Mock Trials Questions and Answers
General DeWitt:
Q: Please state your name and age to the court.
A: My name is John Edgar Hoover, and I am (45-46) years old
Q: What is your current occupation, Mr. Hoover?
A: I am the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States.
Q: You are the Director of the FBI, Mr. Hoover, so I believe it is safe to say your opinion is credible. Do you believe the FBI itself is capable of upholding actions necessary to be taken against threats to the US homeland?
A: Of course.
Q: Mr. Hoover, what you are holding has been labeled “Prosecution Exhibit A”. Without telling the court what it is, do you recognize it?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: It is the final report involving Japanese Evacuation on the West Coast written by US General Dewitt.
Q: Would you do all of the present in the courtroom today the honor of reading the highlighted excerpt of Dewitt’s final report I have provided you:
A: (Just read the excerpt)
Q: U.S. Code, Title 50, Chapter 3, Article 21, as clearly mentioned in that excerpt of Dewitt’s final report does have an exception to the restraint put upon the aliens of the US. That exception being the fact that any household housing a mixture of any ratio of aliens and nationally-born citizens may be subject to search and seizure only by a warrant, even during a time of war. Would it take an exceptionally long amount of time, in your opinion, Mr. Hoover, to obtain warrants and make arrests for every potential alien threat along the West Coast living with citizens of the US?
A: I guess it would.
Q: And in the time it takes the FBI to attain these warrants, Mr. Hoover, is it possible for one or more attacks on US soil to be committed by an alien of Japanese descent?
A: Yes, I suppose it is.
Q: Then I have no further questions, your honor.
Mike Masaoka:
Q: Please state your name and age to the court.
A: My name is Mike Masaoka, and I am (__) years old.
Q: Mr. Masaoka, could you please tell us a little bit about who you are?
A: In 1937, I graduated from the University of Utah, and soon after, I had become the National Security and Field Executive for the Japanese American Citizens League, and am the spokesperson and advocate representing people of Japanese descent living in the United States.
Q: Why do you think the fact that the Japanese people were taken from their homes, and incarcerated in the internment camps was justified, being a person of Japanese descent yourself?
A: I believe that during a time of war, it is reasonable for the Japanese people of the US to prove their loyalty to their State, and in order to do so, it is necessary for them to comply without trouble with the State, and embrace life in the camps with one another. Any restraint made by a Japanese person could just raise tension and distrust between the US federal government and Japanese people living within its borders.
Q: It has come to my understanding that you, yourself, Mr. Masaoka, were never placed in an internment camp, whether or not it be against your will. So my question for you is: How have you proven your loyalty to the US?
A: I was given the choice, like all Japanese Americans along the West Coast, to serve in the military for the US, or go to an internment camp. I served as a member of the US military
Q: What position did you have as a member of the US military?
A: I served as the original member of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team.
Q: Any other information regarding your military experience for the US?
A: I also partook in the leading of the call for not only the 442nd Regimental Combat team, but also for the formation of the Nisei-based 100th battalion.
Q: I have no further questions, your honor.
Navy Officer Kenneth Ringle:
Q: Please state your name and age to the court.
A: I am Kenneth Ringle, I am (__) years old, and I am an Officer of Naval Intelligence for the US.
Q: What is your current occupation, Mr. Ringle?
A: I am an officer of Naval intelligence
Q: As a man of obvious credibility, do you believe that the Japanese people of the US pose a potential threat to the US’s national security?
A: No, I do not.
Q: (Handing Ringle the Ringle Report) What you are holding is labeled “Prosecution Exhibit D”. Without mentioning what it is to the court, do you recognize this document?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: It is a report regarding myself filed by the Chief of Naval Operations.
Q: Would you do us all the honor of reading the first highlighted excerpt in the report?
A: “That of the Japanese-born alien residents, the large majority are at least passively loyal to the United States. That is, they would knowingly do nothing what ever to the injury of the United States, but at the same time would not do anything to the injury of Japan. Also, most might well do surreptitious observation work for Japanese interests if given a convenient opportunity.”
Q: And that is under the “Opinions” section of your report, am I correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you do the court the honor of reading the second highlighted excerpt of Prosecution Exhibit D?
A: Yes. “Three years' study of the Japanese language and the Japanese people as a naval language student attached to the United States Embassy in Tokyo from 1923 to 1931.”
Q: And this is under the Background section of your report, is it not?
A: It is.
Q: So it is safe to say that you have spent a large amount of time around citizens of Japanese descent?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Do you believe this time around them has changed your view on them as a people, in any way?
A: I believe it has.
Q: Have you examined the incarcerated at the internment camps, such as Lake Tule or even Manzanar?
A: no
Q: Do you believe that because of the time you have spent around these Japanese people, your opinion toward Japanese people in general may fairly be considered biased?
A: I don’t think I would agree with that…
Q: I have no further questions, your honor.
Q: Please state your name and age to the court.
A: My name is John Edgar Hoover, and I am (45-46) years old
Q: What is your current occupation, Mr. Hoover?
A: I am the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States.
Q: You are the Director of the FBI, Mr. Hoover, so I believe it is safe to say your opinion is credible. Do you believe the FBI itself is capable of upholding actions necessary to be taken against threats to the US homeland?
A: Of course.
Q: Mr. Hoover, what you are holding has been labeled “Prosecution Exhibit A”. Without telling the court what it is, do you recognize it?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: It is the final report involving Japanese Evacuation on the West Coast written by US General Dewitt.
Q: Would you do all of the present in the courtroom today the honor of reading the highlighted excerpt of Dewitt’s final report I have provided you:
A: (Just read the excerpt)
Q: U.S. Code, Title 50, Chapter 3, Article 21, as clearly mentioned in that excerpt of Dewitt’s final report does have an exception to the restraint put upon the aliens of the US. That exception being the fact that any household housing a mixture of any ratio of aliens and nationally-born citizens may be subject to search and seizure only by a warrant, even during a time of war. Would it take an exceptionally long amount of time, in your opinion, Mr. Hoover, to obtain warrants and make arrests for every potential alien threat along the West Coast living with citizens of the US?
A: I guess it would.
Q: And in the time it takes the FBI to attain these warrants, Mr. Hoover, is it possible for one or more attacks on US soil to be committed by an alien of Japanese descent?
A: Yes, I suppose it is.
Q: Then I have no further questions, your honor.
Mike Masaoka:
Q: Please state your name and age to the court.
A: My name is Mike Masaoka, and I am (__) years old.
Q: Mr. Masaoka, could you please tell us a little bit about who you are?
A: In 1937, I graduated from the University of Utah, and soon after, I had become the National Security and Field Executive for the Japanese American Citizens League, and am the spokesperson and advocate representing people of Japanese descent living in the United States.
Q: Why do you think the fact that the Japanese people were taken from their homes, and incarcerated in the internment camps was justified, being a person of Japanese descent yourself?
A: I believe that during a time of war, it is reasonable for the Japanese people of the US to prove their loyalty to their State, and in order to do so, it is necessary for them to comply without trouble with the State, and embrace life in the camps with one another. Any restraint made by a Japanese person could just raise tension and distrust between the US federal government and Japanese people living within its borders.
Q: It has come to my understanding that you, yourself, Mr. Masaoka, were never placed in an internment camp, whether or not it be against your will. So my question for you is: How have you proven your loyalty to the US?
A: I was given the choice, like all Japanese Americans along the West Coast, to serve in the military for the US, or go to an internment camp. I served as a member of the US military
Q: What position did you have as a member of the US military?
A: I served as the original member of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team.
Q: Any other information regarding your military experience for the US?
A: I also partook in the leading of the call for not only the 442nd Regimental Combat team, but also for the formation of the Nisei-based 100th battalion.
Q: I have no further questions, your honor.
Navy Officer Kenneth Ringle:
Q: Please state your name and age to the court.
A: I am Kenneth Ringle, I am (__) years old, and I am an Officer of Naval Intelligence for the US.
Q: What is your current occupation, Mr. Ringle?
A: I am an officer of Naval intelligence
Q: As a man of obvious credibility, do you believe that the Japanese people of the US pose a potential threat to the US’s national security?
A: No, I do not.
Q: (Handing Ringle the Ringle Report) What you are holding is labeled “Prosecution Exhibit D”. Without mentioning what it is to the court, do you recognize this document?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: It is a report regarding myself filed by the Chief of Naval Operations.
Q: Would you do us all the honor of reading the first highlighted excerpt in the report?
A: “That of the Japanese-born alien residents, the large majority are at least passively loyal to the United States. That is, they would knowingly do nothing what ever to the injury of the United States, but at the same time would not do anything to the injury of Japan. Also, most might well do surreptitious observation work for Japanese interests if given a convenient opportunity.”
Q: And that is under the “Opinions” section of your report, am I correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you do the court the honor of reading the second highlighted excerpt of Prosecution Exhibit D?
A: Yes. “Three years' study of the Japanese language and the Japanese people as a naval language student attached to the United States Embassy in Tokyo from 1923 to 1931.”
Q: And this is under the Background section of your report, is it not?
A: It is.
Q: So it is safe to say that you have spent a large amount of time around citizens of Japanese descent?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Do you believe this time around them has changed your view on them as a people, in any way?
A: I believe it has.
Q: Have you examined the incarcerated at the internment camps, such as Lake Tule or even Manzanar?
A: no
Q: Do you believe that because of the time you have spent around these Japanese people, your opinion toward Japanese people in general may fairly be considered biased?
A: I don’t think I would agree with that…
Q: I have no further questions, your honor.
Korematsu vs US Reflection
When we were first assigned this project, we took an in-depth look at Japanese internment: Whether or not it was constitutional, morally justifiable, etc. We also read a book about another Japanese man on trial after the Japanese internment took place to try to get an even more personal understanding of what Japanese internment was really like. The book was called Snow Falling on Cedars, and revolved, in a way, around the trial of one Japanese man, Kabuo Miyamoto, who was thought to have killed a white man while they were out on fishing boats. But the story weaved in and out of the trial, not in any specific chronological order, but it skipped back and forth in a way that allowed us to understand what it was like for Japanese people to live in the US during that time. Obviously, following the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and others previous in the war, it wasn't easy for them to get along in the US. After going into a deep analysis of SFoC, we started prepping for the trial by picking roles to play during the mock trial. I played an unnamed prosecution attorney. Other positions included: judges, the defense team of attorneys, and witnesses. The way the mock trial played out was just like it did in the real trial of 1944. Us attorneys had to do some research to gather evidence for and against the witnesses we would be cross-examining and direct examining. The idea of the trial was not to prove Fred Korematsu guilty for running away and hiding from incarceration, but instead to use him as a catalyst for deciding whether or not the internment was constitutionally and morally justifiable. One piece of evidence I used for the trial, for example, was against the head of FBI at that time (J. Edgar Hoover). I questioned him about the efficiency at which the FBI would be able to detain potential threats to the US. Since the FBI at that time of war operated under 50 USC 21, efficiency would be greatly decreased, and the only truly efficient way would be to incarcerate the Japanese citizens as a whole to avoid any attacks on US soil.
As the prosecution side, our team had great difficulty in winning over the judges in the trial. We worked well together, but the trial was never in our favor, so we lost anyway. In the real trial, though, considered one of the biggest mistakes that was ever made in the history of the US justice system, the prosecution had won. Perhaps this would be because of the huge racial dispute known to have gone on at that time. Still, as a team, we made the best out of it, and it was a great learning experience overall. We were taught to go outside of the previously-known content and find evidence for ourselves, and to do some research of our own. In addition, it helped us gain a good understanding of what the US justice system it is, and how it works. And although I didn't implement the best courtroom etiquette, I have learned a lot about the way trials are run, and disputed.
The above questions and answers went through a semi-extensive amount of revision throughout the process of preparing for the trial. I started with, for each witness, a basic idea of what I would be asking them, and typed those out onto a document for further use. Once I started gathering evidence, I was able to integrate the new pieces of evidence into the questions and answers. Ashley helped me with the evidence found against both Kenneth Ringle and J. Edgar Hoover, and through further research of both of those witnesses, along with further research of the evidence I was going to use against them, I was finally able to integrate every piece of evidence I had needed into the trial.
I enjoyed this project much more than I had thought from the beginning. Originally, I was pretty one-sided about the whole idea of learning about the justice system, and acting as someone in the trial. I figured it was going to be really boring, and I had always considered the court system, plain and simply, boring. So, needless to say, I hadn't gone into the project with a very good attitude. But, what I had found through working with lawyers and judges, is that this project was going to be pretty enjoyable, independent of how the court system worked. The project was strictly dispute-based, and I got the chance to compete and debate with peers. I think that's what really helped me thrive with this project; the fact that I looked at it like a competition really gave me a motivational boost throughout the project in its entirety. So, I guess I would suggest to any incoming juniors, that if they want to thrive and do well with this project, too, they should come into it with a preset enthusiastic attitude, and even take their attitude as far as treating it as a competition amongst peers.
As the prosecution side, our team had great difficulty in winning over the judges in the trial. We worked well together, but the trial was never in our favor, so we lost anyway. In the real trial, though, considered one of the biggest mistakes that was ever made in the history of the US justice system, the prosecution had won. Perhaps this would be because of the huge racial dispute known to have gone on at that time. Still, as a team, we made the best out of it, and it was a great learning experience overall. We were taught to go outside of the previously-known content and find evidence for ourselves, and to do some research of our own. In addition, it helped us gain a good understanding of what the US justice system it is, and how it works. And although I didn't implement the best courtroom etiquette, I have learned a lot about the way trials are run, and disputed.
The above questions and answers went through a semi-extensive amount of revision throughout the process of preparing for the trial. I started with, for each witness, a basic idea of what I would be asking them, and typed those out onto a document for further use. Once I started gathering evidence, I was able to integrate the new pieces of evidence into the questions and answers. Ashley helped me with the evidence found against both Kenneth Ringle and J. Edgar Hoover, and through further research of both of those witnesses, along with further research of the evidence I was going to use against them, I was finally able to integrate every piece of evidence I had needed into the trial.
I enjoyed this project much more than I had thought from the beginning. Originally, I was pretty one-sided about the whole idea of learning about the justice system, and acting as someone in the trial. I figured it was going to be really boring, and I had always considered the court system, plain and simply, boring. So, needless to say, I hadn't gone into the project with a very good attitude. But, what I had found through working with lawyers and judges, is that this project was going to be pretty enjoyable, independent of how the court system worked. The project was strictly dispute-based, and I got the chance to compete and debate with peers. I think that's what really helped me thrive with this project; the fact that I looked at it like a competition really gave me a motivational boost throughout the project in its entirety. So, I guess I would suggest to any incoming juniors, that if they want to thrive and do well with this project, too, they should come into it with a preset enthusiastic attitude, and even take their attitude as far as treating it as a competition amongst peers.
