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.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)