) If the hearing is not before the Board directly, the results and findings of the hearing should be presented in a report open to the students inspection. The assistant principal (AP) in our case did not follow the fullness of

this precedent. The student was informed why he was being called to the APs office but that was all that was done according to procedure. The AP held an informal hearing. He had the student explain what happened and then administered corporal punishment with an added three day suspension. The AP did not bother to allow for the student to have an adequate defense. The AP did not take a written report of the students appeal. In another case Goss v. lopez (1975) students were suspended from school without being given the benefit of a hearing and Ohio law requires parents to be notified of their childs suspension but doe not require hearing for short-term suspensions. The court ruled that due process requires, in connection with a suspension of ten days or less, that the student be given oral or written notices of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story. The Clause requires at least these rudimentary precautions against unfair or mistaken findings of misconduct and arbitrary exclusion from school. Our client was given a portion of due process. He was notified when asked to go the office, but his parents were not notified. There was no appeal either or notification of the principle. If a student is receive punishment such as a suspension even if for it is just for the rest of the day a parent in notified. He listed his grievances to the AP. The AP gave no attention to this and punished without appeal. Schools do not have the right to administer corporal punishment. Before proceeding into the argument, one thing needs to be established; the definition of corporal punishment. By establishing the meaning of corporal punishment, we can all be on the same level of understanding and our argument can be clear. According to UNICEFs Educate dont punish campaign, corporal punishment can be defined as the use of physical force causing pain, but not wounds, as a means of discipline. Lets go over the facts once more: Our student, Alex Doe, was accused of cheating by his advanced placement English teacher. After explaining himself to the assistant principal, the assistant principal administered corporal punishment which consisted of licks with a paddle that leaves no bruising and was suspend for three days. With that being said, let us bring to remembrance the case Ingraham v. Wright (1977) where Florida students challenged corporal punishment on constitutional grounds. The Court rejected the argument that corporal punishment is prohibited by the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court said that the 8th Amendment simply does not apply to the school setting. Now back in 1977 this ruling might have made some sense, but in 2013, things are different. To put it simply; As a nation, we have become more civilized. As a nation we have learned less barbaric and at the same time more effective ways to discipline students. Alma ISD prohibits any form of corporal punishment and also has more jurisdiction over what happens in their schools than does the court system. With that being said, it is illogical to have Ingraham v. Wright establish precedence over our present case. 10 years after Ingraham v. Wright, another landmark case over corporal punishment was being decided. That case was Garcia v. Miera. This case involved a nine-year old New Mexico girl whose court documents say was held upside down and struck five times with a broken wooden paddle leading to bleeding and permanent scarring. The child was paddled again some three months later causing severe bruising. The courts found that school officials had used such excessive force in administering corporal punishment that they violated the students federal constitutional right of substantive due process. Garcia v. Miera also divided corporal punishment into three categories: (1) Punishments that do not exceed the traditional common law standard of reasonableness are not actionable. (2) Punishments that exceed the common law standard without adequate state remedies violate due process rights. (3) Punishments that are so grossly excessive as to be shocking to the

conscience violate substantive due process rights, without regard to the adequacy of state remedies. We feel our case falls under the second category of corporal punishment because our student was not correctly given due process. While the corporal punishment administered to the student leaves no bruising, it does not mean however, that damage was not done to the student. The damage I am referring to is psychological damage. In 1977 and even 1987, the psychological effects of corporal punishment were not deeply studied. Luckily the advancement of psychology has produced evidence that corporal punishment has many negative side effects, some serious. While we do not know for sure, it would be dangerous to assume that the student was not affected by the corporal punishment. In closing our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic of this country: to right wrong, to do justice, to serve man.

Conclusion For the foregoing reason, the decision of the District Court should be upheld. We humbly present this argument with our trust wholeheartedly placed in you all that justice can be upheld.

Respectfully submitted this Twenty-second of November, Two-thousand and thirteen. Signatures here

Austin Steele Jack Thomas