Discovery
Winter 2015 % Volume 1, No. 1
the newsletter from washington and lee university school of law
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Presides Over W&L Moot Court Finals
Opening arguments before the panel. From l.to r.: Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Justice Samuel Alito and Judge Albert Diaz.
O
n Oct. 21, Samuel Alito Jr., associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, visited Washington and Lee School of Law to preside over the finals of the 35th Annual John W. Davis Appellate-Advocacy Competition as the chief justice. Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Albert Diaz, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, joined Alito on the bench. Four finalists, Paul Wiley ’15L (counsel for petitioner), Hernandez Stroud ’15L (counsel for respondent), Loren Peck ’16L (counsel for petitioner) and Aaron Siegrist ’16L (counsel for respondent), constructed detailed arguments based on a given fact pattern and presented them to the court. The finalists tackled the fictional case United States v. Buckmyre. The state of “Commonwealth” had indicted Bryan Buckmyre and his accomplice, Mark Laswel, for the distribution of marijuana. Buckmyre confessed to both federal and state authorities without an attorney present. Laswel confessed to his employer and was killed shortly thereafter. The state court used the confessions to convict Buckmyre. The appellate court overruled the conviction, stating that the confession violated Buckmyre’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Rather than retrying it at the state level, the prosecutor pursued the case in federal court. Buckmyre again sought to suppress the confessions, arguing that the right to counsel attaches to a single criminal act, regardless of whether it is charged in separate sovereigns. Buckmyre also moved to suppress Laswel’s confession on the grounds that he did not have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness as required by the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Buckmyre’s motions to suppress were denied, and he was convicted. On appeal, the Thirteenth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari. Siegrist’s winning argument proceeded in two parts. First, he argued that the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine did not apply in this case, because the prejudice to the defendant outweighed the interest of the state. Second, he argued to suppress the Laswel confession for its testimonial nature. Although Laswel confessed to his employer and not law enforcement, he objectively believed the police would ultimately use the confession. Siegrist considered the recipient of a confession unimportant, and focused instead on the nature of the confession itself. Further, he argued that prior rulings by the Supreme Court had repudiated the silver platter doctrine and that allowing it would permit the state and
Members of the Moot Court board gather during the Davis Competition.
federal governments to do together what neither could do independently. Alito cracked down on Siegrist, pointing out that the state and federal offenses are different. “But with these different offenses, would the silver platter doctrine still apply?” Alito asked. “No, but these offenses are the same,” Siegrist replied. “But there was no intent,” Alito pushed, suggesting that intent was required for one of the offenses, but not the other. “Doesn’t that make it different?” “No, they are phrased differently, but they are essentially the same offense,” Siegrist answered. Aaron Siegrist’s opponent, Loren Peck, had previously argued that the Sixth Amendment did not require the suppression of the two confessions because the Laswel confession did not fall under the Confrontation Clause. Further, he argued that dual sovereignty should apply in this case because while the federal prosecution could have proceeded on its own, it could only do so with cold evidence. The runner-up, Paul Wiley, argued to reverse the judgment of the Thirteenth Circuit in order to preserve the dual sovereignty of the state and federal courts. Further, he argued that the federal interest in the case related to the amount of marijuana found. At one point, Alito told Wiley that “there is no Sixth Amendment lite.” He asked if they were dealing with the same violation. Wiley explained that the state and federal statutes had different requirements. Wiley’s adversary, Hernandez Stroud, argued that the Supreme Court should uphold the Thirteenth Circuit because, at the state level, the court contravened Buckmyre’s right to counsel, and federal investigators received the evidence obtained in this matter on a silver platter. Further, he argued to suppress Laswel’s statements because they lacked testimonial aspects, and Buckmyre did not have the opportunity to face his accuser. Alito questioned whether this argument attacked dual sovereignty. Stroud argued that it did not, because the court could decide to admit any statement (in any sovereignty) if obtaining it violated the Sixth Amendment. In the brief-writing competition, Anne Wilkes ’15L and Aria Allen ’16L took home the honor for best brief, and Jacob Goldstein ’15L was the runner-up. —By Jeffrey Valentine ’17L (reprinted with permission from The Law News)
Davis finalists pose with the distinguished panel following the competition. From left to right: Paul Wiley ’15L, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Aaron Siegrist ’16L, Loren Peck ’16L, Justice Samuel Alito Jr., Hernandez Stroud ’15L, and Judge Albert Diaz.