December 12, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/12, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process. We began by discussing the assigned case from Chapter 5, Dorsey v. Gregg. We then went over the similar Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process. I discussed a Maine service of process case, Brown v. Thaler, which also discussed the conflict between actual notice versus the need to follow the rules. We then returned to and covered the three Chapter 4 cases regarding subject matter jurisdiction in the federal court system (both federal question and diversity) Kopp, Gebbia, and Gilmore. The exam will be on Thursday 12/19 at 9:30, open book and open note. It will be for 75 minutes. If you are missing any of the handouts from class, email me no later than Wednesday night, as I will only bring extra copies for those who have requested them.



POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 12/12 we first watched a clip from the movie Fracture that raised questions of the meaning of the Double Jeopardy clause. We then discussed the 1970 case of Ashe v. Swenson, which answered some questions about the meaning of the "same offense" phrase of Double Jeopardy. We looked at the majority decision, the concurrence, and the dissent. I then discussed two recent Double Jeopardy Supreme Court cases, Blueford v. Arkansas and Evans v. Michigan, covering again the majority and dissenting opinions. The exam will be on Thursday 12/19 at 12:15 (not 12:30), open book and open note. It will be for 75 minutes. If you are missing any of the handouts from class, email me no later than Wednesday night, as I will only bring extra copies for those who have requested them.

December 10, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/10, I first went over additional cases dealing with personal jurisdiction. I discussed the U.S. Supreme Court case of McIntyre v. Nicastro, going over the differing views of the plurality, the concurrence, and the dissenting Justices. I then went over the background to a current personal jurisdiction case of Walden v. Fiore. We listened to an excerpt of the oral argument in that case, which was heard in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November. The assignment for Thursday 12/12 is to finish Chapter 4 of the text, and to read in addition pp. 158 - 162.


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 12/10, I talked about additional aspects of capital punishment and other 8th Amendment concerns. I went over categories of defendants: retarded (Atkins and Hall v. Crews); juveniles (Thompson v. Oklahoma, Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama);and the insane (Delling v. Idaho, Dusky v. U.S. Ford v. Wainwright, and Panetti v. Quarterman). I then discussed types of offenses: non-homicide (Coker v. Georgia, Kennedy v. Louisiana); and felony murder (Enmund v. Florida, and Tison v. Arizona). On Thursday we will discuss the Double Jeopardy clause and the cases interpreting it.

December 5, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/5, we began by differentiating the concepts of venue versus subject matter jurisdiction. We then looked at the Cheap Escape case, and how the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted the jurisdictional language in the Ohio statute. I discussed two additional subject matter jurisdiction cases, Landmark Realty v. Leasure from the Maine Supreme Court, and Bowles v. Russell from the U.S. Supreme Court. We discussed the significance of the designation as "subject matter" for the consequence of whether such jurisdiction can be waived by consent of the parties or failure to object, or excusable neglect. We looked at Rule 12 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding motions to dismiss a case based on subject matter jurisdiction, and then based on jurisdiction over the person. We discussed the concept of personal jurisdiction, and went over Robey v. Hinners in the text. I will pick up by going over some U.S. Supreme Court and Maine Supreme Court personal jurisdiction cases on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 12/10 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 142 of the text.


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 12/5, we first finished our discussion of the various Gregg v. Georgia opinions. We briefly touched on McClesky v. Kemp regarding discrimination in imposition of the death penalty. We discussed the majority and dissenting opinions in Atkins v. Virginia. Finally, I went over a case that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument on in March, Hall v. Crews, which asks whether the manner in which Florida determines the definition of mental retardation violates the 8th Amendment. The assignment for Tuesday 12/10 is to read and prepare to discuss through the end of Chapter 12.

December 3, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/3, the class first did teacher evaluations. I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding Maine District Court and Superior Court civil and criminal jurisdiction. We went over the Finstuen adoption case. I then discussed another Court of Appeals case, Adar v. Smith, that came to a different outcome regarding birth certificates after same sex adoptions. We went over a number of issues regarding full faith and credit and same sex relationships. We discussed the surviving part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). We also looked at the Maine statutes regarding adoptions by "husband and wife" and the new definition of "husband and wife" that came with the introduction of same sex marriage in Maine. We discussed the difference between recognition of marriage and recognition of adoptions. We will pick up with the Cheap Escape case on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 11/5 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 139 of the text.


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 12/3, the class first did teacher evaluations. I distributed one handout, an article about the history of the Furman capital punishment case. We then finished up the Richmond Newspapers case, discussed sentencing discretion and the Booker case, and then went into the history of the Eighth Amendment cases (Solem, Harmelin, Ewing, and Graham). We began our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia, and will pick up with Stewart's justifications for the death penalty on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 12/5 is to read through p. 596 of the text.

November 26, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/26, we began with the Land case. As background to that case, I discussed federal court jurisdiction (diversity and federal question). We talked about removal jurisdiction, and the Erie Doctrine. In the Land case, we went over the meaning of the Indiana Statute of Repose (as opposed to a Statute of Limitations). We did an evaluation of the lawyering of both sides regarding how to get the better choice of law rule (and therefore substantive law) to apply. After finishing Land, I discussed a Maine case, Collins v. Trius, that showed how Maine courts deal with choice of law questions. We began our discussion of Full Faith and Credit, going over the different treatments accorded statutes (e.g. recognition of same-sex marriages) versus judicial decisions(recognition of divorces). We will continue with Finstuen when we next meet. The assignment for Tuesday 12/3 is to read in the text pp. 122-135. Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving.


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/26, I collected the Bryant assignments, and plan to return them next Tuesday. We split into warring factions, and battled out the merits and demerits of the various confrontation clause approaches. We will pick up next Tuesday with the concurring and dissenting opinions in the Richmond Newspapers case. The assignment for Tuesday 12/3 is to read in the text through p. 585. Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving.

November 21, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/21, we first went over the Strunk case (absence of precedent) and then Hubbard (conflict of laws). The assignment for Tuesday 11/26 is to read to the end of Chapter 3, and also pp. 145 - 147.


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/21, we first went over some aspects of Assignment #2, due next Tuesday. We finished up with some aspects of jury selection, and then discussed the two free press v. fair trial cases, Sheppard and Richmond Newspapers. We got as far in Richmond newspapers as the presumption of an open trial,absent some overriding interest. That's where we'll pick when we return to the text. The assignment for Tuesday 11/26 is to complete work on Assignment #2, due at the beginning of class on Tuesday.

November 19, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/19, I first handed back the Raich case briefs, together with my key to the numbered comments I made about those case briefs. We briefly went over the Raich briefs. We then returned to the concepts of Chapter 3 in the text. We discussed the prohibition against ex post facto laws in the context of the Sex Offender Registries that reach back in time to offenders who have already served their time. We then talked about the Butler case, and the concept of dictum. I went over a later U.S. Supreme Court case, Harris v. N.Y. that covered the same question as had the Ohio court in Butler. We then went over Dempsey, and the decision made by the Montana Supreme Court regarding the retroactive application of new decisions. The assignment for Thursday 11/21 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 115 of the text.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/19, I distributed assignment #2, reproduced below, and due Tuesday 11/26. I also distributed the Bryant case on which the assignment is based. We went over the requirements of the assignment, and then I gave a brief history of the cases leading up to Bryant. We went over Ohio v.Roberts (1980) and then the modern Confrontation clause jurisprudence of Crawford v. Washington (2004), Davis v. Washington (2006), and Hammon v. Indiana (2006). These are the legal background to the Bryant decision. We then went back to our discussion of Batson and the use of racial peremptories in jury selection. We got as far as Marshall's concurrence. The assignment for Thursday 11/21 is to begin work on the Bryant assignment below.

Assignment #2
For this assignment, I’m asking you for three brief sections, identified as such (Number the sections of your responses. Don’t copy any of the assignment as part of your answers; just use the numbering I’ve provided.). While this assignment does not ask you to make an outline of the opinions, one may well prove useful to you.

First, I would like you to make a “she said” (Sotomayor) / “he said” (Scalia) chart of Bryant. Using your own words, briefly identify the position taken by Sotomayor in the following three areas, and then identify Scalia’s response.

The three areas I want you to discuss are:
a. Whether there was in this case an “emergency in progress” situation.
b. Whether the court should look to the purpose of the police in asking questions of the declarant.
c. Whether the “reliability” of the statement is a factor in determining whether its admission complies with the Confrontation Clause.

Here’s an (inaccurate) example of what I’m looking for (provided simply to give a sense of how brief a description I’m looking for):
a. Sotomayor: There was an “emergency”, because getting Covington the victim to treatment was not something that could be delayed, the victim was in great pain, and Covington had explained to the police that Rick was out to kill everyone he saw.
a. Scalia: There was no emergency because the police knew immediately that the victim had suffered a fatal wound, they knew that Rick was only dangerous to Covington, and they knew just where to find Rick and capture him.

Note that these answers start with the position taken by each Justice, followed by the “because” segment of the answer. That’s the format I want you to follow.
Second, briefly give your own opinion about whether Covington’s statement (“Rick shot me”) should be allowed into evidence and why. A short paragraph should do. In other words, do you think that Sotomayor has the better position or Scalia, and why (or do you have a better idea than either one).

Third, analyze the following hypothetical situation in the way that you would do under your preferred approach from the second segment above. What questions do you need to ask, and how do those questions get answered. The three questions covered above should be included in your discussion, but you can add other questions as you think necessary.

Ugarte has stolen some very valuable letters of transit. Fearing that the authorities are after him, Ugarte brings the letters to his “friend” Rick to hide for him. Rick decides that he doesn’t just want to keep the letters for Ugarte, he wants to own them himself. Rick tries to kill Ugarte by knifing him, but he only succeeds in wounding Ugarte. Ugarte is very upset with Rick for betraying his trust, and wants Rick brought to justice Ugarte flees to the nearby police station, where the police see him, bleeding. Before they ask Ugarte anything, Ugarte blurts out that Rick stabbed him, with the knife, in the café, and that the reason for the stabbing was that Rick was jealous of Ugarte’s romantic conquests (he couldn’t very well tell the police about the stolen letters of transit, could he?). Although Ugarte thinks that the wound is serious, the police, with their superior training, believe that it is not. The police leave Ugarte alone in the station, and go to arrest Rick at his nearby cafe. They have been wanting to arrest Rick for a long time, because they consider him a loose cannon who is likely to hurt people on a whim. Unfortunately, while Ugarte’s wound would not have been lethal if it had been treated, no one has done anything to stop the bleeding, and, by the time the police return to the station (with the arrested Rick), Ugarte has bled to death. The prosecutor charges Rick with the crime, and at trial the prosecutor offers into evidence the statement that Ugarte made before he died: “Rick stabbed him, with the knife, in the café, and that the reason for the stabbing was that Rick was jealous of Ugarte’s romantic conquests”.

Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather on how well you complete the assignment and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.

The paper should be a minimum of 2 pages long, and no more than 3 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Tuesday November 26th. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.


The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.

November 14, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/14, I distributed one handout, my version of the Raich case brief. I collected the class' case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return the case briefs on Tuesday. I then discussed the other part of the Court of Appeals decision, (not included in the briefing) the medical necessity defense. The assignment for Tuesday 11/19 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 108 in the text.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/14, I distributed one handout, the Maine ethical rule regarding the taking of appeals whenever the client wants the lawyer to do so. We discussed the concepts in the text about the right to appointed counsel in appeals, the role of money in lawyer selection, and then the right to effective assistance of counsel. We went over the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, and then I talked about the recent case of Missouri v. Frye, regarding the right to effective assistance of counsel in the bargaining phase of plea bargaining. We talked about jury selection, and started our discussion of the use of peremptory challenges. We discussed in Batson the rejection of the evidentiary requirements of Swain, and got as far as going over the new rules for what a prima facie case of discriminatory use of peremptory strikes requires. That's the point at which we'll pick up on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/19 is to read and prepare through p. 571 of the text. In addition, I plan to distribute Assignment #2 on Tuesday, regarding the confrontation clause, which will be due on Tuesday 11/26.

November 12, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/12, we first went over questions regarding the case brief due Thursday, including the use of the information in the text that you will need to use to fill in the introductory portions of the case brief. We then discussed the Gonzales v. Raich Supreme Court opinion. We looked at the history of Supreme Court opinions regarding the commerce clause, the relationship between the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, and the treatment of prior Court cases (Wickard, Lopez, and Morrison). I also discussed the most recent Supreme Court pronouncement on the commerce clause, NFIB v. Sebelius (Obamacare). The assignment for Thursday 11/14 is to finish work on the Raich v. Gonzales Court of Appeals case brief, previously assigned, due at the beginning of class on Thursday.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/12, the class first voted on the subject matter for the second assignment. The winner was a case dealing with the 6th Amendment confrontation clause. I plan to distribute the assignment on either 11/14 or (more likely) 11/19, with a due date of 11/26. We then went through the assigned reading for today, the Powell case and Gideon v. Wainwright. For both cases we concentrated on the different views of the majority and the dissent or concurrence. The assignment for Thursday 11/14 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 561 of the text.

November 7, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/7, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2, and the case you'll be briefing, Raich v. Gonzalez. This assignment (reproduced below) is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, November 14, 2013. If you were not in class and want me to email the case to you, contact me right away. We then went over the textbook cases of Reardon and Caperton. The assignment for Tuesday 11/12 is to begin work on the Raich case brief, and to read in the text through p. 97.

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the edited version of the case of Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007) that I distributed. This is the case on remand to the Court of Appeals after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the text.

Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.

Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.

Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Thursday 11/14, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate. All the work must be your own.

IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/7, I first went over two cases that discussed the distinction between custodial versus non-custodial interrogation, Berkemer (U.S. Supreme Court) and Lowe (Maine Supreme Court). We also went over the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Salinas v. Texas, in which the Court discussed what is needed in order to assert the right to remain silent (hint: it is not silence). We then moved to the three opinions in Seibert, which finishes our Fifth Amendment segment. We move on to Chapter 12, and the assignment for Tuesday 11/12 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 548 of the text.

November 5, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/5, we first went over Lawrence, covering the structure of the legal analysis, as well as the role of precedent. I then talked about a U.S. Supreme Court decision this June, U.S. v. Windsor, that struck down part of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). We went over the applicability of the Equal Protection guaranty to the federal government, and the structure of the legal analysis. We also discussed the case in terms of federalism questions. The assignment for Thursday 11/7 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 80 of the text (Reardon and Caperton).


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/5, we first viewed a portion of the video of the Ormsby interrogation. We then went over the Ormsby opinion, and also compared the interrogation methods used with the spirit of the Miranda decision. The class voted to leave the Fifth Amendment behind when we finish this chapter, and to move on to Chapter 12 when we finish Chapter 11. The assignment for Thursday 11/7 is to finish Chapter 11.

October 31, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/31, we first went over the Maine statute that covers situations like that Ms. Mobbley found herself in. We then went over the Holland case, and compared the power of the Florida Supreme Court regarding common law crimes with Maine law regarding common law crimes. We started our discussion of Lawrence, talking about the role of morality in legislation. We compared this case to Glucksberg, in which similar considerations were at play. We will begin class on Tuesday with a more legal analysis of Lawrence, looking at the structure of Kennedy's opinion, whether this is a fundamental interest, and the role of precedent. I will then go over last June's Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage recognition by federal law. The assignment for Tuesday 11/5 is to re-read Lawrence, looking at the structure, fundamental interests, and precedent.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/31, I distributed one handout, an edited version of the recent Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Ormsby. If you were not in class and did not get the handout, you can access the case by going to the Maine Supreme Court opinion page:
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
and scrolling down to
2013 ME 88 State of Maine v. Thayne M. Ormsby October 29, 2013
Read through paragraph 30 of the opinion.
We went over the Escobedo opinion, as well as the dissent, and then did the same with the Miranda opinion. I also put a question to the class that we will decide on Tuesday: whether to spend most of the rest of the semester on Miranda-type questions, or whether to move on in the text to 6th Amendment jurisprudence (Chapter 12 of the text).
The assignment for Tuesday 11/5 is to read Ormsby, and to ask yourself these specific question: do the techniques employed by the police run afoul of either the spirit or the letter of any part of Miranda?

October 29, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/29, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding Hindering Apprehension, Criminal Common Law, and the Mandated Reporting. I returned the exams from last week, and we went over them. We then talked about the Mobbley case, discussing both the view of the majority and that of the dissent. We will pick up with the Holland case on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/31 is first to read the Maine statutes handed out, which address somewhat the situation in both Mobbley and Holland. Also, read in the text and prepare to discuss through p. 70 (Lawrence v. Texas).

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/29, I distributed one handout, an article about a Third Circuit decision from last week that addressed questions raised in both Jones and Davis. I returned the exams from last week, and we went over them. We discussed that Third Circuit opinion in Katzin, and how it dealt with both the need for warrants in the use of a GPS tracking device, and the applicability of Davis good faith reliance in deciding about suppression of the evidence. We then began our discussion of Escobedo, going over the text of the 5th and 6th Amendment protections. We will continue with Escobedo on Thursday, outlining the majority and dissenting opinions. The additional reading for Thursday 10/31 is to read the handout, and also through p. 529 of the text (Miranda).

October 24, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/24,the class took Exam #1. I will return the exam, and we'll go over it, on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/29 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 57-64.


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/24,the class took Exam #1. I will return the exam, and we'll go over it, on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/29 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 517-523.

October 22, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/22, I distributed one handout, an article about a case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear defining the level of mental retardation below which it would be cruel and usual to execute a convict. We first went over the Suggs v. Norris case, going through the multiple questions that the North Carolina court considered. We also discussed generally the requirements for a valid contract, and the question of public policy regarding the enforcement of contracts. We then moved on to Gregg v. Georgia, going over the three opinions in the text. I went over a number of cases that have refined the concept of capital punishment, including Coker v. Georgia, Ford v. Wainwright, Thompson v. Oklahoma, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, and Kennedy v. Louisiana. I also discussed two cases regarding life imprisonment sentences for juveniles, Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama. Finally we discussed the handout regarding mental retardation in the case just accepted by the Supreme Court, Hall v. Florida. On Thursday 10/24 we will have our first exam, open-book and open-note (but only your own). If you find that you are missing any handouts, please email me about what you need prior to class. If an emergency arises and you are unable to make it to class, you must email me asap to discuss alternative arrangements.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/22, we first finished our discussion of Davis. We covered the differing views on the relationship between exclusionary rule analysis and retroactivity analysis. We then went through the three assigned exclusionary rule textbook cases, Leon, Hudson, and Herring. We looked at how each of these cases expanded the exceptions to the use of suppression as a remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. On Thursday 10/24 we will have our first exam, open-book and open-note (but only your own). If you find that you are missing any handouts, please email me about what you need prior to class. If an emergency arises and you are unable to make it to class, you must email me asap to discuss alternative arrangements.

October 17, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/17, I distributed two handouts: the Comment Key to the White case briefs, and an article about the how the Supreme Court came to vote in favor of retaining the death penalty. I returned the White case briefs, and we went over them. We then looked at the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of property, exploring how the Brineys would have fared under Maine criminal law. I also went over the four mental states (mens rea) that define levels of culpability in Maine criminal law. I then gave the class a sample test, to better prepare for the open-book, open-note test we'll be having next Thursday 10/24. We reviewed proper citation form for both opinions and statutes. We began going over Suggs v. Norris, the estate contest case, getting as far as who the parties to the case are. The assignment for Tuesday 10/22 is to review both Suggs and Gregg (previously assigned) and to read and prepare to discuss the capital punishment article that I distributed.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/17, we first went over a sample test, in preparation for the open-book, open-note exam that we'll have next Thursday, 10/24. We then went through the Mapp case, looking at all of the opinions and where they clashed. We started the Davis case, comparing the majority and dissent in terms of the suppression issue. We will continue with Davis on Tuesday, picking up with the retroactivity question. The assignment for Tuesday 10/22 is to read through p. 517 of the text.

October 10, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/10 I distributed two handouts: my version of the White case brief, and the Maine criminal statute regarding the use of force in property offenses and in defense of premises. We went over the White case brief, which I will be returning next Thursday. Along the way, we also went over proper citation form for both Maine Supreme Court decisions and for Maine statutes, and the concept of dictum. There is no class on Tuesday 10/15, to mark the Day after Columbus Day Holiday. The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to read and try to figure out what Maine law says you can do in defense of your home, and to read and prepare to discuss pp. 41-56 in the text. Also, I announced to the class that I plan to have our first Test (open book and open note) on Thursday 10/24.


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/10 I distributed two handouts: an article about the lawsuit challenging New York City's stop and frisk practice, and an edited version of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Davis v. U.S. We started our discussion by going over the qualified immunity parts of the Safford opinion (not included in the text). We then looked at the article describing the NYC lawsuit, and how NYC has come to interpret what is allowed to it by the Terry v. Ohio case. We then went through the Terry case, going both the majority and dissenting opinions.There is no class on Tuesday 10/15, to mark the Day after Columbus Day Holiday. The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to review Mapp (previously assigned) and to read and prepare to discuss the Davis case (handout). Also, I announced to the class that I plan to have our first Test (open book and open note) on Thursday 10/24.

October 8, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/8, I distributed one handout, my version of the Katko brief. We first talked about the White brief due Thursday, going over the format, and the three parts of the Issue. We then turned to the Katko case. We looked at primary versus secondary authority, mandatory versus persuasive authority, and following, distinguishing, and extending authority. We talked about the relationship between civil and criminal law, jury instruction, punitive damages, and bad lawyering. The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to finish the White case brief, due at the beginning of class.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/8,I distributed one handout, my version of the King outline. We briefly went over that outline, and some of the common challenges that the class faced. We then turned our attention to the list of exceptions to the warrant requirement. I went over Missouri v. McNeely, the recent U.S. Supreme Court case about whether the destruction of evidence inherent in the delay in drawing blood to test for blood-alcohol level justifies warrantless seizures of blood. I then went over an even more recent Maine Supreme Court, State v. Ntim, regarding whether consent to a dog sniff and to a subsequent search was tainted by a prior unconstitutional dog sniff and search. We discussed the Gant case, and then started our discussion of Safford. We left off with the discussion of qualified immunity, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 504 of the text.

October 3, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/3, Professor Nick Carnes of Duke University talked to the class about his research into the working class role in legislatures, and then he had the class figure out how parallel research might be conducted regarding the judiciary. The assignment for Tuesday 10/8 is to continue work on the White case brief. In addition, read and prepare to discuss pp. 36-41 of the text, including the case of Katko v. Briney.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/3, the class turned in the Maryland v. King outlines, and we went over them. I also went over two cases regarding the "emergency aid" exception to the warrant requirement, Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) and Michigan v. Fisher (2009). I plan to return the outlines on Tuesday, and to distribute my own version of the outline. The assignment for Tuesday 10/8 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 480-492 of the text (including Gant and Safford).

October 1, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/1, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Smith v. Idaho case brief, assignment #1 (reproduced below) and the text of White case itself. If you missed class, you can access the White case by going to the Maine Supreme Court site,
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
and scrolling down to July 11, 2013, State v. White, 2013 ME 66.
In class, we first went over the assignment, and I emphasized that your "facts" need to specific enough to provide a specific road map for how a party in the future could try to conform their actions to the requirements of the law. I also went over four levels of suspicion, (roadblock, hunch, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause) and how an "arrest" requires probable cause, while an investigatory stop only requires the lower level of reasonable suspicion.
We then went over the Smith case. I went over proper citation form for a state Supreme Court decision. We then went over the remainder of the case, emphasizing how to provide enough specificity in the brief to make it useful.
Thursday, 10/3, we will have a guest lecture by Professor Nick Carnes of Duke University. The assignment for Thursday 10/3 is to begin work on the White case brief.

Assignment due Thursday, October 10, 2013

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. White, 2013 ME 66, 70 A3d. 1226.

Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Think of the brief as an instruction manual for police: what actions do you take to ensure that the evidence you gather will be acceptable in court? Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.

Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.

Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Thursday 10/10, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.

IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.




POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/1 we first went over the Md. v. King outlining assignment due this Thursday 10/3. I went over the way in which the majority and dissenting opinions differed in their approach to the availability of "free-form" balancing of interests to determine reasonableness. I then discussed another recent Supreme Court case, Bailey v. U.S. in which the Court decided the extent of the warrant exception for detentions incident to the execution of a search warrant. The majority determined that the detention a mile away and five minutes away from the scene of the search warrant execution was not within the exception previously created by Michigan v. Summers. The assignment for Thursday 10/3 is to complete work on the Md. v. King outline, due at the beginning of class Thursday 10/3.

September 26, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/26, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute criminalizing assisted suicide. We finished going over the Glucksberg case, covering the battles over the characterization of the right asserted, the historical record, the treatment of precedent, the legitimacy of the state's asserted interests, and Souter's concurrence. I also discussed the three basic institutional battlegrounds that we will regularly confront: individual rights versus government regulation, the separation of powers, and federalism. Finally, we went over proper citation form for statutes. The assignment for Tuesday October 1 is to read pp. 32-36 of the text, and to write up a practice case brief for yourselves of Smith v. Idaho (not handed in or graded).

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
IN class today, Thursday 9/26, I distributed three handouts: my version of the outline of Alito's dissent in Jardines; Assignment #1 (reproduced below); and the case on which the assignment is based, Maryland v. King. If you were not in class and need the text of the case, it can be found at the website of the Supreme Court (supremecourt.gov); scroll down the list on the right to R-50, Md. v. King, 6/3/13. We began class by going over the requirements of the assignment, and the basic question posed by the King case (not whether there was a search, or whether the search fell within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, but rather whether the warrantless search was reasonable). We then turned to the definition of probable caused in Illinois v. Gates, examining the decision first just in terms of how the Aguilar-Spinelli flow chart was changed, and then in terms of the power of the reviewing court to substitute its judgment on the existence of probable cause for that of the issuing magistrate. Finally we quickly reviewed some of the exceptions to the warrant requirement listed in the text. The assignment for Tuesday 10/1 is to begin work on the King outline.

Assignment due Thursday October 3, 2013

The assignment is to do an outline of Maryland v. King (distributed to the class 9/26).

Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Your outlines will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Add elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by the Justices and italicize those added elements. Outline both the majority and the dissenting opinions.

The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.

Please make two copies of your outline, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Thursday 10/3, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.


IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.

September 24, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/24, I distributed one handout, my version of the Glucksberg case brief. We began by reviewing the VSDA brief, going over the copying and pasting involved in the Facts, Issues, and Holding segments. We then discussed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the same case, Brown v. EMA. We went over the four different paths followed by different Justices in their quest for the correct resolution of this case. We also went over the ways in which the Court majority found the California law to be both under- and over-inclusive. We then turned our attention to the Glucksberg case, getting to the formulation of the Issues in the case. We will pick up at that point on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/26 is to continue working on your own version of the Glucksberg case brief. Also include your understanding of the Souter concurrence in the case.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/24,we started with the battle of the footnotes. We then went over the Kagan concurrence and the Alito dissent. We put the dissent into the outline format that I had asked for, adding outline elements as needed. We also went over some hypotheticals about ways of getting around the majority decision if desired. We will finish with the last elements Alito's Part III on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/26 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 482 of the text (Gates, and the exceptions to the warrant requirement).

September 19, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/19, I distributed two handouts: my version of the VSDA case brief, and a recent article from Forbes magazine about the relationship between violent video games and real world violence. We started with the concepts of questions of law versus questions of fact, summary judgment, and de novo review. In terms of First Amendment law, we went over strict scrutiny versus rational basis review (high hurdles versus low hurdles) and content-based versus non-content-based restrictions. We also looked at following versus distinguishing precedent. We went through my VSDA case brief, looking at how an "issue" is put together, including (usually) the incorporation of the appellant's contention into the operative legal question. We will pick up Tuesday with the relationship in the case brief between "facts", "issues" and "holdings". We will also go over the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case, as well as the Venn diagrams that explain the concepts of over- and under-inclusiveness. The assignment for Tuesday September 24th is to read pp. 22-32, and to attempt for yourselves a case brief of the Glucksberg case (not handed in or graded).


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/19, I distributed one handout, a sample opinion outline and the formatting instructions for making an outline. We began by looking at the unexpected line-up of the Justices who voted for the defendant in both Jones and Jardines, which included two of the most "conservative' Justices joined by the three most "liberal". We then started going through the outline of Scalia's Jardines opinion, going carefully through each question posed in the parts of the opinion, and then the answer to those questions that Scalia provided. We looked at where Scalia's outline did not provide, in my opinion, enough structural elements, and so where I added structure to Scalia's outline. We talked about Scalia's footnote 1, and will pick up on Tuesday with the other Scalia footnotes. The assignment for Tuesday 9/24 is to read and prepare to discuss the Kagan concurrence in Jardines, and the Alito dissent. In addition, I want you to write up (but not handed in or graded) an outline of the Alito dissent, following the outline format that I provided.

September 17, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/17, I distributed one handout, a template for the case briefs that I will be requiring of you. We began by going over two cases related to the issues in Mockus: Town of Greece v. Galloway, and Snyder v. Phelps. We began our discussion of Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) by going over both the structure of the federal court system and the citation format for that system. We then started using the case brief template to discuss the proper citation, the parties, the objective, the cause of action, the trial court defense, and the prior proceedings in the VSDA case. We will pick up with the meaning of "summary judgment" in the trial court, and "de novo" review by the Court of Appeals, on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/19 is to review the VSDA case, using the brief template to try to fill in the rest of the brief: what were appellant's contentions on appeal, what issues did the Court deal with, how did it resolve the various positions of the parties? (nothing written to hand in; just prepare to discuss these questions).

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/17, i distributed one handout, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Florida v. Jardines. We spent today's class going over the Jones case. We first went over some of the questions which the majority decision did not address: the fact that the car did not belong to Jones, whether Jones did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of the car, whether the warrant should be considered valid despite the technical violation of its terms, whether the search might be reasonable even without a warrant, justified by either probable cause or by reasonable suspicion. We then delved into the two views advocated by Scalia and Alito: that the Katz questions are not the only ones to ask, versus Alito's view that the Katz questions do define the entire scope of what is considered a "search". The assignment for Thursday 9/19 is to read at least the majority decision in Florida v. Jardines.

September 12, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/12, we continued with our discussion of Mockus. We went through the rest of Mockus' contentions and the Court's response to each, the authority upon which the Court relied, as well as how the result could have come out differently. Along the way we went over the 1980 Maine Supreme Court case of State v. John W. (disorderly conduct), and we discussed the universe of "authority" as being divided into primary authority (law, subdivided into mandatory authority versus persuasive authority) versus secondary authority (non-law, such as treatises). We will start on Tuesday 9/17 with two cases that I didn't have time to discuss today, Town of Greece v. Galloway and Snyder v. Phelps. The assignment for Tuesday 9/17 is to read and prepare to discuss pp.14-22 of the text.


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/12,we started with a review of Katz, going over the big three definitional questions addressed: whether a conversation is protected (as a "person, house, paper or effect"); what question to ask regarding whether something is a "search"; and what question to ask regarding whether that search is "reasonable". I went over a 1984 case regarding whether open fields fall with the protection of the 4th Amendment, Oliver v. U.S. We then finished up our discussion of Smith, going over the Blackmun, Stewart, and Marshall opinions. The assignment for Tuesday 9/17 is to read and prepare to discuss the Jones case (pp. 471-475 of the text). Read it, read it again, and then read it again, asking yourself the kinds of questions that we tackled in Smith.

September 10, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/10, I distributed one handout, the Maine Constitution's Declaration of Rights. I took pictures of the class, and will begin work on learning the names of the students in the class. We began our discussion of the Mockus case and questions. We went over the listing of order of the parties in decisions of the Maine Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, and we went over the universe of possibilities for the Plaintiff's Cause of Action in a case. We got to the list of Mockus' contentions on appeal, and the Court's responses to those contentions, ending with the crucial contention about the Maine blasphemy statute violating the Maine Constitutional guarantees of free religious expression and free speech. We will pick up at that point when we resume our Mockus discussion on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/12 is to review the remaining Mockus questions and the Mockus decision itself, trying to translate the legal concepts into English to the extent possible.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/10, I took pictures of the class, and will begin work on learning the names of the students in the class. We first discussed the Katz case from the text. We then began our discussion of the Smith case and questions. We went over the listing of order of the parties in decisions of the Maine Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, and we went over the treatment of precedent (following, distinguishing). We got to the point in Smith in which the Court distinguished Katz, based on the difference between the content of the conversation versus the number called. We will pick up at that point when we resume our Smith discussion on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/12 is to review the remaining Smith questions and the Smith decision itself, trying to translate the legal concepts into English to the extent possible.

September 3, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/3, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus (which we went over); the case of State v. Mockus; and some questions to help you know what to look for in the Mockus case. We went over those questions. On Thursday 9/5 I will not be in class, but the class will still meet as scheduled. The class will watch a PBS DVD about the Supreme Court's awakening to the claims of constitutional protection of individual rights. The assignment for Tuesday 9/10 is to read and prepare to discuss the Mockus case and the accompanying questions, and to read and prepare to discuss pp. 1-14 of the text.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/3, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus (which we went over); the case of Smith v. Maryland; and some questions to help you know what to look for in the Smith case. We went over those questions. On Thursday 9/5 I will not be in class, but the class will still meet as scheduled. The class will watch a PBS DVD about the Supreme Court's reaction to the expansion of the rights of the accused that had taken place under the Warren Court. The assignment for Tuesday 9/10 is to read and prepare to discuss the Smith case and the accompanying questions, and to read and prepare to discuss pp. 459-471 of the text.

May 3, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 5/3, we completed Chapter 4 by going over the Gilmore case. We then contrasted the approach taken in Gebbia versus that in Gilmore. I threw one more approach into the mix, that taken in Villano v. Kohl's, a 2005 U.S. District Court case from New York. Finally, I went over federal removal jurisdiction in the class action case of Standard Fire Insurance v. Knowles, decided by the Supreme Court on March 19, 2013. The exam, open-book and open-note, will be on Wednesday 5/8 from 1:30 - 2:30.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 5/3 we went over the Grutter case, both the majority decision and the various dissenting opinions. I compared some of the Grutter arguments to those made in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, in which the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 10, 2012. I also mentioned the case in which cert was granted in March, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, regarding the Michigan constitutional change after Grutter that outlawed any affirmative action. The exam, open-book and open-note, will be on Friday 5/10 from 8:30 - 9:30.

April 29, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/29,we went over Kopp and Gebbia. I then discussed a First Circuit case regarding the amount in controversy Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech. There is no class on Wednesday 5/1 because of Maine Day. The assignment for Friday 5/3 is to finish reading chapter 4 of the text (the only additional case is Gilmore, p. 143).

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/29, I handed back the content-neutrality papers, and we went over them a bit. Regarding the exam on Friday May 10, we decided to start the exam at 8:30, rather than the official scheduled time of 8:00. We went over the arguments made by the state in Virginia v. Loving, and compared those arguments to those made in the two same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court this year, Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor. There is no class on Wednesday 5/1 because of Maine Day. The assignment for Friday 5/3 is to read in the text Grutter v. Bollinger (pp. 707-716) which we will discuss in conjunction with the current Supreme Court case regarding affirmative action in higher education, Fisher v. University of Texas.

April 26, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/26, we began by going over the Robey case. I then discussed two additional cases regarding personal jurisdiction, Attaway v. Omega, and McIntyre v. Nicastro. The assignment for Monday 4/29 is to read Kopp and Gebbia cases, through p. 143 of the text.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/26, I collected the Assignment #2 papers, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts, my own version of that assignment,and a letter to the editor regarding filming people coming into Planned Parenthood. The assignment for Monday 4/29 is to read Loving v. Virginia,and the discussion of Palmore v. Sidoti that follows Loving, pp. 639-642 of the text. We'll discuss these in relation to the current same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court, Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. U.S.

April 24, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
IN class today, Wednesday 4/24, the class first did evaluations. We then went over the handout from last class, the Maine subject-matter jurisdiction statutes. We turned to personal jurisdiction, covering general assertions of personal jurisdiction, and specific assertions of personal jurisdiction. We began our discussion of Robey, getting up to the issue of whether the Kentucky court could assert specific personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state seller. We will pick up at that point on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/26 is to review Robey, previously assigned.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
IN class today, Wednesday 4/24, the class first did evaluations. I clarified some questions about Assignment #2, and emphasized that the assignment is solely focused on content-neutrality, and students should avoid drifting into other issues that the Court discussed in those cases. We then went over all of the Morse v. Frederick opinions. The assignment for Friday 4/26 is finish Assignment #2, due at the beginning of class on Friday.

April 22, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/22, I distributed one handout, Maine civil and criminal jurisdictional statutes. We went over the Cheap Escape case, and then I also talked about a Maine subject matter jurisdiction case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, and a federal subject matter jurisdiction case, Bowles v. Russell. We went over the significance of the subject matter jurisdiction label for when a lawyer's failings will be important, and when they won't. The assignment for Wednesday 4/24, is to read through p. 135 of the text (jurisdiction over the person).

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/22, I distributed one handout, two news articles about political t-shirts in schools. We went over the Tinker case, and discussed how it might apply (or how it might be distinguished) regarding the banning of those t-shirts. I also went over the 1986 Supreme Court case of Bethel v. Fraser, and how it distinguished Tinker. The assignment for Wednesday 4/24, is to read through p. 272 of the text (Morse) and to continue work on assignment #2, due Friday 2/26.

April 19, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/19, I distributed one handout, a review of federal and certain state laws regarding both adoption rights and recognition of same-sex marriage ( since adoption by a couple is often limited to married couples). I then went over the 2011 5th Circuit case of Adar v. Smith, in which that Court distinguished Finstuen,and reached the result that Louisiana (unlike Oklahoma) need not issue a new birth certificate to an unmarried same-sex adoptive couple. We also looked at whether getting married would change the prospects of such a couple. We began our discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction, going over the other part of the Adar opinion, holding that there was no right by the same-sex couple to even bring their action in federal court (no subject-matter jurisdiction). We will continue next Monday with further exploration into the world of subject matter jurisdiction. The assignment for Monday 4/22 is to read through p. 128 of the text.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/19, we began with a discussion of the application of the Brandenburg test of incitement to the hypothetical possibility of incitement in the case of the brothers alleged to be behind the Boston marathon bombings. We then returned to Snyder v. Phelps, beginning with the internet posting in that case that the Court chose not to deal with. We looked at how a flow chart of Snyder might look, and compared the characterizations of the relevant factors by the majority with the same categories by the dissent. The assignment for Monday 4/22 is to review Tinker v. Des Moines, previously assigned.

April 17, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/17, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes dealing with same-sex and other adoptions and new birth certificates. I went over a Maine conflict of law rule case, Collins v. Trius. We then talked about the concepts of Full Faith and Credit, and went over the Finstuen case as well as the Maine statutes. I will begin on Friday with the 5th Circuit case of Adar v. Smith, with a different view of Full Faith and Credit and same-sex adoptions. The assignment for Friday 4/19 (although I failed to say it in class) is to read through p. 128 of the text (Cheap Escape).

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/17, I distributed one handout, Assignment #2 which is reproduced below. That assignment is due Friday 4/26. We talked about the question of content-neutrality and how it relates to the near-universal desire to exclude the Westboro Baptist Church from memorial observances. We talked about the relation between matters of public concern and the requirement of content-neutrality. We finished our general discussion of the expansion of First Amendment protection from public officials, to public figures, to matters of public concern. We also discussed the case of Hustler v. Falwell regarding the intersection of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Free Speech, and how the flow chart from that case was not followed in Snyder v. Phelps. We will pick up on Friday with a discussion of targeting,both in terms of the WBC demonstration, and the internet "Epic", and then move on to Alito's dissent. The assignment for Friday 4/19 is to read through p. 267 of the text.

Assignment #2

One of the things that’s been crucial in the Court’s treatment of Free Speech issues has been a determination of whether the government’s restriction on speech has been found to be “content-neutral” or not.

The Court has sometimes been split, though, in deciding and articulating exactly what it means by this concept of content-neutrality, as well as when that concept is to be applied.

For this assignment, I’m asking you to write a series of numbered paragraphs, (following the numbering below) which address the Court’s approach to content-neutrality.

1) Start with Texas v. Johnson (p. 234). Brennan says that the Texas statute is not content-neutral. In what sense does he find it not to be neutral? Is it simply because the statute covers a particular subject (flags)? Or is it because the statute prohibits a certain viewpoint to the flag (anti-flag)? What would a content-neutral statute look like to Brennan in this context? Then describe Rehnquist’s dissent. Does he think that the statute is content-neutral? How does he reach his conclusion?

2) Next go to Hill v. Colorado (p. 247). Stevens characterized the Colorado statute as content-neutral. What questions does he ask in order to reach this conclusion? Then describe what process Scalia uses in reaching the opposite conclusion. What would a content-neutral statute look like to Scalia in this context?

3) Third is R.A.V. v. St. Paul (p. 255). Scalia describes that ordinance as not content-neutral. Again, what questions does he ask in order to reach this conclusion? What would a content-neutral statute look like to Scalia in this context? Then describe White’s dissent. Does he think that the statute is content-neutral? How does he reach his conclusion?

4) Fourth is Snyder v. Phelps (p. 258). How does Roberts analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What would a content-neutral tort look like to Roberts in this context? How does Alito then analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?

5) Fifth is Tinker v. Des Moines (p. 264). How does Fortas analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What would a content-neutral tort look like to Fortas in this context? How does Black then analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?

6) Finally, there’s Morse v. Frederick (p. 267). Does Roberts analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What questions does he ask in order to decide that the school can suspend Frederick? Then discuss Stevens’ dissent. How does Stevens analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?

Here’s a (fictitious) example of the format I’m looking for:
Roberts decides that this statute is not content-neutral. He asks whether the statute could be enforced without reference to the content of the signs. “If the signs said ‘I love babies’ as oppose to ‘I hate baby-killers’, there would have been no violation”. (Cohen, right-hand column, p. 242). The “intimidation” that the statute forbids, says Roberts, only exists in the context of the message itself. You can’t decide if the sign-holder intended to intimidate unless you look at the content of the sign, and that’s what makes the law content-based. Alito, on the other hand, believes that the statute is content neutral. He asks whether “intimidation” itself is a category that is based on content. He answers that intimidation is “proscribed as a result of any communication” (Cohen, left-hand column, p. 242), and so the statute on its face, and in its enforcement, is content neutral.

You are encouraged to use snippets of quotations from the opinions to illustrate your points. When you quote, you should just cite to the text page number (as above), and to the left or right column. Your paper should be 2-3 pages long.


Your papers will be graded on how well you complete the assignment and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.

The paper should be a minimum of 2 pages long, and no more than 3 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Friday, April 26th. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.


The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.

April 15, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/15, I handed back the Davis case briefs, as well as my comment key, and we reviewed them. We then went back to our discussion of Conflict of Law rules and the Land case. We went over federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, and then discussed how the Erie doctrine locked the federal court into the Indiana Hubbard Conflict of Law rule. I plan to start on Wednesday with a Maine Conflict of Law case, Collins v. Trius. The assignment for Wednesday 4/17 is to review Full Faith and Credit and Finstuen, previously assigned.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/15, I discussed a 2003 Supreme Court case, Virginia v. Black, which dealt with a Virginia statute that criminalized cross burning with intent to intimidate, and how the outcome of that case was different from that in R.A.V. We also talked about the lines regarding incitement to violence. We then started our discussion of Snyder v. Phelps. I went over the concept of state action as it pertains to state tort law, and also started discussing the evolution of First Amendment protection against state tort actions. We talked about N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, and will pick up on Wednesday with the expansion of First Amendment protection for defendants from public officials to public figures, and beyond. The assignment for Wednesday 4/17 is to review Snyder v. Phelps, previously assigned.

April 12, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/12, I collected the Davis case briefs, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts, an outline of the Davis case that I prepared, and my version of the Davis brief. I plan to return the Davis briefs on Monday. The assignment for Monday 4/15, in addition to reviewing the Land case, is to read pp. 115- 118 of the text (Full Faith and Credit).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, I began by completing our discussion of the Bangor targeted residential picketing ordinance, and comparing its analysis with that of both the Hill majority and the dissent. We then went through the R.A.V. case, looking at both the majority and the (disagreeing) concurrence. I plan to begin on Monday with a description of a 2003 case, Virginia v. Black, that appeared to present the same issues as R.A.V.. The assignment for Monday 4/15 is to read Snyder v. Phelps, pp. 258-263.

April 10, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/10, we first went over some questions about the Davis case brief. I clarified that briefing the retroactivity issue meant that you're not briefing the issue of whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation in the Davis search, only whether there's a remedy for that admitted violation. I also clarified that, after Disposition, you should state the issue as Breyer saw it. We then went over the Hubbard case, discussing the concept of conflict of law rules, looking at existing Indiana precedent for those rules, and seeing how the Hubbard Court changed those rules in this case. We looked at the analysis as it's done under the new rules. We will pick up with the Land case (previously assigned, p. 146) on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/12 is to finish work on the Davis case brief, which is due at the beginning of class, as well as to review Land.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/10, we reviewed Stevens' opinion in Hill, and then went into both the Scalia and Kennedy dissents. I also talked about a 1997 Maine Superior Court decision, Bangor v. Stauble, which raised the constitutionality of Bangor's targeted residential picketing ordinance. We will start on Friday with the Court's analysis of the content-neutrality of the Bangor ordinance. The assignment for Friday 4/12 is to review the R.A.V. case, previously assigned, paying particular attention to the structure of that opinion.

April 8, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/8,we went over the Butler case. I also discussed the 1971 Supreme Court opinion in Harris v. N.Y. We began our discussion of Hubbard v. Greeson, going over the idea of conflict of law rules, and reviewing the causes of action. We will continue on Wednesday with the question of what advantage there was to having a particular states' rules and law apply, and how Greeson tried to accomplish that. The additional assignment for Wednesday 4/10 is to read in the text pp. 145-147 (Land), which applies the Hubbard decision in the federal court system.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/8, we went through the majority opinion in Hill. We traced the structure of the opinion, looking at what questions were addressed, and how those questions were answered. We will continue with the two dissenting opinions on Wednesday, focusing on the areas in which they clashed with the majority opinion. The additional assignment for Wednesday 4/10 is to read through p. 258 of the text.

April 5, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/5, we first talked a little about the Davis brief due next Friday. I then went over a recent decision of the Maine Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of our state Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, John Doe v. Williams. We went over both the majority opinion, and the dissenting opinion. We discussed the ex post facto part of the opinion, as well as touching on the substantive due process argument. The assignment for Monday 4/8 is review Butler (previously assigned) and read p. 112-114 of the text.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/5, we started with a review of the video of the provocative words of the Oregon adjunct law professor. We analyzed his actions both in terms of "fighting words" and the Cohen discussion of intent to provoke. We then finished our discussion of Cohen, both the majority and dissenting opinions. We looked at the three cases that preceded the Hill case. The assignment for Monday 4/8 is review (once again) Hill v. Colorado, paying particular attention to the structure of both the majority and dissenting opinions.

April 3, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/3, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (copied below) and an edited version of Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. ___ (2011). We went over that assignment, which will be due Friday 4/12. We finished our discussion of Gonzales v. Raich, discussing the due process issue left unaddressed in this opinion, as well as the federalism and separation of powers views of the dissent. I went over the 9th Circuit decision in the 2007 remand of Raich, (500 F.3d 850) in which the Court of Appeals addressed Raich's due process argument. We will pick up on Friday with a discussion of the Law Court's decision last month in the Sex Offender registry case regarding ex post facto prohibition (see text, p. 99). The assignment for Friday 4/5 is to begin work on the Davis brief, read the discussion on retroactivity (p. 105-106) and review Butler (p.103), previously assigned.


Assignment due Friday, April 12, 2013

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. ____ (2011). I have distributed an edited version of this case to the class. If you are not in class and need that edited version, email me for it.

For the Facts, Issue and Holding, I am looking for you to brief only the retroactivity issue (Part IV of Alito’s opinion).
In addition, I want you to add the Issue as Breyer sees it.

Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Remember that the Legal Question is (usually) copied from the Appellant’s Contention. Everything and only those things that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.

Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Friday 4/12, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate. If you have questions, ask me.

IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/3, I first went over the planned scheduling of the next assignment, which will be due April 26th. We finished our discussion of Chaplinsky, looking at how the N.H. statute was interpreted by the state court to limit its reach, and then how the U.S. Supreme Court approved the statute as interpreted in that way. We then went over Harlan's opinion in Cohen, getting up to the portion of Harlan's opinion that discussed the downside if there were a ruling in favor of the government. We watched a video from Jonathan Turley's blog that featured an offensive adjunct professor of law (but not me) and we will discuss on Friday whether his words/actions are protected as Free Speech. The assignment for Friday 4/5 is to review the remainder of Cohen as well as Hill, (previously assigned).

April 1, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/1, we first finished our discussion of Caperton. We looked at how Justice Benjamin on the West Virginia Supreme Court had asked the wrong question regarding his recusal, and then discussed the dissenting opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court. We started Gonzales v. Raich, and will pick up with Section V of Stevens' opinion. The assignment for Wednesday 4/3 is to read through p. 105 of the text (Butler).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/1, I shared a flow chart that I had put together of Justice Brennan's opinion in Texas v. Johnson. We went through the majority opinion, and then looked at how the dissenting opinion differed from the majority. We started on Chaplinsky, and got through how Murphy narrowed the question before the Court by using the New Hampshire Supreme Court's interpretation of the state statute involved in the case. The assignment for Wednesday 4/3 is to read through p. 253 of the text.

March 29, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 3/29, I first talked about my plan to assign the next brief on or before Friday 4/5, to be due Friday 4/12. We then discussed legal ethics for lawyers. We went over the 2011 case of Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, in which the Maine Supreme Court looked at the ethical rule that compels Maine lawyers to disclose the dishonesty of other lawyers. We then discussed the Caperton case, focusing on the test that the Court created, and then how they applied that new test. I will start Monday by going over the dissenting opinion in Caperton, as will as some background to the case. The additional assignment for Monday 4/1 is to read through p. 97 of the text (Gonzales v. Raich).



POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/29, I began by making a flow chart regarding protected speech that gave some structure to the list that the textbook provides on p. 328-329. We went over the O'Brien case, focusing on the test that the Court created, and then how they applied that new test. We started on the structure of the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson. We will begin on Monday with an analysis of how the two justifications given by Texas for their law were dealt with in the Court's opinion. The additional assignment for Monday 4/1 is read through p. 244 of the text (Chaplinsky and Cohen).

March 27, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 3/27, we started with a quick look at some language in Maine releases of liability. We then went through a brief of the Reardon case, focusing on those facts that led the Court to its conclusion about the public policy of Connecticut. We also talked about how variations in those facts might lead the Court to a different conclusion. On Friday, 3/29 we will finish Chapter 2 of the text, including the Caperton case, previously assigned.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/27, we started with a quick look at at the Supreme Court's cases this week on same-sex marriage, and what the various options were for the Court in those cases. I discussed the case of 1957 Supreme Court cases of Yates v. U.S. We went through the Brandenburg decision. The assignment for Friday, 3/29 is to read through p. 238 of the text.

March 25, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 3/25, I began with a rundown of the same-sex marriage cases that the Supreme Court will hear this week, looking especially at how the language in Lawrence might impact those cases. We then went over three Maine cases regarding waivers of liability, discussing Doyle v. Bowdoin College, Waterhouse v. Lea, and Lloyd v. Sugarloaf. We will pick up with the textbook Reardon case on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 3/27 is to read through p. 80 of the text.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 3/25, we began by reviewing those factors (imminence and likelihood) that Holmes and Brandeis in Gitlow had thought to be necessary for a conviction, and which the majority had thought to be unnecessary. We discussed how deference to Congress and the states also became a battleground for differing interpretations of Free Speech. We went through the four opinions in Dennis, stressing the ways in which they clashed with each other. I will start on Wednesday with a brief discussion of the 1957 Yates case, which also interpreted the Smith Act. The assignment fro Wednesday 3/27 is to read through p. 233 of the text.

March 22, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
IN class today, Friday 3/22, I distributed two handouts: an excerpt from Bowers v. Hardwick, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. We went over the Bowers decision, and then the Lawrence decision. We looked at both the level of review (strict scrutiny or not), and the quewtion of morality as a legitimate state interest. We will begin on Monday with a discussion of the two same-sex marriage that will be argued in the Supreme Court next week. The assignment for Monday 3/25 is to read through p. 75 of the text.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
IN class today, Friday 3/22,I distributed one handout, the text of the Smith Act. I tried to clarify my views on Holmes' Schenck and Abrams opinions, and we then discussed the Gitlow case, looking at how the majority and Holmes parted company. The assignment for Monday 3/25 is to re-read through the Dennis case (p.222), previously assigned.

March 20, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 3/20, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute about common law crimes and about mandated reporting of child abuse. We discussed the handout from last time, the Maine statute about hindering apprehension, and saw how it might apply to the Mobbley situation. We then went over the Holland case, and contrasted it with Maine law. We also looked at the Massachusetts reporting statute in the text. We will pick up with the Lawrence case on Friday. The assignment for Friday 3/22 is to review Lawrence v. Texas (previously assigned), looking for the specific issue and holding of the Court in that case.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/20, we went over Schenck and Abrams, paying particular attention to how Holmes could find his own views in those cases to be internally consistent. We looked at the particular sections of the federal statute that were violated, and we discussed the actions of the United States that were challenged by the pamphlets in question. We looked at how the big questions in Schenk and Gitlow (prior restraint and incorporation) were dealt with as assumptions by the Court. We began our discussion of Gitlow, and will pick up on Friday with the precise legal question addressed by the majority in Gitlow. The assignment for Friday 3/22 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 222 of the text.

March 18, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 3/18, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding hindering apprehension. We went over the Mobbley case, and also talked about how the defense might make an argument for Ms. Mobbley's acquittal once the case is tried. On Wednesday we will review the Maine statute, both in terms of its operation, and whether it should provide the same kind of immunity that the New Mexico statute does. The additional assignment for Wednesday 3/20 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 70 of the text.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 3/18, I distributed one handout, the Maine constitutional provision regarding freedom of speech. We discussed the concept of prior restraint, and looked at how it might apply both to the words of the Maine constitution, and to the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. We also looked at the Court's treatment of prior restraint in the Schenck opinion. I also went over the recent U.S. District Court case of in re National Security Letter, as well as the 1965 case of Freedmand v. Maryland, and the Pentagon Papers case. We will pick up with the remainder of the Schenck case on Wednesday. The additional assignment for Wednesday 3/20 is to read through p. 210 of the text.

March 1, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 3/1, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. The assignment for Monday 3/18 is to read through the Mobbley case, (p. 62) previously assigned. Have a fun and safe Spring break.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/1, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. The assignment for Monday 3/18 is to read pp. 197-205 (through Abrams). Have a fun and safe Spring break.

February 27, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
Today, Wednesday 2/27, the class took Exam #1. I will return the exams on Friday, and we will go over them. The additional reading for Friday 3/1 is to read through p. 62 of the text (Mobbley).

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
Today, Wednesday 2/27, the class took Exam #1. I will return the exams on Friday, and we will go over them. The additional reading for Friday 3/1 is to read pp. 197-202 of the text (Schenck).

February 25, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/25, we started with the various opinions in the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia. We then went over the case of Gregg v. Georgia in detail, looking at the plurality decision and the two dissents. I then discussed some of the more recent cruel and unusual cases: Coker v. Georgia, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama. On Wednesday 2/27 we will have Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Please be in touch with me as soon as possible if you will not be able to make it to class on Wednesday (the window for a make-up exam is very small). We will then go over the exam on Friday 3/1.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/25, we went over the case of Moore v. Madigan. We basically compared and contrasted the opinions of the majority and the dissenting opinions. I also discussed the Second Circuit case of Kachalsky v. Westchester. On Wednesday 2/27 we will have Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Please be in touch with me as soon as possible if you will not be able to make it to class on Wednesday (the window for a make-up exam is very small). We will then go over the exam on Friday 3/1.

February 22, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/22, we continued our discussion of Suggs v. Norris. We went through the three basic issues discussed by the Court. We examined the types of authority relied on by the Court to decide the policy issue of whether any contract like this one with an unmarried couple would be enforceable, and then looked at the evidentiary issues regarding the the characterization of this contract, and the evidence about whether there was such a contract in the circumstances of this case. We will start with the case of Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned, on Monday.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/22, I distributed two handouts; an article about the actual limitations imposed by Heller, and an abridged version of the recent Seventh Circuit gun rights case of Moore v. Madigan. We finished our discussion of the Heller case, going over both the methods used by the Court in determining the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the specific restrictions that were put beyond governmental power to abridge. I then very briefly went over the incorporation of this Bill of Rights protection to the states in the McDonald case. The assignment for Monday 2/25 is to read and prepare to discuss the Moore v. Madigan handout. If you missed class today, you can (and should) email me to have me send you the edited version of the Opinion. Alternatively, you can read the unedited version of the 12/11/12 Moore v. Madigan Opinion available from Lexis.

February 20, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/20, I distributed one handout, my version of the Smith case brief. We first did an exercise applying the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises to the current case of the South African runner Oscar Pistorius. We then went back to the Smith case, going through the brief of that case. We began the Suggs case, getting to the Cause of Action in that case. We will continue with Suggs on Friday. The assignment for Friday 2/22 is to read through p. 56 of the text, Gregg v. Georgia.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/20, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding persons in Maine who are not allowed to possess firearms. I went over the history of the Maine constitutional provision regarding the right to keep and bear arms. We went over the case of State v. Friel, the 1987 constitutional amendment, and then State v. Brown. We then began our discussion of D.C. v. Heller, getting through that part of the decision that decided that the right protected was an individual right, not a militia-related collective defense right. We will pick up on Friday with the nature of that individual right, and the limitations on the right. The assignment for Friday 2/22 is to review Heller, previously assigned.

February 18, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/18, I reminded the class that we would have Exam #1, open-book and open-note, on Wednesday, 2/27. We finished up our look at the Maine statutes regarding use of force in defense of premises and property. we began our discussion of the Smith case, getting up to the prior proceedings in the case. We will continue with the remainder of Smith on Wednesday. The additional assignment for Wednesday 2/20 is to read the remainder of Chapter 1 of the text, pp. 42-45 (Suggs v. Norris).

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/18, I reminded the class that we would have Exam #1, open-book and open-note, on Wednesday, 2/27. I handed back the Free Exercise papers, and we briefly went over them. I went over the decision by the Law Court in the invasion of privacy case (Strong) that we listened to last week. I also finished the discussion of Hibbs and Coleman that we had started earlier regarding congruence and proportionality, and pointed out how the two different results in those cases made no sense really to any of the Justices. We began our discussion of the Second Amendment with some sharing of opinions about what policies made sense for control of guns. We will continue on Wednesday 2/20 with an examination of D.C. v. Heller, previously assigned.

February 15, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/15, we started by finishing off the Katko case. We discussed the punitive damages issue, both as the majority and as the dissent dealt with it, and then went back and looked at the question of intent. We went through the four levels of mental state defined by Maine law, ranging from intent down to negligence. We then turned to the Maine statutes regarding the uses of force in defense of premises and in defense of property. We went over proper Maine statutory citation form. We looked at the definitions of deadly and non-deadly force, and also the force that is justified in defense of property. We will pick up with the justification regarding defense of premises on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/18 is to review at Maine statutory handout, and to review the Smith case, previously assigned.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/15, I collected the Free Exercise papers. I also distributed one more handout with an article about gun rights. We spent the class going over the parts of the Free Exercise paper. I plan to return the papers on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/18 is to read pp. 387-396 of the text.

February 13, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/13, I distributed two handouts: an article about law school reform (it's just for your information--not on the test), and the Maine statutes regarding use of force in defense of premises and property. We the launched back into Katko. We discussed the idea of common law, jury instructions, and the meaning of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We went over the different kinds of authority looked at by the Iowa Court. We looked at primary authority versus secondary authority; mandatory authority versus persuasive authority; and distinguishing, following and extending precedent. We will begin on Friday with the Court's discussion of punitive damages. The assignment for Friday 2/15 is to review Katko, (one more time) including the dissent, look at the Maine statute I passed out and think about how the Katko facts would be resolved under that statute, and also read and prepare to discuss Smith v. Idaho, p. 34.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/13, I distributed five handouts: one about the Law Court oral argument that we listened to today, and four articles about gun control. We the listened to the live stream of today's oral argument in State v. Strong, regarding the reach of the Maine statute against videotaping people in settings in which they have an expectation of privacy. I then clarified some questions that students had about the Free Exercise paper. For the first section of the paper, I do want the specific points made by Scalia. You can pretty much go paragraph by paragraph through his opinion. In grading, I will be asking whether you demonstrated an understanding of what points he's making, and what points O'Connor makes in response. For the second part, I am looking for an analysis under the Free Exercise Clause; but Korte did have other Causes of Action, and to the extent that you find those other Causes of Action to be significant to your Free Exercise discussion, they can play a role in your answer. For the third section, you have free reign to come up with an interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause that makes sense to you, but you should be clear as to how you are treating precedent: following distinguishing, overruling. etc., the major theories of how the Clause should be interpreted. The assignment for Friday 2/15 is to finish the Free Exercise paper (due at the beginning of Friday's class) and also to read the handouts on gun control.

February 11, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/11, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Prescott case brief, and the Prescott Comment Key. I returned the Prescott case briefs.I announced that the plan is to have the first exam on Wednesday, February 27th. We went over the Prescott case brief, emphasizing what makes a brief useful in the first place. I also talked about the difference between an objective test versus a subjective test, regarding the feeling of being compelled to answer questions. We discussed how the police might use the lessons of the Prescott case to conduct a more admissible interrogation of a suspect. We then began our discussion of the Katko case. We talked about the story of the case, and got through the cause of action. We will pick up at that point on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 2/13 is to review the Katko opinion (again).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/11, I distributed one handout, a newspaper article regarding guns on the campus of University of Colorado. We reviewed the majority opinion in Boerne, and then went through all of the concurring and dissenting opinions. I went over two follow-up cases regarding the scope of Congress' Section 5 power, Hibbs and Coleman . We will finish those two cases on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 2/13 is to read the distributed article, and to continue work on your Free Expression paper, previously assigned, due Friday 2/15.

February 8, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today. Friday 2/8, I collected the Prescott briefs, and we discussed them pretty much the entire class period. I plan on returning them on Monday (barring a heart attack from shoveling). The assignment for Monday 2/11 is to review Katko, previously assigned.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today Friday 2/8, I distributed two handouts: one was Assignment #1, reproduced below, which will be due at the beginning of class on Friday 2/15. We went over the requirements of the assignment. The second handout was a ballot for the class to decide what subjects you want to cover (in addition to free speech) for the remainder of the semester. The winners were (in order of votes) the Second Amendment, the right to be free from discrimination, and the freedom of the press. We then discussed the Boerne case, trying to translate into English exactly what the Court found that Congress had done wrong. We will continue with Boerne and its progeny on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/11 is to begin work on the assignment, and to review Boerne.


Assignment #1
For this assignment, I'm asking you to do some explication and discussion of the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence that we've covered. I’m asking you for three brief sections, identified as such (number the sections of your responses).

First, I would like you to make a “he said” (Scalia) /“she said” (O’Connor) chart of Smith. Using your own words, briefly identify each proposition of Scalia in the case (use the order in which he presented them in his opinion), and then identify O’Connor’s response.

You should be listing such areas as the nature of the protections offered by the Free Exercise Clause, treatment of precedent (in detail), the nature of the scrutiny to which government policies are subjected, etc. It’s pretty much paragraph by paragraph in Scalia’s opinion. Then list O’Connor’s response. If she doesn’t have one, but Blackmun does, use his (and indicate that you’re doing so).

Here’s an (inaccurate) example of what I’m looking for:
Scalia:
1. The Free Exercise Clause protects only beliefs, never actions.
O’Connor:
1. No, the Free Exercise Clause protects all actions, as long as the actions are religiously motivated.


Second, start with the facts of the Korte case. Using the Free Exercise clause (instead of RFRA) make the best argument that you can that the Kortes should prevail under Smith. In other words, can you in some way distinguish Smith? Use particular concepts or language from Scalia’s opinion to make your point.

Third, briefly give (and explain) your own opinion about whether the Kortes should win their case under the Free Exercise Clause. If they should win, is this because Smith should be distinguished (as you’ve tried to do in Part Two); because Smith uses the wrong test; etc. Explain how you think the Free Exercise Clause should apply to their situation, being free to follow, distinguish, overrule precedent at will (in other words, pretend that you’re Justice Thomas).

Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather on how well you complete the assignment and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.

The paper should be a minimum of 2 pages long, and no more than 3 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. Just respond to the questions I’ve asked, rather than providing an introduction of any sort.

The paper will be due at the beginning of the class on Friday, February 15. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.


The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. If you have any questions about what it is that I am looking for, I’m the person to contact. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.