POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/25, I handed back the Brown case briefs, as well as the Comment Key. We then finished our far-ranging discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius. We will start with dictum and the Butler case (previously assigned) next Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 12/2 is to read through p. 110 of the text (Dempsey). Have a good and safe Thanksgiving.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/25, we went over the Ormsby opinion. We discussed the technique of using non-custodial interrogations in order to accomplish some of what the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed in terms of non-Mirandized statements in Seibert. I also went over two other cases, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) and the Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Prescott (2012). These cases complete our study of Chapter 11 of the text. The assignment for Tuesday 12/2 is to read in Chapter 12 of the text through p. 551 (Powell v. Alabama and Gideon v. Wainwright). Have a good and safe Thanksgiving.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Thursday, November 20, 2014
November 20, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/20, I collected the Brown case briefs, and also distributed my version of that brief. I plan to return the Brown briefs on Tuesday. We went over the brief. We began our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius, looking at the words of the Constitution (both the taxing power and interstate commerce), and beginning the discussion over precedent prior to this case. We'll continue with NFIB on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/25 s to read in the text through p. 106 (Butler).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/20, I distributed one handout, the Maine Supreme Court opinion in State v. Ormsby, 2013 ME 88 (if you weren't in class, you can email me for the edited version, or read the whole thing at the Maine Supreme Court website (http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/index.shtml).
We finished our discussion of Miranda, then talked about some exceptions as pointed out in the textbook chart. We went over the Seibert case. I then discussed the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case of Salinas v. Texas, about the consequences when a suspect becomes silent when asked questions during a non-custodial interrogation. The assignment for Tuesday 11/25 is to read and prepare to discuss the Ormsby Maine Supreme Court decision.
In class today, Thursday 11/20, I collected the Brown case briefs, and also distributed my version of that brief. I plan to return the Brown briefs on Tuesday. We went over the brief. We began our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius, looking at the words of the Constitution (both the taxing power and interstate commerce), and beginning the discussion over precedent prior to this case. We'll continue with NFIB on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/25 s to read in the text through p. 106 (Butler).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/20, I distributed one handout, the Maine Supreme Court opinion in State v. Ormsby, 2013 ME 88 (if you weren't in class, you can email me for the edited version, or read the whole thing at the Maine Supreme Court website (http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/index.shtml).
We finished our discussion of Miranda, then talked about some exceptions as pointed out in the textbook chart. We went over the Seibert case. I then discussed the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case of Salinas v. Texas, about the consequences when a suspect becomes silent when asked questions during a non-custodial interrogation. The assignment for Tuesday 11/25 is to read and prepare to discuss the Ormsby Maine Supreme Court decision.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
November 18, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/18, we went over a number of questions regarding the Brown case brief. I first clarified that you should not brief those issues that are contained in the footnotes to the case (pages 5-6). You should, however, brief the issues that are addressed in the body of the opinion, even if part of the Court's discussion is dictum (e.g., equitable estoppel and Blue Hill ordinance). For issues that are dictum, indicate this by putting "[DICTUM]" prior to that "Issue". We went over the substance of a number of the issues raised, and we also discussed some of the politics behind the decision. The assignment for Thursday 11/20 is to complete the Brown case brief, due at the beginning of class. After we finish our discussion of Brown, we'll go on to discuss NFIB v. Sebelius, previously assigned.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/18, I first handed back the Davis outlines, as well as my version of that outline. We went over the theme of police culpability as reflected in the three Davis opinions. We also did a brief overview of the four exclusionary rule cases we covered, in terms of which ones featured any police culpability. We then left the 4th Amendment and turned to the 5th and 6th. We started with the text of those amendments, and saw how limited the literal protections are. We then covered Escobedo, which itself was midstream in terms of 5th and 6th Amendment development. We saw how Escobedo extended the point at which the right to counsel attached, as well as intertwining of the 5th and 6th Amendment protections. We then started out discussion of Miranda. We first discussed how Miranda's situation was not covered by the rule in Escobedo, and then went through the rule regarding exactly what police need to tell suspects, and when they need to tell them that. We will finish Miranda on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 11/20 is to finish reading Chapter 11 (including Seibert).
In class today, Tuesday 11/18, we went over a number of questions regarding the Brown case brief. I first clarified that you should not brief those issues that are contained in the footnotes to the case (pages 5-6). You should, however, brief the issues that are addressed in the body of the opinion, even if part of the Court's discussion is dictum (e.g., equitable estoppel and Blue Hill ordinance). For issues that are dictum, indicate this by putting "[DICTUM]" prior to that "Issue". We went over the substance of a number of the issues raised, and we also discussed some of the politics behind the decision. The assignment for Thursday 11/20 is to complete the Brown case brief, due at the beginning of class. After we finish our discussion of Brown, we'll go on to discuss NFIB v. Sebelius, previously assigned.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/18, I first handed back the Davis outlines, as well as my version of that outline. We went over the theme of police culpability as reflected in the three Davis opinions. We also did a brief overview of the four exclusionary rule cases we covered, in terms of which ones featured any police culpability. We then left the 4th Amendment and turned to the 5th and 6th. We started with the text of those amendments, and saw how limited the literal protections are. We then covered Escobedo, which itself was midstream in terms of 5th and 6th Amendment development. We saw how Escobedo extended the point at which the right to counsel attached, as well as intertwining of the 5th and 6th Amendment protections. We then started out discussion of Miranda. We first discussed how Miranda's situation was not covered by the rule in Escobedo, and then went through the rule regarding exactly what police need to tell suspects, and when they need to tell them that. We will finish Miranda on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 11/20 is to finish reading Chapter 11 (including Seibert).
Thursday, November 13, 2014
November 13, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/13, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the Maine Supreme Court opinion in State v. Brown. I talked a little about the doctrine of Equitable Estoppel that's part of the Brown case. We then finished our discussion of Caperton v. Massey Coal. The assignment for Tuesday 11/18 is to begin work on the Brown case brief, and also to review NFIB v. Sebelius (previously assigned).
Assignment due Thursday November 20th, 2014
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Brown, 2014 ME 83, 95 A.3d 82. (If you were not in class today, you can email me for my edited version of the case).
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, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” 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 11/20, 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. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work.
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. If you don’t get a confirmation by the end of the day, email me.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/13, I collected the Davis outlines. We went over them, and I plan to grade them this weekend and return them next Tuesday. I then discussed the Nov. 10th decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Carroll v. Carman, a civil suit against a policeman who engaged in an (arguably) unconstitutional search in a "knock and talk" case. The assignment for Tuesday 11/18 is to read in the text pp. 517-529 (Escobedo and Miranda).
In class today, Thursday 11/13, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the Maine Supreme Court opinion in State v. Brown. I talked a little about the doctrine of Equitable Estoppel that's part of the Brown case. We then finished our discussion of Caperton v. Massey Coal. The assignment for Tuesday 11/18 is to begin work on the Brown case brief, and also to review NFIB v. Sebelius (previously assigned).
Assignment due Thursday November 20th, 2014
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Brown, 2014 ME 83, 95 A.3d 82. (If you were not in class today, you can email me for my edited version of the case).
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, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” 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 11/20, 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. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work.
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. If you don’t get a confirmation by the end of the day, email me.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/13, I collected the Davis outlines. We went over them, and I plan to grade them this weekend and return them next Tuesday. I then discussed the Nov. 10th decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Carroll v. Carman, a civil suit against a policeman who engaged in an (arguably) unconstitutional search in a "knock and talk" case. The assignment for Tuesday 11/18 is to read in the text pp. 517-529 (Escobedo and Miranda).
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
November 11, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/11, I began with a discussion of last week's 6th Circuit opinion which for the first time had a U.S. Court of Appeals uphold the constitutionality of state laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman. We then finished our analysis of Glassford v. BrickKicker, going through the different issues that the Court tackled. We also contrasted this Vermont case with the Maine case law that we looked at last week. We began our discussion of the the Caperton case, looking at the 1927 Tumey case and what it held. We will continue with Caperton on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 11/13 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 98 of the text (NFIB v. Sebelius).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/11, we first went over both the format and some substance of the Davis outline. That outline is due at the beginning of class on Thursday. We then talked about the October 1, 2014 Third Circuit decision of U.S. v. Katzin. We looked at how the majority and the dissenting opinions disagreed on what the holding in Davis really was. We also looked at how the 4th Amendment jurisprudence develops, both in terms of whether there's any incentive (reward) for bringing a successful 4th Amendment challenge, and whether the 4th Amendment issue even gets reached (if suppression can be decided before the substantive 4th Amendment issue). The assignment for Thursday 11/13 is to finish work on your Davis outlines, due at the beginning of class on Thursday. If for any reason you cannot be in class on Thursday, you should e-mail your paper to me by the beginning of class, and make sure that you get a confirmation that I received and could read your outline (no confirmation, no credit).
In class today, Tuesday 11/11, I began with a discussion of last week's 6th Circuit opinion which for the first time had a U.S. Court of Appeals uphold the constitutionality of state laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman. We then finished our analysis of Glassford v. BrickKicker, going through the different issues that the Court tackled. We also contrasted this Vermont case with the Maine case law that we looked at last week. We began our discussion of the the Caperton case, looking at the 1927 Tumey case and what it held. We will continue with Caperton on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 11/13 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 98 of the text (NFIB v. Sebelius).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/11, we first went over both the format and some substance of the Davis outline. That outline is due at the beginning of class on Thursday. We then talked about the October 1, 2014 Third Circuit decision of U.S. v. Katzin. We looked at how the majority and the dissenting opinions disagreed on what the holding in Davis really was. We also looked at how the 4th Amendment jurisprudence develops, both in terms of whether there's any incentive (reward) for bringing a successful 4th Amendment challenge, and whether the 4th Amendment issue even gets reached (if suppression can be decided before the substantive 4th Amendment issue). The assignment for Thursday 11/13 is to finish work on your Davis outlines, due at the beginning of class on Thursday. If for any reason you cannot be in class on Thursday, you should e-mail your paper to me by the beginning of class, and make sure that you get a confirmation that I received and could read your outline (no confirmation, no credit).
Thursday, November 6, 2014
November 6, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/6, we began by discussing Lawrence v. Texas. We looked at rational basis review versus strict scrutiny, equal protection versus due process, and the rights of individual versus the power of government. We then began our discussion of Glassford v. BrickKicker. We looked at waiver of liability clauses. I discussed the Maine case of Lloyd v. Sugarloaf, the mountain biking case in which the Maine Supreme Court looked at the enforceability of waivers in Maine. We will begin next Tuesday with the question of what kind of clause was at issue in Glassford. The additional assignment for Tuesday 11/11 is to finish Chapter II of the text (Caperton).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/6, we first finished our discussion of Herring, paying particular attention to the culpability question. We traced the flow of the Court's opinion, and then also discussed the two dissents. We then turned to Davis (the subject of the outline assignment), going over the question of retroactivity as laid out in Linkletter and Griffith. The assignment for Tuesday 11/11 is to continue working on the Davis outline, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 11/13.
In class today, Thursday 11/6, we began by discussing Lawrence v. Texas. We looked at rational basis review versus strict scrutiny, equal protection versus due process, and the rights of individual versus the power of government. We then began our discussion of Glassford v. BrickKicker. We looked at waiver of liability clauses. I discussed the Maine case of Lloyd v. Sugarloaf, the mountain biking case in which the Maine Supreme Court looked at the enforceability of waivers in Maine. We will begin next Tuesday with the question of what kind of clause was at issue in Glassford. The additional assignment for Tuesday 11/11 is to finish Chapter II of the text (Caperton).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/6, we first finished our discussion of Herring, paying particular attention to the culpability question. We traced the flow of the Court's opinion, and then also discussed the two dissents. We then turned to Davis (the subject of the outline assignment), going over the question of retroactivity as laid out in Linkletter and Griffith. The assignment for Tuesday 11/11 is to continue working on the Davis outline, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 11/13.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
November 4, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/4, we first reviewed Gregg v. Georgia, and then went through the Mobbley case. We looked at the Maine statute regarding Hindering Apprehension. We then discussed the Holland case, and looked again at the Maine statutes regarding both common law crimes, and the duty to report in child abuse cases. The assignment for Thursday 11/6 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 78 of the text (Lawrence and Glassford).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/4, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case that you'll be outlining, Davis v. U.S. We began by reviewing Mapp and Leon, and then went over how Hudson continued the narrowing of the exclusionary rule. We began our discussion of Herring, getting through the basic facts of the case and how the question posed continued again the narrowing of the exclusionary rule. The assignment for Thursday 4/6 is to review Herring, and to at least read Davis.
Assignment due Thursday November 13, 2014
The assignment is to do an outline of Davis v. U.S. (distributed to the class 11/4).
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 the majority, concurring, 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 11/13, 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. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. 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 you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
In class today, Tuesday 11/4, we first reviewed Gregg v. Georgia, and then went through the Mobbley case. We looked at the Maine statute regarding Hindering Apprehension. We then discussed the Holland case, and looked again at the Maine statutes regarding both common law crimes, and the duty to report in child abuse cases. The assignment for Thursday 11/6 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 78 of the text (Lawrence and Glassford).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/4, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case that you'll be outlining, Davis v. U.S. We began by reviewing Mapp and Leon, and then went over how Hudson continued the narrowing of the exclusionary rule. We began our discussion of Herring, getting through the basic facts of the case and how the question posed continued again the narrowing of the exclusionary rule. The assignment for Thursday 4/6 is to review Herring, and to at least read Davis.
Assignment due Thursday November 13, 2014
The assignment is to do an outline of Davis v. U.S. (distributed to the class 11/4).
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 the majority, concurring, 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 11/13, 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. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. 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 you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)