News Story

To see additional information about Justice O'Connor and the Cornell Law School go to the online Press Kit.

The Hon. Sandra Day O'Connor, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, arrived on Cornell's campus Sunday, Sept. 21, to begin her duties as the Law School's 2007 Distinguished Jurist in Residence. Her first assignment: to serve as the presiding justice in the 2007 Cuccia Cup Moot Court Competition.

When the gavel sounded a 6 p.m., followed by the call to rise, Justice O'Connor seemed right at home as she marched into the MacDonald Moot Court Room, the third among five justices of note, and took her place on the bench up front under the carved gold letters, "Law must be stable and yet it must not stand still."

Flanking her were Law School alumnus and former Jurist in Residence the Hon. Richard Wesley, JD '74, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; the Hon. Robert Sack, also on the second circuit appeals court; the Hon. Dolores Sloviter and the Hon. D. Brooks Smith, both U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Justice O'Connor and her colleagues heard law students Nicholas Dorsey and Gary Adamson argue for the petitioner, and William Whiney and Jonathan Sclarsic argue for the respondent, in an imaginary case, Alan Fernandez v. State of Cascadia, involing two issues that have divided the lower state and federal courts, one of which currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.

In Blakely v. Washington, the Supreme Court, relying on its previous decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, held in 2004 that factors that enhance a criminal defendant's sentence must be unanimously found by a jury using the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. In Fernandez, the moot court participants and judges grappled with whether Blakely could be and should be given retroactive effect to cases that had already been heard on direct appeal when Blakely was decided.

The Moot Court judges heard, and aggressively contested, petitioners arguments for applying the Blakely ruling retroactively, using state as opposed to federal law. But they were equally contentious when respondents counter argued that states should be required to use the narrow standards now binding federal courts, as set forth in a real 1989 case, Teague v. Lane. They also disputed arguments and counterarguments about whether Blakely should be considered a new rule of criminal procedure, and if so, "watershed" rule that must be applied retroactively. A pending Supreme Court case, Danforth v. Minnesota, will look at similar issues.

"We wrote the case and the problem it addresses around Justice O'Connor's opinions, explained Amanda Kopf, a third-year law student who is Moot Court chancellor; Being able to involve opinions she actually wrote gives the Moot Court another dimension and has been a thrilling experience for me and a lot of students here."

Following deliberations, Justice O'Connor delivered the Moot Court's finding: "I think at the end of the day that the respondents deserve the award for the best advocacy. But each and every one of you have demonstrated that you will perform very well in courts in the future and will respond with ease under a peppering of questions."

The other judges agreed. "It's an honor to see four students perform so admirably" said Judge Wesley. "I feel proud to be a Cornell Law School graduate."

"These are not easy issues. I'd be happy if the lawyers for the Third Circuit would argue as well as each of you argued," added Judge Sloviter.

"It's great for the school and the Moot Court board and program to have a Supreme Court justice, and the first woman to serve on the court, as a presiding Moot Court judge and jurist in residence" said Law School Professor John Blume, the program's faculty adviser.

Following the Moot Court case, Justice O'Connor joined Stewart J. Schwab, Allan R. Tessler Dean of the Law School, students, and faculty at a reception and dinner at Willard Straight Hall Memorial Room.

To come: Day two, including a discussion among faculty of Justice O'Connor's and Dean Schwab's article on the future of affirmative action.

Report by Linda Myers