POS 282--Intro. to Criminal Law
In class today, Monday 4/30, the first thing that we did was change the time of the final exam. The exam will start at 8:30 (instead of 8:00) on the morning of Wednesday, 5/9.
In class, we went over the handout from last week on the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. We then went over the textbook concepts in Chapter 10. I distributed 2 handouts, one with excerpts from the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the other a newspaper article about a no-knock warrant gone bad in Georgia. We also discussed the Hudson v. Michigan case.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
April 23, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 4/23, we went over the concepts of the homework assignment. I distributed a handout of selected Maine Rules of Court. I also talked about three Maine Supreme Court opinions regarding appropriate sanctions for violations of the Rules of Procedure. The assignment for Monday 4/30 is to read Chapter 10 of the text regarding criminal procedure. In addition, please read last year's U.S. Supreme Court case of Hudson v. Michigan. The Medill article about the case can be found at
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/002753.php
and the Supreme Court Opinion can be found at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html
and scroll down to R-65, Hudson v. Michigan, 6/15/06
In class today, Monday 4/23, we went over the concepts of the homework assignment. I distributed a handout of selected Maine Rules of Court. I also talked about three Maine Supreme Court opinions regarding appropriate sanctions for violations of the Rules of Procedure. The assignment for Monday 4/30 is to read Chapter 10 of the text regarding criminal procedure. In addition, please read last year's U.S. Supreme Court case of Hudson v. Michigan. The Medill article about the case can be found at
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/002753.php
and the Supreme Court Opinion can be found at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html
and scroll down to R-65, Hudson v. Michigan, 6/15/06
Sunday, April 22, 2007
April 22, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
Several students have asked about the concept of authority--under what law is the court ruling.
There is a limited set of possibilities for court authority.
The court can base its decision on a constitution, statute, regulation, or ordinance. All of these are authority enacted by a different body, and the court's job is to determine what that enacted authority means and how those rules are to be applied.
The court itself also enacts law in the form of Court Rules, such as the Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, etc. and the court's job in cases decided under those Rules is to determine what their own rules mean and how those rules are to be applied.
In common law, the court gets to make up the rules, instead of interpreting somebody else's rules (or even their own rules) . The most frequent example of this is in tort law.
In all decisions, the court will usually cite (make reference to) previous court cases (caselaw).
Just because the court cites caselaw, though, doesn't mean that it is those previous cases that are the source of authority for the court's decision. If the decision is a common law case, then the caselaw would be the authority, but if the caselaw is interpreting some enacted law or rule, that law or rule remains the source of the authority.
That's the theory, anyway. Sometimes a court doesn't spell things out completely, and so you just rely on what the court has provided, even if it doesn't spell out the source of the authority.
I think that this explanation will help you get through the Stoddard and Grover cases. The Lowry case is a little more difficult, though, in terms of finding the authority upon which the court is relying. If the court gives you only prior caselaw as authority, then you just use what they give you, even if it doesn't fit neatly into my explanation.
Several students have asked about the concept of authority--under what law is the court ruling.
There is a limited set of possibilities for court authority.
The court can base its decision on a constitution, statute, regulation, or ordinance. All of these are authority enacted by a different body, and the court's job is to determine what that enacted authority means and how those rules are to be applied.
The court itself also enacts law in the form of Court Rules, such as the Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, etc. and the court's job in cases decided under those Rules is to determine what their own rules mean and how those rules are to be applied.
In common law, the court gets to make up the rules, instead of interpreting somebody else's rules (or even their own rules) . The most frequent example of this is in tort law.
In all decisions, the court will usually cite (make reference to) previous court cases (caselaw).
Just because the court cites caselaw, though, doesn't mean that it is those previous cases that are the source of authority for the court's decision. If the decision is a common law case, then the caselaw would be the authority, but if the caselaw is interpreting some enacted law or rule, that law or rule remains the source of the authority.
That's the theory, anyway. Sometimes a court doesn't spell things out completely, and so you just rely on what the court has provided, even if it doesn't spell out the source of the authority.
I think that this explanation will help you get through the Stoddard and Grover cases. The Lowry case is a little more difficult, though, in terms of finding the authority upon which the court is relying. If the court gives you only prior caselaw as authority, then you just use what they give you, even if it doesn't fit neatly into my explanation.
Friday, April 20, 2007
April 20, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
If you are checking the blog, you're probably aware that there is a problem with the URL for the Stoddard case on the Maine Supreme Court website. After a little sleuthing, I believe I've figured out what the problem is and how to get around it. The Stoddard case was corrected later in the day that it was originally posted, but the URL was not changed. The corrected URL is
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/documents/97me114A.htm
(the only difference is that there is an "A" rather than a "s" after the 114 in the address.
I'm sorry for the problem. Please let other class members know of this posting.
If you are checking the blog, you're probably aware that there is a problem with the URL for the Stoddard case on the Maine Supreme Court website. After a little sleuthing, I believe I've figured out what the problem is and how to get around it. The Stoddard case was corrected later in the day that it was originally posted, but the URL was not changed. The corrected URL is
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/documents/97me114A.htm
(the only difference is that there is an "A" rather than a "s" after the 114 in the address.
I'm sorry for the problem. Please let other class members know of this posting.
Monday, April 16, 2007
April 16, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 4/16, I handed back the exams from last week. We went over the concepts of Chapter 8 on family law, and the 2 cases and statutes that I distributed last week. Here's the writing assignment for next Monday:
The assignment for Monday, April 23, 2007 is
•1) Read Chapter 9 of the text on Civil Procedure, etc. Pages 294-295 discuss the process of jury selection and voir dire.
•2) Read the following Maine Supreme Court cases
State v. Stoddard, 1997 ME 114
State v. Lowry, 2003 ME 38
Grover v. Boise Cascade, 2004 ME 119
All of these cases are available from the Maine courts website
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html
•3) For each case, write out the holding of the Court regarding eachvoir dire issue. (Not the other issues in the case.)
Here are two sample holdings from a family law case for today, Jacobs v. Jacobs:
Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4), two adults are not “household members” when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4), two adults are not “presently or formerly living together” when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
Notice the 3-part format for a holding:
Under what law... Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4)...
The operative legal question... two adults are not “household members”
Under what facts... when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
•4) Finally, write what your evaluation is of the Court’s decisions (regarding the voir dire issue). If you were designing a court system, would your system agree with the results that the Court reaches? To what extent do the holdings of the Court make for a good system, and to what extent would the arguments of the losing side have produced a better system? Finally, do you think that the whole system of peremptory challenges itself produces a fair and unbiased jury, or do you think that it just favors that side that has the resources to research the jury pool enough to find out by its own means the likely sympathies of each potential juror?
In class today, Monday 4/16, I handed back the exams from last week. We went over the concepts of Chapter 8 on family law, and the 2 cases and statutes that I distributed last week. Here's the writing assignment for next Monday:
The assignment for Monday, April 23, 2007 is
•1) Read Chapter 9 of the text on Civil Procedure, etc. Pages 294-295 discuss the process of jury selection and voir dire.
•2) Read the following Maine Supreme Court cases
State v. Stoddard, 1997 ME 114
State v. Lowry, 2003 ME 38
Grover v. Boise Cascade, 2004 ME 119
All of these cases are available from the Maine courts website
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html
•3) For each case, write out the holding of the Court regarding eachvoir dire issue. (Not the other issues in the case.)
Here are two sample holdings from a family law case for today, Jacobs v. Jacobs:
Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4), two adults are not “household members” when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4), two adults are not “presently or formerly living together” when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
Notice the 3-part format for a holding:
Under what law... Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4)...
The operative legal question... two adults are not “household members”
Under what facts... when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
•4) Finally, write what your evaluation is of the Court’s decisions (regarding the voir dire issue). If you were designing a court system, would your system agree with the results that the Court reaches? To what extent do the holdings of the Court make for a good system, and to what extent would the arguments of the losing side have produced a better system? Finally, do you think that the whole system of peremptory challenges itself produces a fair and unbiased jury, or do you think that it just favors that side that has the resources to research the jury pool enough to find out by its own means the likely sympathies of each potential juror?
Monday, April 9, 2007
April 9, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 4/9, we had Exam #2, and then went over the exam. The homework for Monday 4/16 is to read Chapter 8 of the text regarding family law. I also distributed 3 handouts to the class, one of selected Maine family law statutes, and also 2 Maine Supreme Court decisions, Morin v. Kundrigan, 2007 ME 37 and Jacobs v. Jacobs, 2007 ME 14, that I would like to read for next week.
In class today, Monday 4/9, we had Exam #2, and then went over the exam. The homework for Monday 4/16 is to read Chapter 8 of the text regarding family law. I also distributed 3 handouts to the class, one of selected Maine family law statutes, and also 2 Maine Supreme Court decisions, Morin v. Kundrigan, 2007 ME 37 and Jacobs v. Jacobs, 2007 ME 14, that I would like to read for next week.
Monday, April 2, 2007
April 2, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 4/2, we went over the concepts in Chapter 7. We also discussed the Searles case that I handed out last week. I distributed a handout of selected Maine contracts statutes, and I also went over 4 Maine contracts and consumer protection cases. Next Monday 4/9 we will have our second exam, open book and open note. If an emergency arises and you cannot be in class next week, you must notify me as soon as possible and make arrangements to make up the exam. Failure to make up the exam before class on Monday 4/16 will result in failure for that exam.
In class today, Monday 4/2, we went over the concepts in Chapter 7. We also discussed the Searles case that I handed out last week. I distributed a handout of selected Maine contracts statutes, and I also went over 4 Maine contracts and consumer protection cases. Next Monday 4/9 we will have our second exam, open book and open note. If an emergency arises and you cannot be in class next week, you must notify me as soon as possible and make arrangements to make up the exam. Failure to make up the exam before class on Monday 4/16 will result in failure for that exam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)