| Part 1 | Part 2 |

When I landed in Chicago, I took one of the shuttle buses from the airport that made the rounds of different hotels in the downtown area. Upon reaching my destination at the Balmer House hotel, I confirmed my reservation , picked up my key card and proceeded to the assigned room on the twenty-first floor.

I spent about ten or fifteen minutes in the room unpacking. Once this task had been completed, I went downstairs in search of the symposium registration desk.

After the signing in requirements had been met, I picked up a brochure which listed the various lectures, panels, discussions and so on that had been scheduled for the symposium. I quickly perused the day's listings.

The only event which struck my fancy was a moot court session on evolutionary theory to be held on the fourth floor, beginning at 3:00 p.m., about twenty minutes from now. I decided to go and see what it was like.

I fully expected the worst. At the same time, I held out a certain amount of hope that there might be some degree of entertaining diversion to be derived from the trial.

The whole thing would be very trying, indeed, if the participants took themselves too seriously and lacked a sense of humor. Equally daunting was the prospect that few, if any, of the individuals taking part in the moot court might know anything about modern evolutionary theory.

Images of Spencer Tracy and Frederick March came to mind from "Inherit the Wind". There had been a remake of the movie in which Jason Robards played a Clarence Darrow-like character to Kirk Douglas's version of William Jennings Bryan.

I had enjoyed both movies but always felt the cards had been stacked rather unfairly in the debate. The crux of the drama had not really centered on evolutionary theory per se, but on a clever lawyer's dismantling of a simplistic presentation of a narrowly conceived religious position held by a somewhat flawed personality. Hopefully, the moot court session was not going to repeat the same mistake, except in reverse- that is, to use a clever lawyer's debating tactics to defeat a simplistic presentation of evolutionary theory.

If done properly, the trial setting could provide a valuable opportunity for a good educational experience. I preferred not to think about what the result would be if things were done improperly.

I eventually found my way to the indicated room. When I walked through the doors, two things surprised me.

For some reason -  perhaps from having seen too many of the stage settings for the old, pre-revival, Perry Mason television series, I was expecting a relatively small venue. In actuality, the room selected for the trial was quite large and had been set up like an actual court, complete with a jury box, witness stand, lawyers' tables, a raised desk-like affair for the presiding magistrate, and a large area at the back of the court room for the audience.

The other feature which I found interesting was the size of the crowd. Nearly every seat was taken. I was lucky to find a vacant chair.

The members of the jury already were assembled in their seats. Those who were acting as lawyers were at the respective tables for the prosecution and defense.

A door to the left and behind the judge's bench opened, and a diminutive, attractive, forty-something, black-robed, brown haired woman entered the hall. As she did, a court officer stood up and said: "Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All rise, Moot Court is now in session, the Honorable Justice Karen Arnsberger presiding, in the matter of the people versus Wayne Robert Corrigan, in the City of Chicago, in, and for, the County of Cook, on June 26, in the year of our Lord, 1999. Draw nigh, and ye shall be heard."

The bailiff waited for the judge to be settled in her chair. When he was satisfied, he announced: "Please be seated."

As the Judge waited for the noise of the audience's seating process to subside, she shuffled and re-arranged some of the papers before her. When relative quiet had returned to the room, she scanned the court and, then, said: "In accordance with agreements reached in chambers between the prosecution and defense concerning pre-trial motions filed on various aspects of the procedural format to be observed during the course of this trial, the following principles will be in effect:

"(1) Due to considerations of time, the prosecution and defense each will be entitled, if so desired, to call a maximum of two witnesses;

"(2) with the exception of certain provisions - provisions which have been agreed to by all parties concerned, standard rules of evidence will be in effect throughout these proceedings;

"(3) prospective jurors has been polled by both the defense and prosecution prior to the start of this moot court session and jurors have been selected and impaneled on the basis of their perceived capacity to judge the matter before the court in a fair and impartial manner. During the selection process, both sides were given the right to challenge seven of the candidates without the need to show cause for dismissal;

"(4) again, out of consideration for the time constraints under which we are operating, neither the defense nor the prosecution will be permitted the opportunity for redirect examination;

(5) the decision of the jury shall be read in open session on the last day of the symposium."

Putting the paper down from which she had been reading, she addressed each of the lawyers: "Are these the conditions to which you have agreed?"

Both responded, almost simultaneously, but slightly out of synchronization: