POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today Friday 5/6, I reviewed the schedule for Exam #2 (Monday 5/9, 10:30-11:45). If you are missing any handouts, email me with what you need by 9pm on Sunday. The exam is not comprehensive over the entire semester, but rather will only cover the material we have covered since the first test. We first went over the handout from last class, the federal venue statute, and contrasted the federal venue with state court personal jurisdiction (which, unlike federal venue, is grounded in constitutional constraints). We then went over Salmon v. Atkinson. We explored the reason for contingent fee agreements, and the Arkansas Supreme Court's examination of how other states have handled the situation raised by a firing of a law firm that's working on a contingent fee. I then went over the Maine Supreme Court case of Paffhausen v. Balano (not the the first time this semester) which differentiated the theory of quantum meruit from that of unjust enrichment. See you Monday.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today Friday 5/6, I reviewed the schedule for Exam #2 (Wednesday 5/11, 10:30-11:45). If you are missing any handouts, email me with what you need by 9pm on Tuesday. The exam is not comprehensive over the entire semester, but rather will only cover the material we have covered since the first test. We finished our discussion of Ohio v. Clark and the Confrontation Clause by going over Thomas' view of the correct question to ask for whether a declaration is testimonial. We then dipped our toes into the murky waters of the Double Jeopardy clause. We started with the question of what constitutes the "same offense". I talked about the Maine Supreme Court case of Ayotte v. State, involving multiple prosecutions for theft. We watched a clip from the movie "Double Jeopardy", in which the issue is whether a person can be prosecuted for shooting a victim when that person has already been convicted of killing the same victim. I talked about Ashe v. Swenson, in which the Supreme Court forbade successive prosecutions for the same basic event after an acquittal for one of the victims. We then talked about the concept of dual sovereigns, and I discussed the current Supreme Court case of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez-Valle, which raises the question of whether Puerto Rico is the same sovereign as the federal government. Finally, I then talked about two cases regarding whether there can be a retrial after trial court error. In
Evans v. Michigan, the Supreme Court found that the defendant may not be retried after an acquittal, even though the instructions to the jury were wrong on the law. In Lockhart v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court allowed a resentencing after the original enhanced sentence was thrown out because of the erroneous submission of a prior offense that had in fact been pardoned by the state Governor. The difference seemed based on the distinction between errors of substance (no retrial allowed) versus procedural errors (retrial allowed).
See you Wednesday.
Friday, May 6, 2016
Monday, May 2, 2016
May 2. 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 5/2, I distributed one handout, the federal venue statute. We first discussed schedules, as there is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). I also said that our Exam #2 will be Monday 5/9 10:30 - 11:45 (not 2 hours, as is on the finals schedule). We discussed the idea behind federal court diversity jurisdiction, and the reasons that a party might want to be or not be in federal court, as opposed to state court. We went over St. James Apartments, and the citizenship of an LLC. I then talked about a March U.S. Supreme Court case, Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra, which decided the correct way to figure the citizenship of a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). We also discussed Frump v. Claire's Boutiques, which dealt with the question of how to figure the amount in controversy. The assignment for Friday 5/6 is to read today's handout on federal court venue, and to read in the text through p. 159 (Salmon v. Atkinson).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 5/2, we first discussed schedules, as there is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). I also said that our Exam #2 will be Wednesday 5/11 10:30 - 11:45 (not 2 hours, as is on the finals schedule). I handed back the Assignment #2 papers, as well as a page of my Notes about the assignment and what I was looking for. We then discussed the confrontation clause. We started with the text of the clause, and talked about the three protections of the Clause. I then talked about the hearsay rule, and how it also dealt with the situation of not being able to confront the person who made the statement. I went over the dramatic change in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence in the Crawford case, which said that the Confrontation Clause is not tied to the hearsay rule and its exceptions. I read an excerpt from Scalia's dissent in Michigan v. Bryant, in which he accused the Court majority of reverting to a pre-Crawford tying of the Confrontation Clause to the hearsay exceptions. We then waded into the three opinions in Ohio v. Clark, which, despite the unanimity of the decision, had three very different views. We went over the concept of "testimony", and how some out-of-court statements are testimonial, while others are not. We looked at the emergency role of the police versus the prosecution-preparation role of the police. We examined the three opinions in terms of whether teachers could be considered to be in the same shoes as the police. I will begin on Friday with Thomas' view of the correct question to ask to determine if something is testimonial, which is different from the question asked by the other Justices. The assignment for Friday 5/6 is to review Ohio v. Clark, and to read in the text pp. 596 - 598 (double jeopardy).
In class today, Monday 5/2, I distributed one handout, the federal venue statute. We first discussed schedules, as there is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). I also said that our Exam #2 will be Monday 5/9 10:30 - 11:45 (not 2 hours, as is on the finals schedule). We discussed the idea behind federal court diversity jurisdiction, and the reasons that a party might want to be or not be in federal court, as opposed to state court. We went over St. James Apartments, and the citizenship of an LLC. I then talked about a March U.S. Supreme Court case, Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra, which decided the correct way to figure the citizenship of a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). We also discussed Frump v. Claire's Boutiques, which dealt with the question of how to figure the amount in controversy. The assignment for Friday 5/6 is to read today's handout on federal court venue, and to read in the text through p. 159 (Salmon v. Atkinson).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 5/2, we first discussed schedules, as there is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). I also said that our Exam #2 will be Wednesday 5/11 10:30 - 11:45 (not 2 hours, as is on the finals schedule). I handed back the Assignment #2 papers, as well as a page of my Notes about the assignment and what I was looking for. We then discussed the confrontation clause. We started with the text of the clause, and talked about the three protections of the Clause. I then talked about the hearsay rule, and how it also dealt with the situation of not being able to confront the person who made the statement. I went over the dramatic change in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence in the Crawford case, which said that the Confrontation Clause is not tied to the hearsay rule and its exceptions. I read an excerpt from Scalia's dissent in Michigan v. Bryant, in which he accused the Court majority of reverting to a pre-Crawford tying of the Confrontation Clause to the hearsay exceptions. We then waded into the three opinions in Ohio v. Clark, which, despite the unanimity of the decision, had three very different views. We went over the concept of "testimony", and how some out-of-court statements are testimonial, while others are not. We looked at the emergency role of the police versus the prosecution-preparation role of the police. We examined the three opinions in terms of whether teachers could be considered to be in the same shoes as the police. I will begin on Friday with Thomas' view of the correct question to ask to determine if something is testimonial, which is different from the question asked by the other Justices. The assignment for Friday 5/6 is to review Ohio v. Clark, and to read in the text pp. 596 - 598 (double jeopardy).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)