Korematsu v. U.S
After Pearl Harbor in 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry were placed into various Internment Camps around the country. Fred Korematsu, a U.S. citizen of Japanese ancestry, refused to obey the wartime order to leave his home and report to a relocation camp for Japanese Americans. He was arrested and convicted. After losing in the Court of Appeals, he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the deportation order.
Korematsu's case is known as one of the worst Supreme Court case rulings in U.S. history. Not only did the interment of thousands of Japanese Americans not pass Strict Scrutiny (a standard judicial review for a challenged policy in which the courts presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy) but it was an obvious act of racial discrimination against loyal Japanese Americans.
Korematsu's case is known as one of the worst Supreme Court case rulings in U.S. history. Not only did the interment of thousands of Japanese Americans not pass Strict Scrutiny (a standard judicial review for a challenged policy in which the courts presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy) but it was an obvious act of racial discrimination against loyal Japanese Americans.
Direct Examination Questions
Fred Korematsu:
-State your name and age for the courtroom
-What is your occupation
-Did you ever move to Japan at any point with the other Kibei individuals?
-Are you proud to be a US citizen?
-How were you loyal to the US throughout your life?
-Enlisting in the army was brave…why were you refused after you tried to enlist in the army?
-Did you ever participate in any pro-Japanese organizations?
-How did you feel as an American citizen after Pearl Harbor?
-Why were you scared when you learned it was the Japanese?
-So you were afraid for your safety?
-The records show you changed your physical features to avoid racial discrimination?
- So you didn’t want to be thought of as dangerous and at the time there was a lot of anti-Japanese war propaganda, that had to have been hard…(Submit evidence)
-How did this war propaganda affect you? (use exhibit A of war propaganda)
-Earlier you mentioned that you were fired, did your employer give you a reason why?
-Why do you think you were fired?
-Why do you think that?
-So to sum this up, you were scared. And that is why you made the decisions you did correct?
-Your honors I have no more questions
Evidence: Anti-Japanese war propaganda
Ralph Lazo:
-State your name and age for the courtroom
-What is your ethnicity?
-What is your occupation?
-Isn’t it true you went to the camp on your own free will?
-Why did you do that?
-What was the camp like?
-Your honors I have no more questions
-Evidence: pictures of Manzanar
-State your name and age for the courtroom
-What is your occupation
-Did you ever move to Japan at any point with the other Kibei individuals?
-Are you proud to be a US citizen?
-How were you loyal to the US throughout your life?
-Enlisting in the army was brave…why were you refused after you tried to enlist in the army?
-Did you ever participate in any pro-Japanese organizations?
-How did you feel as an American citizen after Pearl Harbor?
-Why were you scared when you learned it was the Japanese?
-So you were afraid for your safety?
-The records show you changed your physical features to avoid racial discrimination?
- So you didn’t want to be thought of as dangerous and at the time there was a lot of anti-Japanese war propaganda, that had to have been hard…(Submit evidence)
-How did this war propaganda affect you? (use exhibit A of war propaganda)
-Earlier you mentioned that you were fired, did your employer give you a reason why?
-Why do you think you were fired?
-Why do you think that?
-So to sum this up, you were scared. And that is why you made the decisions you did correct?
-Your honors I have no more questions
Evidence: Anti-Japanese war propaganda
Ralph Lazo:
-State your name and age for the courtroom
-What is your ethnicity?
-What is your occupation?
-Isn’t it true you went to the camp on your own free will?
-Why did you do that?
-What was the camp like?
-Your honors I have no more questions
-Evidence: pictures of Manzanar
Cross Examination Questions
Karl Bendetsen:
-Is it true that after writing Executive Order 9066 you were promoted to deputy chief of staff?
-And you received other promotions as a result of writing Executive Order 9066 as well?
-You worked closely with general DeWitt correct?
-Did you help him write the Final Report document?
-Submit evidence
-Do you recognize this document?
-And it is the untouched version of the Final Report, correct?
-Will you read the highlighted section on page 12 for me?
-The “might” part of this statement is interesting to me. Was there any specific evidence that the enemy agents ever communicated with enemy submarines?
-So it could have been a German with the potential of communicating with enemy submarines?
-Or an Italian?
-Would you say that this "might" form of logic reflects conjecture and is not certainty based on evidence?
-Are you willing to take this logic far enough to say that that there “might” be a boy in school who “might” fail his next test?
-So essentially, there is no evidence for having this statement in the document?
-I have no more questions, your Honors
Evidence: Final Report, page 12
-Is it true that after writing Executive Order 9066 you were promoted to deputy chief of staff?
-And you received other promotions as a result of writing Executive Order 9066 as well?
-You worked closely with general DeWitt correct?
-Did you help him write the Final Report document?
-Submit evidence
-Do you recognize this document?
-And it is the untouched version of the Final Report, correct?
-Will you read the highlighted section on page 12 for me?
-The “might” part of this statement is interesting to me. Was there any specific evidence that the enemy agents ever communicated with enemy submarines?
-So it could have been a German with the potential of communicating with enemy submarines?
-Or an Italian?
-Would you say that this "might" form of logic reflects conjecture and is not certainty based on evidence?
-Are you willing to take this logic far enough to say that that there “might” be a boy in school who “might” fail his next test?
-So essentially, there is no evidence for having this statement in the document?
-I have no more questions, your Honors
Evidence: Final Report, page 12
Project Reflection
To learn about Korematsu v. U.S, my Humanities class exhibited a mock trial of the original case. We were each assigned to a certain role: lawyers, judges, or witnesses and then learned about important people who were a part of the Korematsu v. U.S. case. Leading up to the mock trial, we did extensive research about our characters and about the judicial system so that we could reanact the original case as best as possible. I was playing the role of a defense lawyer. One of the main things that we researched was learning how to determine if the Japanese Internment Camps were constitutional or not. We read many documents that were written during and after the time period of this case such as, The Final Report: Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast 1942. This document was a comprehensive look at the evacuation of persons of Japanese ancestry. It discussed the mechanics of the evacuation and why the governmental leaders made the choices they did. Not only did we look at government write ups, but we also looked at more personal items like the autobiographies of a Japanese-American. After we got a strong understanding of the constitutionality, we began to review court room courtesies and with the help of local judges and lawyers, we were able to learn about the techniques of questioning and other valuable skills. The mock trial itself took place at the local court house and it turned out to be a very fun and unique exhibition. A couple of days after the trial, the judges came to a consensus that the defense won because the Internment Camps did not pass Strict Scrutiny and they were unconstitutional.
The defense side and the prosecution side of this project each had a team made up of five lawyers and five witnesses. It was an interesting experience going through the learning process of being a team of lawyers, . During the beginning of the project, everybody on the team started with their own individual work and for the most part, it was just us and our witnesses. Having the individual aspect required us to come back together at the end and be able to correlate the importance of the witnesses, questions, and who did what during our time alone. Luckily, I was paired with a great team but even the best teams have their problems. The aspect of working alone for the majority of the project created a barrier amongst the defense lawyer team because everybody had taken their own angle on how they wanted to question their witness. Our "story line" got messed up because of this so we all had to pick and choose the most beneficial elements and unfortunately scrap the others. I believe that if we would have made sure to keep checking in with each other, it would have made the final days of the project less stressful and more in sync.
One of the hardest parts about this project was crafting the questions that I was going to ask during the trial. There is a certain language that lawyers use when they are asking their questions and I had never done anything like it before. For example, cross examination questions require leading questions so that you can essentially get your witness to say what you want them to, but, if you ask an improper leading question it means that you are suggesting that you want a specific answer. Also, a question is not leading simply because it calls for a yes or not answer. Or in direct examination, it is necessary to craft the questions in a way that the other team won't be able to find loopholes in what your witness says. The first draft of my questions had been very weak. I did not know the language that was needed to write them well. It hadn't been until I was able to work one on one with a local lawyer that I began to understand the techniques of questioning. The lawyer helped me realize in direct examination, it should be played out like a conversation that you already know the answers to. You want to work with your witness and play pity cards during questioning. This will make the juries heart go out to the witness and it will also make it more difficult for the other team to find loopholes. In cross examination, he helped me realize that I must never ask a question which I don't already know the answer to. If a curveball is thrown into the cross examination questioning, it could potentially ruin a case. After I was able to talk to the lawyer, the revisions of my questions came naturally. I ensured to keep in mind every tip that he had given me and by doing that, it helped my lawyer team win the case.
I found the mock trial to be one of the most inspiring projects that I have had so far as an AHS student. I thoroughly enjoyed it because lately, I have been interested in the possibility of pursuing a law career. The Korematsu v. U.S. project gave me an in depth perspective about the processes that lawyers go through before a trial, the techniques they use, and the etiquette necessary for a courtroom. I was able to work with real lawyers and hear their opinions about law school and anything else that they had learned over the years. The closing of this project helped me realize that yes, I do want to go into law, and that realization is what inspired me to change my internship so that I could work with a lawyer! I found that the preparation for the mock trial was organized very well by my teacher, Ashley Carruth, and that learning the historical, constitutional and legal content was not nearly as difficult as I had initially thought it was going to be. Even though everything was fairly easy to understand, advice that I have for somebody in my role next year is to make sure to understand their questions inside and out. I made the mistake of not practicing "multitasking" while I was learning my questions and the result of that was that I stood extremely still while performing the questions in the mock trial. I think it would have been very beneficial if I had practiced walking around and dramatizing what I was asking.
The defense side and the prosecution side of this project each had a team made up of five lawyers and five witnesses. It was an interesting experience going through the learning process of being a team of lawyers, . During the beginning of the project, everybody on the team started with their own individual work and for the most part, it was just us and our witnesses. Having the individual aspect required us to come back together at the end and be able to correlate the importance of the witnesses, questions, and who did what during our time alone. Luckily, I was paired with a great team but even the best teams have their problems. The aspect of working alone for the majority of the project created a barrier amongst the defense lawyer team because everybody had taken their own angle on how they wanted to question their witness. Our "story line" got messed up because of this so we all had to pick and choose the most beneficial elements and unfortunately scrap the others. I believe that if we would have made sure to keep checking in with each other, it would have made the final days of the project less stressful and more in sync.
One of the hardest parts about this project was crafting the questions that I was going to ask during the trial. There is a certain language that lawyers use when they are asking their questions and I had never done anything like it before. For example, cross examination questions require leading questions so that you can essentially get your witness to say what you want them to, but, if you ask an improper leading question it means that you are suggesting that you want a specific answer. Also, a question is not leading simply because it calls for a yes or not answer. Or in direct examination, it is necessary to craft the questions in a way that the other team won't be able to find loopholes in what your witness says. The first draft of my questions had been very weak. I did not know the language that was needed to write them well. It hadn't been until I was able to work one on one with a local lawyer that I began to understand the techniques of questioning. The lawyer helped me realize in direct examination, it should be played out like a conversation that you already know the answers to. You want to work with your witness and play pity cards during questioning. This will make the juries heart go out to the witness and it will also make it more difficult for the other team to find loopholes. In cross examination, he helped me realize that I must never ask a question which I don't already know the answer to. If a curveball is thrown into the cross examination questioning, it could potentially ruin a case. After I was able to talk to the lawyer, the revisions of my questions came naturally. I ensured to keep in mind every tip that he had given me and by doing that, it helped my lawyer team win the case.
I found the mock trial to be one of the most inspiring projects that I have had so far as an AHS student. I thoroughly enjoyed it because lately, I have been interested in the possibility of pursuing a law career. The Korematsu v. U.S. project gave me an in depth perspective about the processes that lawyers go through before a trial, the techniques they use, and the etiquette necessary for a courtroom. I was able to work with real lawyers and hear their opinions about law school and anything else that they had learned over the years. The closing of this project helped me realize that yes, I do want to go into law, and that realization is what inspired me to change my internship so that I could work with a lawyer! I found that the preparation for the mock trial was organized very well by my teacher, Ashley Carruth, and that learning the historical, constitutional and legal content was not nearly as difficult as I had initially thought it was going to be. Even though everything was fairly easy to understand, advice that I have for somebody in my role next year is to make sure to understand their questions inside and out. I made the mistake of not practicing "multitasking" while I was learning my questions and the result of that was that I stood extremely still while performing the questions in the mock trial. I think it would have been very beneficial if I had practiced walking around and dramatizing what I was asking.