Investigation Internship Program Application
Email address *
Name (First, Middle, Last)
Your answer
Permanent Address
Your answer
Current Phone Number
Your answer
Current (School) Address
Your answer
School Email
Your answer
Personal Email
Your answer
Applying for which term? *
Required
Are you currently a student?
College/ University
Your answer
State
Your answer
Expected Graduation Date
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
Will you have access to a car?
Declared Major
Your answer
Overall GPA
Your answer
Are you receiving academic credit for the internship program?
Faculty Adviser's Name
Your answer
Faculty Adviser's Email
Your answer
Faculty Adviser's Phone Number
Your answer
Are you fluent in any other language other than English? If so, which one(s)?
Your answer
How did you hear about this program?
Have you ever been convicted of a crime? *
(This will not preclude your acceptance into the program)
Explain criminal record
Your answer
Have you ever received a citation for any serious traffic offenses including reckless driving or speeding?
Explain traffic offenses
Your answer
Work History (Paste your resume here)
Your answer
References (2): Name, Phone Number, Relationship to you
Your answer
Submit *
By writing my name below, I certify that I have read the Investigative Internship Program Description in its entirety. I further certify that the work I have submitted with this application is solely mine and that I have not received any direct assistance on its production. To the best of my knowledge, the information that I have provided within this application is true, correct and complete.
Your answer
Date Signed *
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
Contact Information
If you miss a regular or priority deadline, positions may still be available. Please contact Sarah Young at 202-591-9770 or at syoung@lclc.org to inquire about positions still open. Again, admission is on a rolling basis, therefore, students are encouraged to apply early.

MAILING ADDRESS and PHONE NUMBERS

Sarah E. Young
Intern Director
Lawndale Christian Legal Center
1530 S. Hamlin Avenue
Chicago, IL 60623
Phone: 773-823-7806, 202-591-9770
Fax: 773-762-9121
Syoung@lclc.net

Notice to Applicants Lawndale Christian Legal Center does not discriminate on the basis of age, gender, sexual orientation, 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.

Essay *
ESSAY Directions: You MUST answer ONE of the TWO essays, the Hypothetical or the Policy question. These ARE REQUIRED to be submitted as part of your application form.
Your answer
Questions 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 LCLC 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.

I: Hypothetical
Client Background:

Antwon Jackson is a 17 year old African American young man who has lived in the Lawndale community is entire life. He is a Junior at North Lawndale High and plays football. Antwon is not in contact with his father. Antwon’s mother works as a certified nursing assistant. Antwon has three younger siblings and helps provide for his family. This is Antwon’s first criminal charge. Antwon is 6 feet tall, weighs 160 pounds, has a short haircut, medium complected skin, no facial hair, and a scar on his right cheek.

State’s proffer of facts:
The State alleges that Antwon Jackson was walking Southbound on the 1500 block of Hamlin Avenue S at 4:00 pm when he pulled a nine millimeter hand gun and robbed 14 year old boy of his cell phone. Witness one reports that he was across the street and observed the robbery. The assailant ran northbound on Hamlin Avenue. Witness one called 911 and described the assailant as a black boy, approximately 19 years old, with short hair, and around 6’3 inches tall. Police were dispatched and enabled find my iphone using the complainant’s cellular information. The police tracked the iPhone to 1701 Douglas Blvd, Chicago IL. Police entered the residence and identified Antwon Jackson. The assailant, Antwon Jackson, had the cell phone in his possession. The police transported the assailant to the eleventh district for processing. The assailant invoked his Miranda rights and refused to provide a statement.

Defense Version:
Client reports that he was at his girlfriend, Nia’s house, when the robbery occurred. Client’s friend, Marquise, came over to the house and client bought the cell phone from Marquise. Marquise is taller than client and has twists.

• Provide a theory of defense and an explanation of what the defense could say happened. What reasons can you provide to explain why the complainant may have identified your client as the suspect in this incident? What evidence or witnesses could you find to supplement your defense theory and explain why the complainant identified your client?
• Outline the steps you would take to investigate the case for the defense. Be specific about whom you would interview, how you would find them, and what questions you would ask. Also, what other documents or evidence would you try to obtain to complete your investigation?

II. Policy Question
The state 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?

Submit
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.