A merged file from 2016 and 2020. Sat as a Thurgood Marshall moot court judge in 2016 and 2020. On page-2, see judge No 56, courtroom No 313.

1. Courtroom Assignments
Wednesday, March 18
DC Superior Court
Preliminary Round 1 6:15 – 7:30 pm and Round 2 7:45 – 9:00 pm
Last Name First Name Judge Number Courtroom
Agbai Nnenne 43 212
Babich Stefan 50 312
Barreto-Garcia Rafael 7 216
Bellamy Acacia 3 212
Bluming Micah 21 210
Bracknell Robert 6 215
Bray Jeff 32 221
Campbell Tim 24 213
Cohen Ira 1 210
Curlett Charles 27 216
Davis Catherine 59 320
Doyle Andrew 11 220
Eastman Angela 45 214
Elias Stacey 47 215
Frey Jennifer 54 220
Guthartz Rafi 33 312
Hagner Richard 25 214
Hamilton Jason 53 319
Hartnett Thomas 34 313
Henderson Christa 42 211
Holt Leslie 19 320
Hume Lauren 16 317
Jacobs Jon 36 314
King Brandon 8 217
Kroptavich Walter 17 318
2020 Thurgood Marshall Moot Court Competition

2. Courtroom Assignments
Wednesday, March 18
DC Superior Court
Preliminary Round 1 6:15 – 7:30 pm and Round 2 7:45 – 9:00 pm
Last Name First Name Judge Number Courtroom
Laufe Hannah 18 319
Lewis Todd 14 313
McGrath TJ 57 314
McMurry Glen 38 319
Meek Robert 26 216
Morgan Annie 4 213
Mysliwiec Brendan 22 211
O'Connell Michael 35 317
Radi Mark 10 219
Randolph Christopher 37 318
Reed Mary 30 219
Reese Ben 9 218
Regan Jaime 46 215
Renault Naira 56 313
Rich Noah 5 214
Rodgers Lynnette 39 320
Roskey Joanne 41 210
Roskey Colin 44 213
Rudolf Erica 13 312
Sanchez Esperanza 51 218
Satola James 2 211
Scalise Kelly 28 217
Schnaith Marisa 40 321
Segal Joshua 60 321
Silverman Bradley 49 219

3. Courtroom Assignments
Wednesday, March 18
DC Superior Court
Preliminary Round 1 6:15 – 7:30 pm and Round 2 7:45 – 9:00 pm
Last Name First Name Judge Number Courtroom
Simpson Connor 31 220
Soto Gabriel 48 217
Swangin Cheryl 23 212
Thomas Scott 29 218
Tippins Adria 58 318
Torres Christian 12 221
Tyler Sheila 55 221
VanDeusen Christopher 20 321
Vieira Philip 52 317
Yohannan Michael 15 314

4. Thursday, March 19
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Round of 16 Part A 9:00 – 10:30 am and Part B 10:30 am – 12:00 pm
Courtrooms will be assigned the week of March 9, 2020
Last Name First Name Judge Number Notes
Barreto-Garcia Rafael 7
Bracknell Robert 6
Cohen Ira 1
Cooper Christopher 64 Part B only
Doyle Andrew 11 Part B only
Holt Leslie 19
Lewis Todd 14
Meek Robert 26
Rudolf Erica 13
Satola James 2
Torres Christian 12
Tromley Gwen 66
Weisgram Amy 65
Yohannan Michael 15 Part A only
Quarterfinals 1:00 – 2:30 pm
Last Name First Name Judge Number
Barreto-Garcia Rafael 7
Bracknell Robert 6
Cohen Ira 1
Cooper Christopher 64
Holt Leslie 19
Lewis Todd 14
Liss Maris 76
Meek Robert 26

5. Last Name First Name Judge Number
Rudolf Erica 13
Satola James 2
Torres Christian 12
Tsankov Hon. Mimi 77
Semifinals 3:30 – 5:00 pm
Last Name First Name Judge Number
Barreto-Garcia Rafael 7
Bracknell Robert 6
Cohen Ira 1
Liss Maris 76
Satola James 2
Torres Christian 12

6. 2016 Thurgood Marshall Moot Court Competition
Instructions for Judges
Avoiding Potential Bias
1. If you discover at the beginning of a round that you know one of the competitors, please inform the
bailiff immediately. We will place you in another courtroom.
2. Do not ask the competitors at any time during the competition to disclose which law school they attend.
We instruct the students not to share this information with other competitors or judges at any point
during the competition to avoid the possibility of bias.
Time Allotments
1. Each team has 30 minutes to present its argument. Teams may divide this time among their two
competitors as the team wishes.
2. You need not worry about keeping track of the competitors’ allotted time. A bailiff has been provided
for that purpose.
3. The bailiff will hold up time cards at different intervals so that the competitors and judges know how
much time is left. When the bailiff holds up the “0” sign, the competitor’s time has expired. The chief
judge on a panel may, but is not required to, grant a competitor additional time to answer a question or
briefly conclude an argument.
The Arguments
1. The order in which the competitors present their arguments will be as follows:
The 2 attorneys representing the Petitioner present their argument
The 2 attorneys representing the Respondents present their argument
Rebuttal by 1 of the attorneys representing the Petitioner
Teams are not required to present a rebuttal argument, but they almost always do.
2. You may interrupt competitors at any time during an argument to ask a question. We encourage judges
to ask questions.
3. Keep in mind that the competitors do not receive the bench brief, so they may mention cases that do not
appear in the bench brief. Conversely, the bench brief may cite cases with which a competitor is
unfamiliar.

7. Scoring
1. After both teams have finished presenting their arguments, the bailiff will excuse the competitors and
observers from the courtroom so that the judges can fill out the scoring ballots in private.
2. Teams are scored based on a combination of their written briefs and oral arguments. You are
responsible solely for scoring the teams’ oral arguments. Please do not add up the scores; the scores will
be tallied in the Scoring Room.
3. You should score the competitors independent of the other judges on your panel. We therefore
discourage you from conferring with other members of the panel until all of the scoring ballots are
completed and signed.
4. We also discourage you from allowing your personal views of the merits of the appeal to influence your
scoring. It is entirely possible, for example, that a judge would rule for one team on the merits, yet
assign a higher score to the other team. This is because the scores should reflect the competitors’ oral
advocacy skills, not the underlying merits of the appeal.
5. You will be asked to score each individual competitor. The oral argument score for each competitor
should range between 50 points (extremely poor) to 100 points (perfect). The average score is 75 points.
Your ballot should accurately reflect the quality of the advocates. If the advocates’ performances are
not close, do not score them close. Teams advance from the preliminary rounds based on their margin
of victory.
6. The scoring sheets are broken into the following five categories:
Evidence of Research; Knowledge of the Record, Issues and Law;
Organization and Reasoning
(minimum 25 points/maximum 50 points)
Does counsel give a broad but brief overview of the argument?
Does counsel have a thorough knowledge of the factual and procedural record? Is
counsel able to direct you to important language therein?
Does counsel emphasize the important issues?
Does counsel argue the heart of the matter adequately and is he or she selective in
discussing issues?
Does counsel employ reason and logic rather than just relying upon precedents?
Are counsel’s arguments clear and direct?
Are the issues firmly fixed in the Court’s mind when counsel leaves the Court?
Ability to Answer Questions
(minimum 10 points/maximum 20 points)

8. Is counsel responsive to questions rather than evasive or repeatedly unable to give an
answer (deferring to one’s partner is permissible where such a question involves the
other team member’s argument)?
Is counsel able to answer a question with authority, either theoretically
Or with case names?
Is counsel able to fit relevant questions into his or her overall analysis and argument?
Is counsel able to continue his or her argument following a question?
Is counsel candid about weak points in his or her argument?
Is Counsel Convincing Irrespective of the Merits?
(minimum 5 points/maximum 10 points)
Not taking into account the underlying merits, does counsel exhibit those qualities that
are characteristic of good oral advocates?
Forensic Performance
(minimum 5 points/maximum 10 points)
Does counsel use correct pronunciation and grammar?
Does counsel use timely emphasis?
Does counsel effectively use pauses?
Is counsel’s voice clear, rather than inaudible or difficult to understand?
Does counsel use “uhs,” “er,” “ums” or other distracting verbal crutches?
Does counsel know his or her argument or does he or she refer excessively to notes or
read a prepared text?
Courtroom Demeanor
(minimum 5 points/maximum 10 points)
Is counsel trying to be helpful to the Court?
Does counsel project an image of professional sincerity toward his or her client?
Does counsel have distracting non-verbal mannerism?
Does counsel maintain good eye contact?
Is counsel courteous rather than sarcastic, condescending or resentful?

9. Critiquing the Competitors
1. After the judges finish scoring and signing the ballots, the bailiff will collect the ballots and escort the
teams back into the courtroom. The bailiff will then take the ballots to the Scoring Room to be tallied.
Once the teams have re-entered the courtroom, the judges may offer constructive comments. This is an
important part of the competition because moot court is primarily a learning process for the students.
Please keep your constructive comments to a minimum, however, because of the tight schedule.
2. If any problems or questions arise, notify the bailiff and he/she will contact the Competition Directors.
Lastly, remember to enjoy yourself. Thank you for giving your time. The Federal Bar Association
appreciates your involvement.