THE FINAL ROUND
TOOK PLACE SUNDAY, MARCH 9, 2025
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WINNER OF
THE ROGER J. TRAYNOR AWARD
BERKELEY
AND TO THE RUNNER-UP
EMPIRE
BEST BRIEF: THE GISNET MANDELL AWARD
Berkeley
2nd Place: Empire
3rd Place: UWLA
EXCELLENCE IN APPELLATE ADVOCACY
First Place to the team with the highest combined total points as follows: 50% brief; 50%
combined oral argument score in the first two rounds from among the schools in the top 50%
on both the brief score and the oral argument score:
Berkeley
Second Place: Empire
Third Place: UWLA
GEOFFREY HALL WRIGHT AWARD FOR BEST ORALIST
Lillian Dutcher, Empire
INDIVIDUAL MERIT AWARDS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Lande Watson, Berkeley
Patrick Ogilvie, Kern Co.
Kaylana Mueller-Hsia, Berkeley
Gina C. Hering, UWLA
Veronica Reynolds, Loyola
Sofia Tourgeman, Loyola
Elizabeth Milks, Empire
Faith Magbero, Berkeley
Simon McMurchie, UCLA
Hailey Borgia, UWLA
Cassandra Vo, UCLA
Thank you to the Traynor's host school, UWLA!
This year's case was based on People v. Allen, S286520/B328333 and presented the following issues:
(1) If a defendant has invoked his right to remain silent while being interrogated by a law enforcement officer, are incriminating statements obtained through a subsequent Perkins operation (i.e., the use of an undercover agent to question a jailed defendant) admissible as substantive proof of the defendant’s guilt at trial? (See Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292; Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.)
(2) What effect, if any, does the fact that the interrogating officer continued questioning Prescott after Prescott invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence have upon the admissibility of the statements subsequently obtained during the Perkins operation? The second issue includes the questions of whether the Perkins operation was inadmissible as the fruit of a prior, coerced statement to police, and whether the asserted error violated due process.