ILNews

Law camp teaches teens about profession

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

While many teenagers spend their summers at the pool, as camp counselors, or at other summer jobs flipping burgers or slinging mall merchandise, 24 high school students decided to spend two weeks at the only law school camp for teenagers in Indiana and one of about a dozen in the country.

The Teen Law College at Valparaiso University School of Law, which took place for the first time June 13-26 and will continue as an annual summer event, was organized for high school students who have an interest in becoming attorneys.
 

camp Teen Law College participant Bianca Spencer, left, cross-examines Corie Wilkins during a mock trial at Valparaiso University School of Law. (Photo submitted)

During the program, students took law-school level classes about criminal law, alternative dispute resolution, legal writing and research, torts, forensic evidence, constitutional law, contracts, appellate, and international law. They also prepared and presented a criminal mock trial; met with law professors, lawyers, and judges; and visited federal and local courtrooms and a jail. It wasn’t all business though as they spent some recreational time with their instructors and each other at a baseball game, at the Indiana Dunes, and at Second City in Chicago.

Of those who attended, just over half were African-American and about two-thirds were girls. Most were from northwest Indiana and Chicago, but others came from California, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin, said program organizer Stephanie Medlock, who joined the law school last year as the school’s director of professional and community studies.

One of the 15 instructors for the program, Bruce Berner, has taught at the law school since 1971. He worked with students in the first week on criminal law issues.

Sometimes people forget the importance of diversity, he said.

“The real effect of diversity is how it affects everyone. We’re trying to train people to go into a world that is diverse. That was an important part of this,” he said.

To help students who otherwise couldn’t afford the program – including students whose families a year or two ago could have afforded it but had experienced changes in income due to the economy – the law school awarded scholarships to many participants.

The cost of the camp without a scholarship was almost $3,000, which included tuition, room and board, and entertainment expenses for trips.

The students stayed in dorms on Valparaiso University’s campus and ate at a campus dining hall. Law students served as resident assistants and were impressed with how much work students did outside of the classroom.

Medlock also was impressed with the high school students’ efforts.

“I was just elated,” she said. “They were so smart, like bright shiny new pennies. … Maybe some of us had the fear we would be looking across a sea of bored faces … but these were people who pre-selected themselves for this program. They were unflagging in their enthusiasm.”

While the students are still in high school, the level of education they received was not. From 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m. every day, and some evening programs, they worked with instructors who typically teach law students. They also visited a federal judge in Chicago, watched hearings at the Porter County Courthouse, and visited the Porter County Jail.

One way Medlock tried to determine the best way to reach the students was by talking to Porter County Prosecutor Brian Gensel, an adjunct professor at the law school who has been in the office for more than 20 years.

Gensel has worked with high school students on mock trials and worked at the law camp as well. At the end of the two weeks, the students presented their mock trials at the Porter County Courthouse.

“What Stephanie didn’t know was that mock trial work stresses out everyone involved. But my experience is that students put their game faces on. … I was very impressed how these kids had a mastery of the case they were assigned,” he said.

He added that with only two intense weeks of preparation, they did as well as students he’s worked with who had eight weeks to prepare.

The case regarded an armed robbery and was part of the mock trial program of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy. Split into six groups of four to present three versions of the same case, each student portrayed a lawyer and a witness.

One of the students who participated was Joshua Cooper, 17, who will start his senior year at Wheaton Academy in West Chicago. His mom, who he lives with in Plainfield, Ill., said she was thrilled for him to have the opportunity because he has wanted to be a lawyer for a long time.

“School wasn’t always easy for him until he found his passion,” Veoria Cooper said, but once he realized his interests, the importance of education clicked for him. She said she sends him to private school because he’s a good student and she wants him to have opportunities that come from a good education.

Joshua said he most enjoyed the classroom experience, particularly lessons about the appeals process, constitutional law, and international law.

“I really enjoyed the classes, and I’m happy I was able to be a part of something that furthered my knowledge on the subject and cemented in my mind that this is what I want to do,” he said.

His mom said he is considering Valparaiso for college and would likely attend the law school based on the summer experience.

“I think it’s valuable to give them an idea of what the law does, its value to society, what it takes to be a good lawyer. It might also help inform them how they go about their collegiate experience. … If none of those kids go to law school, there isn’t a loss. They still have a good sense of how the law works,” which makes them better citizens, Berner said.

While Medlock and other organizers considered the program a success on many levels, she said the only thing she would do differently would be to add more breaks for the students.

She also thanked the law school for supporting the program and said she is working on other programs, including one for professionals outside of the legal community.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT