Skip to main content
Are you currently a full-time student?
All information contained in this application packet is subject to verification.
Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
Please paste your resume here:
Please see the recommendation form. Although letters of recommendation are optional, it is strongly suggested that you have at least one of your recommenders complete the attached chart. If you choose to do this, please fill out the top portion of the form including the waiver and then supply it to your recommenders. If you opt to waive access to the recommendation, please be sure to have the recommender sign across the back of the envelope before returning it.
If you miss a regular or priority deadline, positions may still be available. Please contact Sarah Young at 202-662-9589 or Sarah.Young@law.georgetown.edu to inquire about positions still open. Again, admission is on a rolling basis, therefore, students are encouraged to apply early.
* The two rounds of spring selection are designed to allow applicants who apply during their fall semester to know the results before the end of the term, as well as to allow candidates who learn about the program over the summer a chance to apply. Although there will always be some slots available for the supplemental round candidates, the number will vary depending upon the strength of the 1st round. Therefore, students are encouraged to apply early.
MAILING ADDRESS and PHONE NUMBERS
Sarah Young, Investigations Supervisor
Criminal Justice Clinic
Georgetown University Law Center
111 F. St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Clinic Phone: (202) 662-9589
Clinic Fax: (202) 662-9681
Notice to Applicants
Georgetown University does not discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national and ethnic origin in administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other school-administered programs.
QUESTION INSTRUCTIONS AND TIPS
The work of a defense investigator demands a variety of personal and academic skills. Investigators need to be persuasive while on their feet, careful listeners, tenacious followers of leads, and capable of highly creative and independent work. The clinic attorneys expect investigators to write with a level of detail and precision that surpasses the usual level necessary for undergraduate course work. Criminal defense work also demands a special willingness to fight on behalf of people who are charged with crimes - a rather unpopular side of the law.
This application gives you a chance to demonstrate that you have these skills. The essays are evaluated on both the persuasiveness of the content and the quality of the writing. There is no need to research the answers to any of the questions; we assume that no intern candidate has been trained in these matters. Your goal should be to produce thoughtful - not necessarily "correct" - essays that tell what you think and then persuasively explain why.
Our client, Curtis Walker, is 18 years old and is charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon (golf club). He has lived in DC his whole life. Mr. Walker stopped going to school in 10th grade to help take care of his three younger brothers. Mr. Walker has a history of mental illness but has not been evaluated since 3rd grade. His mother is currently being held at the Correctional Treatment Facility for prostitution charges. Mr. Walker has no adult convictions and is employed full time at the Popeye’s near his house.
Government’s proffer of facts:
According to police reports and discovery, the police received a radio run for an assault in progress on September 26, 2011 at approximately 10:15 pm. The police responded to the scene and saw the complainant, Maurice Stevens lying on the ground in front of 1229 Alabama Avenue SE bleeding from the back of his head. The complainant reported to the Metropolitan Police Department that “Dirty Face” had just hit him in the head with a golf club and run south on 13th Street SE headed towards Mississippi Avenue Se. The complainant described the person who assaulted him as a black male with a dark complexion and long dreads who appeared to be in his twenties. The complainant stated that the defendant was wearing a dark colored hooded sweatshirt with a Redskins cap underneath the hood. The police found a folding knife located approximately five feet from where the complainant was lying. The complainant stated that the knife did not belong to him. The police canvassed the area and found someone matching the description provided by the complainant. The police apprehended the defendant five blocks away at the intersection of 13th and Mississippi Avenue SE. The police recovered a golf club with blood on it in the bushes one block up from where the defendant was arrested. The police also recovered a dime bag of marijuana in the defendant’s front right pocket. The complainant stated that the defendant assaulted and threatened to kill him because the complainant had taken a drug sale away from the defendant that night. A show-up Id was conducted and the complainant positively identified the defendant, Curtis Walker, as the man that threatened him and assaulted him with a golf club.
Our client, Mr. Walker, relayed that he had just gotten off of work at Popeye’s and taken a bus home. Mr. Walker informed us that on his walk home he was apprehended by the police and had no idea why. Mr. Walker says that he has never met the complainant before and does not know anything about the incident. Mr. Walker is African-American and has a medium complexion and has a tribal tattoo on his neck that extends up to his right ear. Mr. Walker was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and no hat when he was arrested.
The government bears a high burden of proof at a criminal trial. Prosecutors must convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person committed a specific act (usually with a specific level of intent) which constitutes a crime within that jurisdiction. This level of proof does not mean that the prosecution's case must be airtight; the evidence does not need to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The burden does mean, however, that there can be a substantial amount of evidence against the accused but still result in a not guilty verdict if a "reasonable" doubt is left at the end of the government's case.
Is this tough burden a good idea? Do we want to let people go free when we have clear and convincing evidence against them? Why or why not? How would you change the burden?
Theoretically, at least, the defendant does not have to say or explain anything during the criminal justice process. Is it also a good idea for only the prosecution to have a burden of proof? What would some of the common sense implications be if we compelled a defendant to testify or give statements?