Korematsu v. The United States (1944)
Direct Examination: Lieutenant Karl Bendetsen
Goal: To prove Japanese internment was the least restrictive means to protect the West Coast and secure national security.
Part 1: Direct Examination Question and Answer
Q: What experience do you have regarding the law?
A: I majored in political science at Stanford University. I then practiced general law for eight years in Aberdeen. Then I was called to active duty as part of the Military Affairs Section of the Judge Advocate General’s staff. I was then promoted to the rank of major and served as the Judge Advocate General’s assistant.
Part 1: Question and Answer
Q: When the war began, how did your professional position change?
A: Before, I was head and organizer of the Aliens Division. But when the war began, I went to the west coast to aid General DeWitt in the assessment of the potential threat from enemy aliens.
Part 1: Direct Examination Question and Answer
(Transcript of Executive Order 9066 submitted as evidence here, when I ask you tell the court what it is, let me know that you authored it, it was signed by FDR, and that it authorized the secretary of war to prescribe military areas)
Will you please read the first sentence of the second paragraph? (of course Ivie) (and then I’ll ask you to summarize that- so basically authorized secretary of war to prescribe military areas based on the threats.)
Q: Was there any targeting of Japanese within the order?
A: no
Q: Then who did it apply to?
A: Whoever was seen as a threat.
Q: In the fourth paragraph of the order, the accommodations of those evacuated are explained, will you read that for the court?
Q: So if human needs were met and interment wasn’t a punishment, why was it necessary?
A: I would like Bendetson to explain something along the lines of “To secure the military areas that were the most vital to national security”
A: Internment was necessary because our national security was in immediate danger. the place where one with malicious intentions could do the most damage is on the west coast. This was where a person on the shore could signal another person on a boat or submarine and give them information such as where our guns were and how to get past them. We created the military zones because those were the areas most vital to national security.
Part 2: Evidence (if your lawyer is using any)
Goal: To prove Japanese internment was the least restrictive means to protect the West Coast and secure national security.
Part 1: Direct Examination Question and Answer
Q: What experience do you have regarding the law?
A: I majored in political science at Stanford University. I then practiced general law for eight years in Aberdeen. Then I was called to active duty as part of the Military Affairs Section of the Judge Advocate General’s staff. I was then promoted to the rank of major and served as the Judge Advocate General’s assistant.
Part 1: Question and Answer
Q: When the war began, how did your professional position change?
A: Before, I was head and organizer of the Aliens Division. But when the war began, I went to the west coast to aid General DeWitt in the assessment of the potential threat from enemy aliens.
Part 1: Direct Examination Question and Answer
(Transcript of Executive Order 9066 submitted as evidence here, when I ask you tell the court what it is, let me know that you authored it, it was signed by FDR, and that it authorized the secretary of war to prescribe military areas)
Will you please read the first sentence of the second paragraph? (of course Ivie) (and then I’ll ask you to summarize that- so basically authorized secretary of war to prescribe military areas based on the threats.)
Q: Was there any targeting of Japanese within the order?
A: no
Q: Then who did it apply to?
A: Whoever was seen as a threat.
Q: In the fourth paragraph of the order, the accommodations of those evacuated are explained, will you read that for the court?
Q: So if human needs were met and interment wasn’t a punishment, why was it necessary?
A: I would like Bendetson to explain something along the lines of “To secure the military areas that were the most vital to national security”
A: Internment was necessary because our national security was in immediate danger. the place where one with malicious intentions could do the most damage is on the west coast. This was where a person on the shore could signal another person on a boat or submarine and give them information such as where our guns were and how to get past them. We created the military zones because those were the areas most vital to national security.
Part 2: Evidence (if your lawyer is using any)
- - Title of evidence: Executive Order 9066
- - Link to evidence: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=74&page=transcript
- Brief summary of the piece of evidence (What is it?): Permitted the military to determine military zones and move people between zones
- Most important lines/passage (ok to copy and paste):
- Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918.
- I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion.
- - How this evidence helps your case: shows that the president could constitutionally designate military areas based on threat.
Cross Examination: Ralph Lazo
Cross Examination Questions
Q: Mr. Lazo, you signed up to go to an internment camp?
Knowing what it was?
And you went with your friends?
Have a place to sleep?
Did you have access to healthcare?
Did you go to school?
So one may argue that you had access to all basic necessities plus additional accommodations such as education and dances?
After you left Manzanar, did you return to your hometown?
Did you carry on with your life?
So one might conclude that you were temporarily inconvenienced?
While interned, did you witness any action being taken against the United States by people of Japanese Ancestry within the camps that would aid the Japanese war effort or as to hurt that of the United States?
So you never witnessed any damaging behavior executed by the Japanese while they were interned?
Cross Examination Questions
Q: Mr. Lazo, you signed up to go to an internment camp?
Knowing what it was?
And you went with your friends?
Have a place to sleep?
Did you have access to healthcare?
Did you go to school?
So one may argue that you had access to all basic necessities plus additional accommodations such as education and dances?
After you left Manzanar, did you return to your hometown?
Did you carry on with your life?
So one might conclude that you were temporarily inconvenienced?
While interned, did you witness any action being taken against the United States by people of Japanese Ancestry within the camps that would aid the Japanese war effort or as to hurt that of the United States?
So you never witnessed any damaging behavior executed by the Japanese while they were interned?
Project Reflection:
Leading up to this project we studied the Japanese internment following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. We read the novel "Snow Falling on Cedars" which followed a fictional trial of a Japanese Man during WW2. Throughout the story many characters struggle with identity t because of the clash between Japanese and American culture. We learned much information about the internment of the Japanese. We went on to learn all about the justice system and further studied the constitutional rights that were compromised during World War 2.
Working with the prosecution team during the project was a very excellent experience. My team was very supportive and a great resource throughout the process.
The trial forced us to communicate with each other in order to have a strong case. Without the assistance of the other prosecution lawyers, I wouldn't have been
able to successfully question my witnesses. We were doing constant check ins and always looking to each other for advice on our witnesses. On several
occasions, conversations during "group meetings" resulted in refinement of questions. I believe that without the team, our cases and questions would have been
much weaker.
Prior to the trial, I made many substantial revisions to my written components. One specific question for my direct examination of Karl Bendetson was
"Why was evacuating Japanese-Americans, such as Korematsu, in the best interest of the United States?". Although this was an important question that needed to be answered, I realized that I would need evidence and other questions to guide the judges into understanding the answer to this question instead of just expecting my witness to deliver the information in the way I wanted. I decided to use a transcript of Executive Order 9066 as evidence because Bendetson helped draft it. I was also able to achieve my goal of leading the witness to give the answer i wanted as you can see in the Direct examination above. Another revision i made to the written component of the cross-examination of Ralph Lazo was based on the evidence the defense was planing on submitting during the direct-examination. The defense was planning on showing photos of the internment camps to have Lazo testify that they were bad. As a prosecution lawyer it was my job to try to show the judges that they weren't that terrible and were only a temporary inconvenience.
When I was first assigned the role of a prosecution lawyer, i was unhappy. I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to preform well at the trial and wouldn't be able to produce the same quality of work as my peers. With much help from Ashley, I was able to get excited about the trial. I became engaged and eventually began to actually enjoy the project. I ended up actually enjoying the trial and being successful in it. If I had to give one piece of advice to a future prosecution lawyer, it would be to remain optimistic. Although at times you will be handed a stack of extremely boring, dry readings that you will be forced to annotate, it does get better. With some perseverance and a positive attitude, the mock trial can be an enjoyable learning experience. If I had a chance to participate in another mock trial, I would spend more time working with my witnesses. When the witness didn't respond in exactly the way you wanted them to during direct examination, leaving out crucial information or not leading into the next questioned like you planned, it was difficult to think on the spot and re-frame a question to get what you needed. More practice with this would lead to a better trial performance.
Leading up to this project we studied the Japanese internment following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. We read the novel "Snow Falling on Cedars" which followed a fictional trial of a Japanese Man during WW2. Throughout the story many characters struggle with identity t because of the clash between Japanese and American culture. We learned much information about the internment of the Japanese. We went on to learn all about the justice system and further studied the constitutional rights that were compromised during World War 2.
Working with the prosecution team during the project was a very excellent experience. My team was very supportive and a great resource throughout the process.
The trial forced us to communicate with each other in order to have a strong case. Without the assistance of the other prosecution lawyers, I wouldn't have been
able to successfully question my witnesses. We were doing constant check ins and always looking to each other for advice on our witnesses. On several
occasions, conversations during "group meetings" resulted in refinement of questions. I believe that without the team, our cases and questions would have been
much weaker.
Prior to the trial, I made many substantial revisions to my written components. One specific question for my direct examination of Karl Bendetson was
"Why was evacuating Japanese-Americans, such as Korematsu, in the best interest of the United States?". Although this was an important question that needed to be answered, I realized that I would need evidence and other questions to guide the judges into understanding the answer to this question instead of just expecting my witness to deliver the information in the way I wanted. I decided to use a transcript of Executive Order 9066 as evidence because Bendetson helped draft it. I was also able to achieve my goal of leading the witness to give the answer i wanted as you can see in the Direct examination above. Another revision i made to the written component of the cross-examination of Ralph Lazo was based on the evidence the defense was planing on submitting during the direct-examination. The defense was planning on showing photos of the internment camps to have Lazo testify that they were bad. As a prosecution lawyer it was my job to try to show the judges that they weren't that terrible and were only a temporary inconvenience.
When I was first assigned the role of a prosecution lawyer, i was unhappy. I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to preform well at the trial and wouldn't be able to produce the same quality of work as my peers. With much help from Ashley, I was able to get excited about the trial. I became engaged and eventually began to actually enjoy the project. I ended up actually enjoying the trial and being successful in it. If I had to give one piece of advice to a future prosecution lawyer, it would be to remain optimistic. Although at times you will be handed a stack of extremely boring, dry readings that you will be forced to annotate, it does get better. With some perseverance and a positive attitude, the mock trial can be an enjoyable learning experience. If I had a chance to participate in another mock trial, I would spend more time working with my witnesses. When the witness didn't respond in exactly the way you wanted them to during direct examination, leaving out crucial information or not leading into the next questioned like you planned, it was difficult to think on the spot and re-frame a question to get what you needed. More practice with this would lead to a better trial performance.