Nazi Mind, a sophomore history elective, stands out as one of Latin’s most iconic classes. Designed by Upper School history teacher Ingrid Dorer Fitzpatrick and first taught in the 1978-79 school year, the semester-long class dives deeply into the rise of the Nazi party, the scope of their genocide, and the legacy of the Holocaust. It culminates in a day-long simulation of the Nuremberg trials, a set of international criminal trials that convicted many surviving Nazi leaders and set the precedent for modern international criminal law. Students participated in the 49th trial simulation on Dec. 7.
8:30 - 9:21 a.m. Participants Arrive
Students trickle into the 25th floor of the Dirksen Federal Building, coats over their formal clothes to stay safe from the biting cold, pacing and practicing for the long day ahead. Upper School history teachers Matthew June and Jeremy Goodman set up chairs behind the bench. A serious atmosphere clings to each motion. It goes beyond the robes that justices begin to don or a chair whose stubborn wheel causes Mr. Goodman to awkwardly carry it; the whole day weighs heavy. “The reality is that this is history that’s very real for all of our students, and for some, it’s history that has impacted their families very directly,” Dr. June said. Defendants, prosecutors, attorneys, justices: In their own way, every student steps into character. Their teaching assistants (TAs), too, fall into their places—a central bench in the courtroom or the carpeted floor of the justices’ deliberation chambers. The TAs are now seniors, so their own trial was two years ago; as they watch, listen to, and reassure students, they pass on the treasured torch. “They’re ready. And they may not feel ready, but [with] all of the hard work that they’ve done over these last few months,” senior and TA Tomas Mendoza Pena said, “I really do believe in all of them.” Most of the TAs gravitate toward helping students play the same role they took on at their simulation. In many cases, they’ve worked with these students closely all semester. Senior and TA Gillian Herman spoke to this work. “I’m very excited to see how the justice[s] do. We’ve prepared them so well, and I cannot wait for them to go up there and do great,” she said. At 9:21 a.m., the highly anticipated trial begins.
9:21 - 10:00 a.m. Opening Proceedings
“All rise,” Dr. June declares. It’s the first of many times he will repeat the phrase today. The justices stride into the courtroom, take their seats, and kick off the day’s speeches. Chief Justice and sophomore Olive Bracken Saenz opens the trial with a reminder of the simulation’s purpose—to not just understand history, but find its place in modern life. “I thought it was really important, especially in our political climate now, to understand how influential those trials were,” Olive said. “Things that happened in 1945 Nuremberg are becoming more scarily important now.”
10:00 - 10:30 a.m. Pre-Trial Motions
The leading attorneys on both sides make their opening statements, summarizing their overarching perspective on the trial. Defense argues that it should not occur, and prosecution aims for it to proceed as planned. Each speaker crafts a clear stance, but the outcome is almost pre-determined; only one out of 49 Nuremberg simulations have passed their motion on behalf of all defense. Still, the pre-trial motions serve a vital role: They allow the proceedings to zoom out, to encapsulate the historical importance of this simulation with unique clarity. Sophomore and Lead Prosecutor Paloma Cerda described this significance. “I really enjoyed being able to talk about the overall scope of the crimes, because we spend so much time in the first half of the quarter learning about everything the Nazis do and how horrific it is,” she said. For Paloma, capturing an articulate argument means appealing to the victims’ humanity. She said, “The defense can argue a lot of the legal basis, a lot of technicalities, but it doesn’t have the same strength of being able to say, ‘These are lives lost, and they deserve justice.’” On the opposing side, opening statements challenge the lead defense attorneys to explore broad themes not only historically, but also legally. “The main point of my role [is] not to say that they are innocent, but to try to argue that the trial is not being conducted correctly,” sophomore and Lead Defense Attorney Arlo Stagman said. In their efforts to dive into historical content at a broad level, the lead attorneys struggled with the depth of ethical issues they considered. Yet, today, each of them perseveres. For sophomore and Defense Lead Ethan Chen, the process was “a lot of staring at a blank word document. And then a bit of writing,” he said. By the end of their statements, each lead comes face-to-face with a truth best encapsulated by senior and TA Miles Stagman: “Only a semester to explore these topics isn’t really enough.”
10:40-11:45 a.m. Deliberation and Tribunal Rulings on Pre-Trials
After the pre-trial motions, justices carefully weigh each argument. Gillian reminds them to find evidence, and the students pull out notebooks stuffed with pages upon pages of documents; they navigate them with familiarity and ease. As they write their verdicts, Ms. Dorer sits next to them, typing away at her laptop, ensuring each speech rings with accuracy and conviction. Beyond the courtroom, the defendants and lawyers use every minute to prepare. The courthouse hallways fill with students practicing their opening statements or rehearsing their pleas. They find a welcoming audience in their friends, or even just their own voices. While some students have their case before lunch, for others, the frantic practicing will last well into the evening. Sophomore and defendant Henry Schrade spoke to this preparation. “Even in the breaks between court cases, I would go through my questions, look over my plea,” he said.
11:45 a.m. - 12:45 p.m. IMT vs Hermann Göring
The verdicts on the pre-trial motions side with the prosecution, setting the schedule for the rest of the day. Cases will continue as planned. And so the annual ritual begins. Each case proceeds with the same structure: opening statements, direct examination, cross-examination, closing statements. One by one, students escape the anxiety of anticipation and present the cases they’ve relentlessly studied these past few weeks. Hermann Göring, the first defendant on trial, is charged with all four counts: conspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. As Prosecutor and sophomore Elle Meyers walked up to the stand to argue for his conviction, she felt, in her own words, “powerful.” “I liked holding someone who was kind of Hitler’s secondhand man accountable for his actions,” she said. For her fellow Prosecutor, sophomore Noa Weber, delivering their case built a similar conviction. She said, “It was really nerve-wracking at the start, but at the end, I feel like both of us were more confident.”
1:00-1:45 p.m. IMT vs. Baldur von Schirach
Sophomore and Prosecuting Attorney Fini Mendoza Pena steps down from the stand. For her, the trial doesn’t just culminate the past four months, but previews her future. “I want to be a prosecutor when I’m older, so this is right up my alley,” Fini said. As she’s prepared for this trial, Fini has leaned on the support of her brother, a TA. At home, she’s asked him question after question to get the practice she needs. Tomas spoke to her dedication. “It’s nice seeing my sister put in the work, and I think it paid off really well,” he said. “I can’t believe that she’s doing it now because, to me, being here feels like yesterday when I was giving my opening statement.” Among Nazi Mind students, many—past and present—share Fini’s aspirations. For senior and TA Ava Nelson, they made the class particularly influential. “This class is literally the reason why I know what I want to do with my life, and it was such a formative experience for me,” Ava said.
2:00-2:45 p.m. IMT vs Ernst Kaltenbrunner
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” F. Scott Fitzgerald penned these words in his 1945 essay collection “The Crack-Up.” For Dr. June, it epitomizes the unique challenge students take on to understand the intricacies of Nazi history. In this case, anticipated by TAs and even Dr. June himself, that challenge came through in full force as defendants and prosecutors engaged in a battle of wits for the most creative argument. “There’s currently a defense attorney who is trying to make an argument that their defendant is medically unable to be cross-examined,” Dr. June said. “The defense attorney is using original material from the trial to make that argument.” Ultimately, the justices don’t allow the defendant to evade cross-examination entirely, but the defense still gains ground with their creative tactics. Sophomore and Defense Attorney Ella Wissink said, “I did get him notes for his cross-examination, which is a big deal, because usually the defendants don’t get any notes, but I got him notes because I filed a bunch of motions to the justices.” The prosecution in this case, sophomore Sloane Singerman, joins the defense in her standout studiousness. Dr. June said, “Everyone involved in that case is just so hyper-prepared.” As Sloane skips up to the stand, giddy for her cross-examination, she follows through beautifully on that preparation. Asking question after question, she boxes her defendant into a trap, ultimately forcing them to admit guilt. On both sides, carefully finding evidence is key. For Sloane, papers upon papers litter the stand during her cross-examination. For Ella, tracking down the defendant’s medical history—including a cerebral hemorrhage that caused him to miss much of the proceedings at Nuremberg—supported each motion to the justices. In Nazi Mind, these precise pieces of evidence are picked out from the unique deluge that the class provides.
“We don’t really put up guardrails like students get in most other classes. We give them access to every single thing available—basically from the original trials—and then they can also use any other thing pretty much in existence,” Dr. June said. "More often than not, I’m telling them, ‘Sure, if you want to.’”
2:45-3:45 p.m. IMT vs. Joachim von Ribbentrop
They’ve sat in their chairs for seven hours by now, but the audience is laughing. Not just laughing—gasping. As sophomore and Prosecutor Bennett Johnston cross-examines Henry, he uses his careful planning to find contradictions in the defense’s argument with a sense of assuredness that, even amid the serious subject matter, evokes many chuckles. “I had to really think of all the different scenarios in my head of what he was going to say,” Bennett said. “I had prepared for a lot of different outcomes, and what he said—he fell right into my question trap.” Driven by lively back-and-forth, the cross-examination becomes more high-energy, amazing spectators. Ava said, “That was easily one of the best things I’ve ever seen. It was entertaining, but also just really, really effective.” Consistently a standout part of each case for spectators and trial participants alike, the cross-examination requires dutiful preparation. Ava described the process as “thinking about how you can craft a story in order to frame the person as guilty.” “I just think of it as telling a story with your questions,” she said.
4:00-5:00 p.m. IMT vs Wilhelm Keitel
As sophomore and Defendant Adler Lafayette answers cross-examination questions, he comes up with a clever point to stop the prosecution from gaining ground. He claims that he hasn’t read the documents that boast his signature, and can’t be held accountable for their contents. He doesn’t know how he came up with the claim. “I wasn’t thinking, but I was thinking, and it just came out of my mouth,” he said. Not only Adler, but all defendants must think on their feet during their cross-examination, answering completely unknown questions and trying to frame their character in the best possible light. Senior and TA Vivian Lee-Yee thinks that the knowledge required to navigate these questions skillfully is what makes the defendant role so challenging. She said, “For the cross-examination, they need to really know a lot of the intricacies of their role [and] of the history so that when they’re asked these questions by the prosecution, which they don’t know ahead of time, they’re prepared.” This unpredictable element makes the cross-examination difficult for the prosecution as well. “I really think that that’s the most volatile part of each case,” senior and TA Jack Zeiger said. However, these on-the-spot thinking skills show up in every section of the trial, not just the cross-examination. As prosecutors and defense attorneys revise their arguments mid-case in response to their opponents, for example, they often rewrite their closing statements. Sophomore and prosecutor Cecily Daly described the process of rearranging her final speech as she listened to her opponent’s argument. “It was definitely really difficult, but I think I just had a bunch of ideas flowing, and I just wanted to reiterate my point fully,” she said. These improvisational skills endure as a key takeaway from Nazi Mind for many alums. For Vivian, they aid her significantly in her role as Social Chair for Student Government. She said, “Whenever I’m onstage presenting something for Student Government or Green Club or even just talking in general, I’m reminding myself, ‘Okay, I was able to talk in front of a court in front of 100 parents and students. I can talk onstage for five minutes.’”
5:00-6:00 p.m. IMT vs Karl Dönitz
Students brave through one final case before the court takes recess. These last attorneys and defendants have watched the entire day, nervously waiting for their chance to showcase their semester’s worth of work. For sophomore and Defense Attorney Hershel Foster-Weinberg, that work has only expanded leading up to the trial—the past week, he’s put in four to five hours per day. And he’s far from alone. Sophomore and Prosecutor Will Wasserstrom also gave voice to this dedication. He said, “I practiced my opening statement so many times that it was really just, ‘Can I deliver on what I know I can do?’” For Jack, the workload was part of what made Nazi Mind so fulfilling. “It’s just really rewarding to put in so much effort for a whole quarter,” he said. “Every day, you get two hours, and you’re just sifting through evidence.” The course’s unique intensity makes it a standout not just to students, but also to teachers. “I’ve never had a class where there’s as much internal, self-driven motivation as in this class,” Dr. June said. “I’ve been regularly telling students to stop working or to go take a break as opposed to, ‘Open your laptops, do some work.’” As students find their passion and determination, pushing themselves out of their comfort zone becomes a huge part of the class experience. “It was definitely a lot of late nights, a lot of opening my computer and staring at my laptop screen when I really didn’t want to,” Will said. “We even picked up the computer when maybe we shouldn’t have, or maybe we weren’t even in the right mindset.”
6:00-6:45 p.m. Break
With the cases over, students take a long-awaited break: sitting down, scrolling on their phones, grabbing a sip of water. For the lead attorneys, in particular, this hour marks one of the first free moments all day; Ethan and Arlo both watched almost every case, although class rules only required them to preside over three cases each. Their graveyard of scribbled notes—so frantic they’re practically illegible—testifies to their collaboration. As defense attorneys took the stand throughout the day, Ethan and Arlo’s vital oversight guided each one. “My lead defense, Arlo Stagman and Ethan Chen, told me a lot,” Ella said. “They were writing down all the main points.” Their help extended to defendants as well. Henry said, “If I didn’t know, I would look at Arlo.” As they led their side through the trial, collaborating with each attorney and defendant formed the core of their process. Their favorite moments were spent counseling their attorneys and defendants to success. This workflow wasn’t limited to defense, either. Lead Prosecutors Paloma and fellow sophomore Annika Hull provided similar guidance on the opposing side. Cecily described their efforts in her case. “I got help from the Lead Prosecutor, who wrote a bunch of notes, which was really helpful,” she said. Arlo gave voice to the collaborations formed between attorneys and leads. “You need to tell them in advance to have an insane amount of faith in you,” he said.
6:45-6:55 p.m. Verdicts
Parents excitedly file into the courtroom, remarking to each other what a marathon it’s been to arrive at this moment. Dr. June arranges students into the proper seats, readying the counsel for each case to walk to the stand for their verdict. The justices once again work with Ms. Dorer, practicing, practicing, and practicing their verdicts. They line up outside the courtroom for the final time. During the verdict, each justice explains their decision. For them, this delivery spotlights the broad historical knowledge base they’ve amassed in their role and the legal conviction they demonstrated on their mock bar exam. Attorneys and defendants each had their speech, their moment. Now, the justices get a turn. One by one, the counts ring out. And one by one, defendants are proclaimed guilty. Atypical for Nazi Mind trials, all charges raised end with a guilty verdict. With a final bang of the gavel, the trial ends. Students hug, high-five, and pose for pictures. They’ve been waiting for this moment for months, a culmination of their hard work. To Dr. June, this celebration symbolizes what makes Nazi Mind such a special class to teach: watching students push themselves past what they thought attainable. “There were students who not only were nervous that they were going to be able to do this, but flat-out believed that there was no way that they were going to be able to do this,” Dr. June said. “That there was no chance that they were going to put a case together, much less stand up there and deliver an opening statement or whatever their role was.” Yet, each student completed their role. “And that is always the best part for me, is to see that happen,” Dr. June said. “To know, ‘You did this thing that you thought was impossible.’”