WMU-Cooley Law School Holds Honors Convocation in Florida

On Wednesday, July 12, WMU-Cooley Law School’s Tampa Bay campus held its Honors Convocation recognizing students for top course grades, Dean’s List, Honor Roll, and leadership and skills competition achievements.

Sheila Lake received the Alumni Distinguished Student Award for her academic success, professionalism, and participation and leadership in student organizations.

Lake also won a Leadership Achievement Award, along with classmates David Lee and Selena Neal. The award acknowledges students who have consistently, comprehensively and effectively provided leadership in a variety of capacities.

Selena Neal with award

Selena Neal

Sheila Lake with award

Sheila Lake

Leave a comment

Filed under Achievements, Awards, Student News, Achievements, Awards, Uncategorized

WMU-Cooley’s Grand Rapids Campus to Host Panel Discussion on Human Trafficking in Michigan

“You Don’t Own Me: Perspectives on Human Trafficking” will be the topic of discussion at Western Michigan University Cooley Law Schools’ Grand Rapids campus on Wednesday, July 19. The free event is open to the public and will feature a diverse panel of community leaders who will discuss the issue of human trafficking and its impact on west Michigan communities.

Chris Johnson

E. Christopher Johnson

Panelists include Carmen L Kucinich, victim specialist, FBI; Andy Soper, owner, Five Arrows Consulting; Christopher Johnson, Jr., CEO and co-founder, Center for Justice, Rights & Dignity; Jodi Dibble, police officer, city of Muskegon Police Department.

Carmen Kucinich is a master’s level licensed professional counselor with the state of Michigan. Kucinich has been a victim specialist with the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 2005 and has worked with crime victims for over 18 years.  Prior to the FBI, she was a caseworker with the Michigan Indian Child Welfare Agency. She then worked for Safe Harbor Children’s Advocacy Center as a forensic interviewer and therapist for sexually abused children and children who witnessed domestic violence.

Carmen Kucinich

Carmen Kucinich

Kucinich has testified as an expert witness in the areas of the Native American culture, forensic interviewing and children’s counseling. She is active in working on the FBI’s West Michigan Based Child Exploitation Task Force, formed in 2014, and is one of the original members of the Michigan Human Trafficking Task Force since 2007. Kucinich has also had the opportunity to provide interviews with local media stations, and participated in the premiere episode of the “Mutually Inclusive” television program.

Having worked with severely traumatized youth for 10 years in residential and community forums, Andy Soper founded the Manasseh Project in 2011 and opened the first human trafficking victims’ shelter in Michigan for minors. After years of advocating for victims and working with professionals to improve treatment and legislation, Soper also helped to open HQ – Grand Rapids’ Runaway and Homeless Youth Drop-In Center in 2014. He is now the owner of Five Arrows Consulting.

Andy Soper

Andy Soper

Christopher Johnson, Jr. and his wife Rhonda were exposed to the injustice, enormity and brutality of human trafficking during a 2011 mission trip with NorthRidge Church to Mumbai, India. They felt called by God to join the anti-human trafficking movement, and together, they co-founded the Center for Justice, Rights & Dignity. The organization is committed to advancing the cause of justice and securing human and civil rights for all who are denied human dignity, especially those victimized by modern day slavery.

Johnson started his legal career in 1981 with a New York law firm. In 1988, he accepted the role as General Motors’ sole attorney handling computer law matters, as well as one of GM’s purchasing lawyers. He rose through the ranks and ultimately became the GM North America vice president and general counsel. After his 2008 retirement from GM, Johnson joined the faculty at Western Michigan University Cooley Law School where he served as a law professor and director/founder of the LL.M. program in Corporate Law and Finance until 2013 when he moved to adjunct status to focus his efforts on human trafficking issues.

Jodi Dibble has worked for the city of Muskegon Police Department as a police officer for 22 years. Dibble became involved in advocating against human trafficking when she learned that her niece (now her adopted daughter) was sex-trafficked at the age of 10. After attending a human trafficking conference hosted by the Michigan Human Trafficking Task Force, she became empowered to raise awareness of the issue.

Dibble is now the vice president of the board and training coordinator for the Hope Project, an outreach program to educate and inform the community about the issue of human trafficking. Dibble is also the chair of the Lakeshore Human Trafficking Task Force. She was the investigating officer on the first prosecuted case of human trafficking in Muskegon County, and also developed the Sex Offender Registry Violation Program at the Muskegon Police Department.

Leave a comment

Filed under Latest News and Updates, The Value of a Legal Education, Uncategorized

Did Trump Junior Commit Treason? Don’t Bet On It – Or Against It

WMU-Cooley Law Professor Brendan Beery

Blog author, Constitutional Law expert and WMU-Cooley Professor Brendan Beery  gives expert analysis surrounding media coverage regarding whether or not Donald Trump, Jr. committed treason. Professor Beery is a summa cum laude graduate of Western Michigan University Cooley Law School teaches Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure. Professor Beery is a frequent legal expert in the media.

Until now, some pundits were hesitant to throw around the “C word” when discussing the Trump team’s seeming fetish for raw Russian power. That word was collusion. But the days when that word, and its attendant whiff of impossible scandal, were deemed hysterical or preposterous – well, those days, like the Biblical former world, have passed away.

The email exchange between Donald Trump, Jr. and a portly intermediary named Rob Goldstone proves that the Trump campaign did, in fact, collude with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. To collude means to conspire (not necessarily in the legal sense), which in turn means to act in concert for the accomplishment of some improper purpose. As is the case with conspiring (even in the legal sense), colluding does not mean successfully executing some diabolical plan; it just means working together to try.

So the goalpost has moved. We’re on to the “T word.” Now the question isn’t whether Trump Jr. (and by extension the whole Trump operation) colluded, but whether Trump Jr. (or others similarly situated) committed treason. (Actually this is just one of many questions about many possible crimes, but since it’s in the ether, I want to focus on this one.) It’s way too soon to say that Trump Jr. did commit treason, and there are many voices out there screeching that he didn’t. (Jonathan Turley and Jeffrey Toobin, I’m looking at you.)

What I’d like to point out is that, just as it’s far too early to say that Trump Jr. did commit treason, it’s also a bit silly to have already concluded that he did not.

In the United States, treason is defined in the Constitution itself, not just a mere statute. Article III provides that treason “shall consist only in levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” (A federal statute, which can’t change the standard, merely parrots it: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason …” 18 USC 2381.)

The two most important words in all of the law are and and or. Those words signal the relationships between ideas or elements, telling advocates whether they must show one thing, every item on a list of things, or some combination of things. We see that our Constitution’s definition of treason has an or in it – as well as at least one and.

Treason can consist either of waging war against the US or adhering to enemies of the US, giving them aid and comfort. As to the comma in that last sentence, let’s read that as an and, too (that’s the reading most favorable to Junior). That seems a fair reading; were a parent to tell a child, “You must get to bed, giving yourself plenty of rest,” that comma before giving certainly means and, not or – you should go to bed and get rest, not you should go to bed or get rest.

So we can represent treason, quasi-mathematically, this way: You commit treason if you

Levy + War + Against the United States

-or-

Adhere + To enemies of the US + Give those enemies (Aid + Comfort)

Let’s assume that, even though Trump Jr. might have participated in an attack on American democracy, he did not in any literal sense levy war against the United States. That leaves us with the question whether he adhered to an enemy of the US and gave that enemy aid and comfort.

Adhere

To adhere is to stick to or bind oneself to something. It can also mean to follow, as when one adheres to a religious belief. So the question would be whether Trump Jr. joined with or bound himself to something else – in this case, Russia (or Russians). It seems clear from his emails that he did join together with a foreign national to further a common purpose: the defeat of Hillary Clinton facilitated by Russian intelligence that, in all likelihood, would have been obtained through espionage. I note here how unlikely it is that Special Counsel Bob Mueller is going to believe Trump Jr.’s story that no ill-gotten information actually changed hands at the not-so-clandestine meeting. If this joining together turns out to have happened (in a way that is legally provable), then Trump Jr. seems to have adhered. On the other hand, if adhere means come under the spell of some anti-American orthodoxy (again, as in religious adherence), then we seem a long way from treason in this case.

Enemy of the United States

It’s true that when we talk about enemies of the US, we usually (historically) mean a country against whom we are engaged in a hot war. But the term “enemy” is not defined in the Constitution, and like most of the Constitution’s words, “enemy” is a broad and flexible term that should be interpreted in light of evolving realities. (Yes, the organic “living Constitution” view is the correct one, and “originalism” is highly suspect.) Many pols, lawyers, and national-security experts have claimed, with good reason, that what Russia did to the United States during the 2016 election cycle was nothing short of an act of war – not in the conventional sense, but in the sense that it involved key elements of war: an attack combined with the intent to achieve dominance over the United States by causing American institutions to malfunction and, ultimately, collapse. By that standard, Russia could be an enemy of the United States.

Giving Aid and Comfort

This term – aid and comfort – has always been broadly understood to mean nothing more than tangible help or assistance. The Russians had multiple objectives: to see the defeat of Hillary Clinton; to accomplish that end by employing espionage and subterfuge; to cause chaos in American politics; and to install an American government so compromised by Russian mischief as to be an extension of Vladimir Putin’s will. Trump Jr.’s emails arguably show that he was anxious to (and by accommodating the meeting request, actually endeavored to) help the Russians achieve those objectives. Critically, we don’t yet know the full extent of the Trump team’s efforts to help the Russians. Obviously, the deeper those efforts went, the stronger the case for treason becomes. We also don’t yet know the extent to which President Trump is compromised (his tax returns sure would help in that regard). The more compromised he is, the more likely it is that he and his family would have played along; the more likely it is that they would have provided aid and comfort.

Conclusion

One common misperception about treason, and one I’ve heard repeatedly recently, is that it requires a war and adherence and an enemy and the provision of aid and comfort. That’s not what the Constitution says, and it ignores the meaning of the word or: treason can be committed either by levying war or by acting in concert with an enemy to help that enemy attack the United States.

Without knowing about all the Trump team’s financial and other dealings with Russian officials, many of which are likely still to be discovered, it’s hard to say whether there was enough entanglement, symbiosis, and subversive conduct to rise to the level of treason. It would be absurd to conclude one way or the other at this point, but it is certainly not absurd, as talking-head thought police keep telling us, to discuss the possibility of treason and argue one side or the other. As long as we keep our focus on the standards discussed above, debate about the issue is both fair and healthy. File it under “civics 101” — the more we engage about constitutional issues, the better.

Leave a comment

Filed under Faculty Scholarship, Latest News and Updates, Uncategorized

Mock Trial Winners Announced For WMU-Cooley Evidence Competition

The Mock Trial Board at WMU-Cooley Law School’s Tampa Bay campus recently awarded Mackiesch Taylor and Mayra Puerta winners of the term’s Evidence Competition. The competition featured 10 teams of two students who each had to display their skills introducing evidence as a prosecutor, or defending a client against the evidence that had been introduced.

Mock Trial participants

WMU-Cooley Mock Trial Board recently held its Evidence Competition for the current term at the law school’s Tampa Bay campus. Pictured (left-right) are competition winners Mayra Puerta and Mackiesh Taylor with John Scott, professor and presiding judge for the competition; and runners up Nathan Tamulonis and Trevor Persenaire.

Using the “Hunger Games” as a theme, the case presented during the competition involved a defendant name Katniss Everdeen, who was charged with murdering Peeta Malark by bow and arrow.

WMU-Cooley Professor John Scott, who advises the Mock Trial Board and served as the court’s judge during the competition, said, “Members of the board did a superb job organizing the competition and the event was a great way for students to get practice applying rules of evidence.”

The finals of the competition were held on June 17. Students Trevor Persenaire and Nathan Tamulonis were runners-up for the competition.

Mock Trial participants

WMU-Cooley Law School Mock Trial Board members and competition participants from the law school’s Tampa Bay campus. Pictured (front row, left-right) Nathan Tamulonis, Justin Sblano, Sarah Marin, Mayra Puerta, Mackiesh Taylor, Kim Canals, Thomas Yi, Shederis Lakin, (back row, left-right)Mock Trial Board President Clyde Barrow, Rob Johnson, Andrew Yaktman, Professor John Scott, Tim Saitta, and Trevor Persenaire.

Leave a comment

Filed under Student News, Uncategorized

The “Stand Your Ground” Defense Just Got Easier to Use in Florida

“If ‘stand-your-ground’ laws weren’t controversial enough, Florida has enacted new legislation (backed by the NRA) that has prosecutors fuming and criminal defense lawyers salivating. There was a time in American jurisprudential history when the law favored de-escalation over a more Wild-West approach to antagonistic interactions among humans.” – WMU-Cooley Professor Brendan Beery.

Listen to Professor Beery  in an interview with Bay News 9.

WMU-Cooley Professor Brendan Beery

So the rule used to be that, even if someone else was the aggressor, a person had a duty to retreat before using deadly force; if the person (the non-aggressor) exhausted all reasonable possibilities for escape and had no reasonable alternative, then (and only then) that person was justified in using deadly force. Note the word “reasonable” sprinkled through that rule: that’s an objective test, meaning that a person could only use deadly force in self-defense if a person of ordinary intelligence and temperament would have done the same. In other words, “I’m a hot head” was no defense.

There was a common-sense exception to this rule (this duty to retreat) called “the castle doctrine.” One had no duty to retreat in one’s own home – a burglar-beware sort of rule. After all, if one is already in one’s safest environment – one’s home – then where is one to retreat to?

As a Miami judge, Milton Hirsch, recently pointed out, the “stand-your ground” rule that has since been adopted by many states essentially expands the castle doctrine to apply everywhere; even in a public place, if one is not the aggressor in an affray, then one no longer has any duty to retreat. And that “reasonable person” standard has diminished to the point of near extinction. In other words, if a person fears that he or she is at risk of death or serious bodily harm at the hands of a perceived aggressor, regardless whether a person of normal intelligence and temperament would also harbor such fear, that person may use deadly force against the perceived aggressor. (Although one still sees the word “reasonable” in some of these stand-your-ground laws, it is now largely ignored.) De-escalation is decidedly not the policy objective underlying this new approach.

When Florida first adopted this “stand-your-ground” approach, the state’s Supreme Court created rules for its implementation: since this was a defense that would be raised by the defendant in a criminal case, when the defendant raised a stand-your-ground defense, a trial court would hold a pretrial hearing at which the defendant would have the burden of showing, by a mere preponderance of the evidence (just a slight tipping of the scales in the defendant’s favor) that he or she was in fear of death or great bodily harm – and therefore justified in using deadly force. To most lawyers, this seemed an entirely predictable and appropriate approach; the burden is almost always with the party raising a defense, and the relatively easy-to-meet preponderance standard made sense in light of the policy choice Floridians had made to render the use of deadly force an acceptable means for resolving a brawl, no matter where it occurs.

As forgiving as the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is, pro-NRA conservatives were not satisfied. So the Florida legislature changed the rules earlier this year: now, instead of the defendant having to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was entitled to use deadly force, the prosecutor must show by clear-and-convincing evidence that the defendant was not entitled to use deadly force. Not only has the legislature placed the burden on what lawyers call the “non-moving party” (i.e. the party arguing against the claim, not for it), but it also elevated that burden well above the preponderance standard, making it harder to meet.

The upshot is that, when a defendant raises the stand-your-ground defense, a prosecutor must put on his or her evidence twice: once to overcome the stand-your-ground defense at a pretrial hearing, and again in front of a jury or judge at trial. To make matters worse for prosecutors, they must also, at the pretrial hearing, essentially prove a negative: not that something did happen, but that something did not happen.

As my colleague Professor Jeffrey Swartz points out, this is a criminal defendant’s dream in any case where the defendant used deadly force – with a gun or without a gun – and there was no witness to the alleged crime. In such a case, a defendant who produces any evidence that he or she feared death or great bodily harm can put a prosecutor through the proverbial ringer: the prosecutor will have to show that the crime happened as the prosecutor said it happened – first by clear-and-convincing evidence, and then beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge Hirsch has refused to apply the new rules shifting and increasing the burden of proof, stating that under the Florida Constitution, such procedural rules for resolving cases must be set by the Florida Supreme Court, not the Florida legislature. Other judges disagree. Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court will have to address that issue. In the meantime, welcome to the Wild West.

WMU-Cooley Law Professor Brendan Beery

Blog author, Constitutional Law expert and WMU-Cooley Professor Brendan Beery  is a summa cum laude graduate of Western Michigan University Cooley Law School and teaches Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure. Professor Beery is a frequent legal expert in the media.

Leave a comment

Filed under Faculty Scholarship, Latest News and Updates, Uncategorized

WMU-Cooley ReNita Antoine Makes Law and Leadership Life Priority

The youngest of eight, and a first-generation college graduate and first lawyer in her family, ReNita Antoine has always had a desire to help those who cannot help themselves and be the change people want to see. In high school, she participated in the YMCA’s Youth and Government program, drafting a bill and competing against students in her hometown of Houston, then against students around Texas.

“It was then I realized I could make laws that would affect the entire state,” she says. “I knew getting a law degree would give me a better understanding of how the law works and a ticket to help those who have become victim to unfair, unequal, treatment.”

Antoine earned her undergrad degree in Criminal Justice from Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. As a student, she was heavily involved on campus and in the community; she was initiated into the Eta Psi Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority; and interned at the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office.

“I wanted to get an understanding of how the criminal justice system works and why so many individuals fall victim to the luring nature of crime,” she says. “The misfortune that plagues individuals almost forces them to experience the system and in turn creates a cyclical effect on the generations to follow. Fortunately, with hard work and commitment, this generational chain can be broken.”

After working as a clerk/receptionist at a Houston firm, and as a co-producer for a local TV show, “Truth & Justice with Vivian King,” Antoine headed to the WMU-Cooley Law School campus in Lansing.

“WMU-Cooley has some of the most knowledgeable, experienced, and engaging professors, who have practical experience coupled with the theory of the law,” she says. “The professors have an open-door policy which allows students to have candid conversations about the law. They are truly there for students. I developed lasting relationships with some professors that will extend beyond law school.”

While in law school, Antoine competed in the National Black Law Student Association Thurgood Marshall Mock Trial Competition, that she believes prepared her for an 11-week internship with the Prosecutors Attorney Association of Michigan (PAAM) in southwest Michigan’s Berrien County.

“I believe this competition is one of the best mock trial competitions in the world,” she says. “It challenges you to think quickly on your feet, make sound arguments, and hone your public speaking skills.”

At PAAM, where her internship involved working as an assistant prosecutor, Antoine counseled with individuals to provide them with appropriate charges and negotiated with defense attorneys for plea deals.

“I received actual trial experience and was exposed to the daily workings of a prosecutor’s office,” she says.

In addition to her studies, she served as the head representative for the WMU-Cooley-Lansing campus for Barbri Inc., a bar preparation company that has been helping students for five decades. She also worked as a data specialist for the State Court Administrative Office Trial Court Services Division, traveling throughout Michigan to collect data for the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program (SSSPP) — a program that targets high-risk felony offenders with a history of probation violations or failures.

“I saw first-hand how someone who would otherwise serve a lengthy prison sentence earns a second chance for a new life,” she says. “I found this position enlightening. I could see how this program worked. Sometimes, all one ever needs is a second chance and this program affords them that opportunity.”

Outside of school, Antoine volunteered with the Building Child and Family Initiatives – MAGIC of Reading Program (MOR), helping children in grades K – 6 hone their reading comprehension skills.

“I thoroughly enjoyed working with this program,” she says. “MOR allowed me to be an active participant in the Lansing community and work with the future generation of leaders.”

In her final semester at WMU-Cooley Law, Antoine externed with the Resolution Services Center of Central Michigan (RSCCM) in Lansing. She observed civil and domestic mediations, co-mediated small claims disputes, and conducted intake interviews.

“I believe mediation is one of the best ways to resolve a case, and it allows parties to come to an agreement on their own,” she says. “Equally important, mediation is more economically feasible than a trial, which is good for the judicial system.”

At WMU-Cooley’s honors convocation, Antoine was honored with the Leadership Achievement Award.

Associate Dean Michael McDaniel presents WMU-Cooley student ReNita Antoine with Leadership Award

Associate Dean Michael McDaniel presents WMU-Cooley student ReNita Antoine with Leadership Award

“It was unexpected, yet welcomed and appreciated,” she says. “I was just doing what I was supposed to do, leading. I was not expecting to be awarded for my passion of service. When I took on duties and responsibilities, I did what was right for the student body. So, to be honored with this achievement was a blessing.”

She received further kudos in being awarded the Otis M. Smith scholarship at the 20th Annual Davis-Dunnings Bar Association Otis M. Smith Scholarship Banquet.

Davis-Dunnings Bar Association President and WMU-Cooley graduate Takura Nyamfukudza presents WMU-Cooley student ReNita Antoine with Scholarship Award

Davis-Dunnings Bar Association President and WMU-Cooley graduate Takura Nyamfukudza presents WMU-Cooley student ReNita Antoine with Scholarship Award

The Houston native is taking the Texas bar exam this upcoming July and plans to return to her hometown. Interested in bankruptcy law, estate planning, negotiation/mediation, and politics, she plans to advocate for clients and her community on a local and national level.

This article about WMU-Cooley graduate ReNita Antoine was written by Legal News writer Sheila Pursglove originally published by the Legal News on June 28, 2017. It is reprinted here with permission of The Detroit Legal News. 

1 Comment

Filed under Alumni Stories and News, Awards, Uncategorized

Valerie Smith: Law School Teaches Law and Life Lessons

“I wanted to go to law school as long as I can remember,” recalled WMU-Cooley law student Valerie Smith. Yet it wasn’t until the single mother of three got the go ahead from her children that she had the courage to pursue her dream.

“I remember coming home one day from my job as a paralegal,” said Smith. “I remember being frustrated. I was 40-years-old. A single mother of two daughters and a son. I was struggling to pay bills, even though I was working very, very hard.

“My kids sat me down to talk. They reminded me of my dream of going to law school and becoming an attorney. My oldest daughter said, ‘Mom, it’s never too late, and you’re never too old.'”

That was it. Smith took the LSAT, then applied and was accepted to WMU-Cooley Law School.

“That day changed my life forever,” declared Smith.

WMU-Cooley student Valerie Smith

Advocate for Other People

“I will never forget the day I was accepted to WMU-Cooley Law School,” exclaimed Smith. “I had been really busy because I had just moved, and hadn’t checked my e-mail for several days. During a break at work though, I decided I would take a look. I saw an email from WMU-Cooley Law School congratulating me on my seat! I started screaming in my office and one of the attorneys came running over to me and said, ‘Valerie, are you alright?’ And I said, ‘Yes!’ as I burst into tears. ‘This is one of the happiest moments of my life. I just got accepted to law school, counselor!’ And he said, ‘Well, congratulations, future counselor!'”

Since starting law school, Smith confesses that she has learned as much about life and herself as she has about the law.

“My first day at WMU-Cooley,” recalled Smith, “the professors told our class that attorneys have others’ lives in their hands – just like a doctor does with our physical well-being, an attorney has others’ lives in our hands – maybe not physically or medically, but financially, emotionally, mentally, situationally, and legally. It is a huge responsibility. We need to be their advocates.”

Smith says she has never forgotten that lesson. She comes to class every day prepared and ready to be another’s true advocate.

“I value my legal education here at WMU-Cooley,” stated Smith. “I never take it for granted. I am here to help my colleagues, and they are always here to help me. Even my 20-something-year-old classmates support, help and encourage me. I’ve never felt like an outsider, but that I belong.

“The professors have been so encouraging and have given me so many opportunities. They made it possible for me to participate in the law school’s study abroad program in New Zealand, which was an experience of a lifetime that I never thought would be possible. And I was also given the opportunity to be a professor’s teaching assistant.”

WMU-Cooley Vibe

Smith believes the WMU-Cooley curriculum and people are second to none.

“The curriculum at WMU-Cooley is so challenging, amazing, interesting, and intriguing, but it’s the people that stand out,” declared Smith. “There is a vibe here at WMU-Cooley that I don’t think you will find at most other law schools. That vibe includes enthusiasm and due diligence. It includes positive attitudes and commitment. And the encouragement you receive among the staff, professors, and students is contagious.

“We are an energized, diverse group of people who all have the same goal. We just want to be lawyers and save lives.”

WMU-Cooley student Valerie Smith

1 Comment

Filed under Student Experiences, Student News, study abroad, The Value of a Legal Education, Uncategorized