POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/29, we spent pretty much the entire class going over the Jones case brief that is due next Thursday. We explored all of the arguments made (by the Commissioner, the Solicitor General, the dissent, and even by Jones) and the responses given (issues and holdings). We also talked about the dissenting opinion, and how they challenged specific holdings of the majority. Finally, I spent a little time talking about the cause of action in Katko, and the nature of a common law cause of action. The assignment for Tuesday 10/4 is to work on your Jones case brief, and review Katko and the Maine statute on use of force.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
September 28, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 9/28, we began by going through the Crosby opinion, and putting it into an outline format. We discussed the basis of Scalia's concurrence. I also talked about Obama's order of two weeks ago to terminate sanctions, and how the presidential ability to stop sanctions was a big part of the Court's decision. We then went through Arizona v. U.S., going through the different forms of preemption found by the Court majority, as well as the provision that was not preempted. We discussed the three dissenting opinions. We then left preemption and started the new federalism topic of coercion. We started with Steward Machine, and the did South Dakota v. Dole. We began our discussion of NFIB. I discussed the overall plan of Obamacare to push all groups into the insured circle, and talked about how the Congressional power to impose the individual mandate was located not in the commerce power, but rather under the taxing power of Congress. We began our discussion of the Medicaid expansion. We got up to the part of Roberts' opinion that looked at South Dakota v. Dole (p.565), which is where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Wednesday 10/5 is to review NFIB, outlining (for yourself) the remainder of Roberts' opinion, as well as the Medicaid expansion parts of the Ginsburg and Scalia opinions. Also, read in the text pp. 415-439.
In class today, Wednesday 9/28, we began by going through the Crosby opinion, and putting it into an outline format. We discussed the basis of Scalia's concurrence. I also talked about Obama's order of two weeks ago to terminate sanctions, and how the presidential ability to stop sanctions was a big part of the Court's decision. We then went through Arizona v. U.S., going through the different forms of preemption found by the Court majority, as well as the provision that was not preempted. We discussed the three dissenting opinions. We then left preemption and started the new federalism topic of coercion. We started with Steward Machine, and the did South Dakota v. Dole. We began our discussion of NFIB. I discussed the overall plan of Obamacare to push all groups into the insured circle, and talked about how the Congressional power to impose the individual mandate was located not in the commerce power, but rather under the taxing power of Congress. We began our discussion of the Medicaid expansion. We got up to the part of Roberts' opinion that looked at South Dakota v. Dole (p.565), which is where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Wednesday 10/5 is to review NFIB, outlining (for yourself) the remainder of Roberts' opinion, as well as the Medicaid expansion parts of the Ginsburg and Scalia opinions. Also, read in the text pp. 415-439.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
September 27, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/27, I distributed 3 handouts: assignment #1 (reproduced below): the case you'll be briefing, Jones v. Flowers, 547 US 220 (2006): and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises (to go with the Katko case). I began by going over the requirements of the assignment. We then finished going over the Speelman hypotheticals that I had distributed last week. We looked at whether there were defenses to the letter that the BHA had sent, and also how the case might have come out if the BHA had needed to do some research in order to figure out in which jail Speelman was being kept. We began the Katko case, going over the brief segments down to the cause of action. When we resume our discussion of Katko, we'll begin with the concept of common law. The assignment for Thursday 9/29 is to begin the Jones case brief assignment. I'll take your questions about the briefing of Jones, so be sure to get started on that process. Also, review the Katko case and its briefing, and study the Maine statute handed out today, asking yourself whether the Brineys could have been convicted in a Maine criminal case for the spring gun.
Assignment due Thursday, October 6, 2016
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Jones v. Flowers 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (also distributed to the class today).
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. Do not include the “even though…” segment. Brief only the majority opinion. For the dissenting opinion, summarize in plain English (not using the Brief Format) all those points on which the dissent disagrees with the majority.
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 10/6, 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. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but 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.
In class today, Tuesday 9/27, I distributed 3 handouts: assignment #1 (reproduced below): the case you'll be briefing, Jones v. Flowers, 547 US 220 (2006): and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises (to go with the Katko case). I began by going over the requirements of the assignment. We then finished going over the Speelman hypotheticals that I had distributed last week. We looked at whether there were defenses to the letter that the BHA had sent, and also how the case might have come out if the BHA had needed to do some research in order to figure out in which jail Speelman was being kept. We began the Katko case, going over the brief segments down to the cause of action. When we resume our discussion of Katko, we'll begin with the concept of common law. The assignment for Thursday 9/29 is to begin the Jones case brief assignment. I'll take your questions about the briefing of Jones, so be sure to get started on that process. Also, review the Katko case and its briefing, and study the Maine statute handed out today, asking yourself whether the Brineys could have been convicted in a Maine criminal case for the spring gun.
Assignment due Thursday, October 6, 2016
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Jones v. Flowers 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (also distributed to the class today).
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. Do not include the “even though…” segment. Brief only the majority opinion. For the dissenting opinion, summarize in plain English (not using the Brief Format) all those points on which the dissent disagrees with the majority.
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 10/6, 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. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but 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.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
September 22, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/22, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Speelman case brief, and some hypothetical variations of Speelman. I gave the class my planned schedule for the upcoming graded case brief: I plan to assign the brief on Tuesday 9/27, with the assignment due Thursday 10/6. We talked about the relationship between the 5th Amendment due process clause, and the 14th Amendment clause. We then launched into the Speelman case brief. I went over federal statutory citation form, and state court opinion citation form. I discussed injunctive relief, preliminary injunctions, and temporary restraining orders. I also went over the concept of mandatory authority, as contrasted with persuasive authority. We then discussed the hypotheticals down to the end of question one. We will start next Tuesday with how the hearing on the merits might go: whether Speelman had violated the rules, what the notice said, and whether she should in fact lose her voucher. The assignment for Tuesday 9/27 is to read in the text through p. 43 and prepare (for yourself) a case brief of Katko v. Briney.
In class today, Thursday 9/22, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Speelman case brief, and some hypothetical variations of Speelman. I gave the class my planned schedule for the upcoming graded case brief: I plan to assign the brief on Tuesday 9/27, with the assignment due Thursday 10/6. We talked about the relationship between the 5th Amendment due process clause, and the 14th Amendment clause. We then launched into the Speelman case brief. I went over federal statutory citation form, and state court opinion citation form. I discussed injunctive relief, preliminary injunctions, and temporary restraining orders. I also went over the concept of mandatory authority, as contrasted with persuasive authority. We then discussed the hypotheticals down to the end of question one. We will start next Tuesday with how the hearing on the merits might go: whether Speelman had violated the rules, what the notice said, and whether she should in fact lose her voucher. The assignment for Tuesday 9/27 is to read in the text through p. 43 and prepare (for yourself) a case brief of Katko v. Briney.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
September 21, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 9/21, I distributed two handouts, my versions of the New York and the Prinz opinion (majority, concurrence, and dissent). After reviewing National League of Cities and Garcia, we went through the outline of New York v. US. Along the way, we went over the concepts of following, distinguishing, and overruling precedent. We then outlined the Prinz case. We went through Missouri v. Holland, and along the way went through the organization of the federal court system. We began the facts of Crosby v. NFTC, which is where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Wednesday 9/28 is to review Crosby and Arizona (through p. 414), previously assigned, and then to read in the text pp. 553-568.
In class today, Wednesday 9/21, I distributed two handouts, my versions of the New York and the Prinz opinion (majority, concurrence, and dissent). After reviewing National League of Cities and Garcia, we went through the outline of New York v. US. Along the way, we went over the concepts of following, distinguishing, and overruling precedent. We then outlined the Prinz case. We went through Missouri v. Holland, and along the way went through the organization of the federal court system. We began the facts of Crosby v. NFTC, which is where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Wednesday 9/28 is to review Crosby and Arizona (through p. 414), previously assigned, and then to read in the text pp. 553-568.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
September 20, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/20, I distributed one handout, my version of the Lawrence v. Texas case brief. We began by going over the Obergefell handout, looking at both the majority and the dissent in terms of their treatment of Glucksberg. We discussed the options of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. Kennedy and Roberts disagreed about how the Obergefell Court was treating the Glucksberg precedent. Kennedy and Roberts also disagreed about the proper role of the courts in this dispute, compared to the role of the state legislatures. We then moved on to Lawrence v. Texas. We went through a case brief of the case. We looked at both the due process and equal protection arguments, and why Kennedy chose one rather than the other. We also looked at the flow chart that Kennedy seemed to be following, and then how he pulled an unexpected word out of his hat at the end of the case. The assignment for Thursday 9/22 is to read in the text pp. 34-38, and to write out (for yourselves, not handed in) a case brief of Speelman.
In class today, Tuesday 9/20, I distributed one handout, my version of the Lawrence v. Texas case brief. We began by going over the Obergefell handout, looking at both the majority and the dissent in terms of their treatment of Glucksberg. We discussed the options of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. Kennedy and Roberts disagreed about how the Obergefell Court was treating the Glucksberg precedent. Kennedy and Roberts also disagreed about the proper role of the courts in this dispute, compared to the role of the state legislatures. We then moved on to Lawrence v. Texas. We went through a case brief of the case. We looked at both the due process and equal protection arguments, and why Kennedy chose one rather than the other. We also looked at the flow chart that Kennedy seemed to be following, and then how he pulled an unexpected word out of his hat at the end of the case. The assignment for Thursday 9/22 is to read in the text pp. 34-38, and to write out (for yourselves, not handed in) a case brief of Speelman.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
September 15, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/15, I distributed two handouts, my version of the Glucksberg case brief, and the Maine statutes regarding aiding suicide. We went through the Glucksberg case brief. Along the way, we laid out the organization of the federal court system, the difference between a panel opinion of a court of appeals decision versus an en banc opinion, and the citation form that lets you know what level of court opinion you are reading. We went over the Maine statute, and also citation form for Maine statutes. We will begin on Tuesday 9/20 with Obergefell (distributed on Tuesday). The additional reading for Tuesday 9/20 is to read in the text pp. 67-72 (Lawrence v. Texas).
In class today, Thursday 9/15, I distributed two handouts, my version of the Glucksberg case brief, and the Maine statutes regarding aiding suicide. We went through the Glucksberg case brief. Along the way, we laid out the organization of the federal court system, the difference between a panel opinion of a court of appeals decision versus an en banc opinion, and the citation form that lets you know what level of court opinion you are reading. We went over the Maine statute, and also citation form for Maine statutes. We will begin on Tuesday 9/20 with Obergefell (distributed on Tuesday). The additional reading for Tuesday 9/20 is to read in the text pp. 67-72 (Lawrence v. Texas).
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
September 14, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 9/14, I distributed one handout, my version of the outline of McCulloch v. Maryland. We began class by going over the features and deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. We then went through the constitution, looking at its organization (what subject is addressed by each of the Articles and Sections), as well as some of the substantive provisions. We discussed the difference between the retention by the states of the general "police power", versus the limit on the federal government to those powers laid out in Article I, Section 8. We moved on to the textbook case of McCulloch. We went through the arguments made by Maryland, and the responses by Marshall, putting the case into the outline format. We went through National League of Cities and Garcia v. San Antonio, and looked at the different results in those case as both a product of different interpretations of the 10th Amendment, as well as a change in votes. We discussed the set-up of NY v. US. The assignment for Wednesday 9/21 is to review the previously assigned material through p. 387; write out (though not to hand in) an outline of NY v. US (both majority and dissenting opinions); and read in the text pp. 399-414.
In class today, Wednesday 9/14, I distributed one handout, my version of the outline of McCulloch v. Maryland. We began class by going over the features and deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. We then went through the constitution, looking at its organization (what subject is addressed by each of the Articles and Sections), as well as some of the substantive provisions. We discussed the difference between the retention by the states of the general "police power", versus the limit on the federal government to those powers laid out in Article I, Section 8. We moved on to the textbook case of McCulloch. We went through the arguments made by Maryland, and the responses by Marshall, putting the case into the outline format. We went through National League of Cities and Garcia v. San Antonio, and looked at the different results in those case as both a product of different interpretations of the 10th Amendment, as well as a change in votes. We discussed the set-up of NY v. US. The assignment for Wednesday 9/21 is to review the previously assigned material through p. 387; write out (though not to hand in) an outline of NY v. US (both majority and dissenting opinions); and read in the text pp. 399-414.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
September 13, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/13, I distributed two handouts: an article by Brittany Maynard about her right to assistance in suicide, and an excerpt from the same-sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges about the identification of fundamental rights. We began class by reviewing the holding of the Miller case at least as far as we understood it. We reviewed the concurrence by Breyer and the dissents by Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. We went over the difference between a concurrence in the judgment, versus a concurrence in the opinion. We talked about three institutional conflicts that the Court deals with: the rights of individual versus the power of government; the power of federal versus state government; and the separation of powers between executive, legislative, and judicial authority. I then talked about the 2016 case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, which dealt with the question of the retroactive application of the rule in Miller to prisoners who were already serving automatic LWOP sentences. We saw how the Montgomery majority interpreted the holding in Miller to be that the imposition of LWOP was categorically barred, regardless of procedure, as long as the juvenile was not found to be permanently incorrigible. We then turned our attention to substantive due process. We looked at the language and history of the due process clause. We went through the Glucksberg case brief as far as the prior proceedings, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. We also talked about how the designation of a right as "fundamental", or not, would result in either high hurdle or low hurdle oversight by the Court of the legislation that's being challenged. The assignment for Thursday 9/15 is to review Glucksberg and your case brief of it, and to read today's 2 handouts.
In class today, Tuesday 9/13, I distributed two handouts: an article by Brittany Maynard about her right to assistance in suicide, and an excerpt from the same-sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges about the identification of fundamental rights. We began class by reviewing the holding of the Miller case at least as far as we understood it. We reviewed the concurrence by Breyer and the dissents by Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. We went over the difference between a concurrence in the judgment, versus a concurrence in the opinion. We talked about three institutional conflicts that the Court deals with: the rights of individual versus the power of government; the power of federal versus state government; and the separation of powers between executive, legislative, and judicial authority. I then talked about the 2016 case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, which dealt with the question of the retroactive application of the rule in Miller to prisoners who were already serving automatic LWOP sentences. We saw how the Montgomery majority interpreted the holding in Miller to be that the imposition of LWOP was categorically barred, regardless of procedure, as long as the juvenile was not found to be permanently incorrigible. We then turned our attention to substantive due process. We looked at the language and history of the due process clause. We went through the Glucksberg case brief as far as the prior proceedings, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. We also talked about how the designation of a right as "fundamental", or not, would result in either high hurdle or low hurdle oversight by the Court of the legislation that's being challenged. The assignment for Thursday 9/15 is to review Glucksberg and your case brief of it, and to read today's 2 handouts.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
September 8, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/8, I distributed two handouts: a sheet on the Justices of the Supreme Court, and my version of the Miller case brief. We started today by talking about the difference between common law (where the judges themselves make up the rules) versus interpretation of enacted law (where the judges interpret the words of others, such as the words of the 8th Amendment). That brought us to the Miller case. We went through the case brief of Miller, focusing especially on the key facts of the case (upon what circumstances and factors did Kagan rely to find that this sentence violated the Eighth Amendment). Along the way, I went over 4 previous decisions of the Court regarding punishment of juveniles: Thompson v. Oklahoma; Stanford v. Kentucky; Roper v. Simmons; and Graham v. Florida. We looked at the lineup of Justices in Roper, Graham, and Miller, and, using the handout of Justices, talked about what effect the Presidential election may have on the outcome of cases like Miller. On Tuesday we will go over the other opinions in the Miller case (concurring and dissenting) and I will also talk about the 2016 case of Montgomery v. Louisiana. The assignment for Tuesday 9/13 is to review the rest of Miller, and today's handouts, and to read in the text through p. 34. Write out (for yourself, not handed in) a case brief of Glucksberg.
In class today, Thursday 9/8, I distributed two handouts: a sheet on the Justices of the Supreme Court, and my version of the Miller case brief. We started today by talking about the difference between common law (where the judges themselves make up the rules) versus interpretation of enacted law (where the judges interpret the words of others, such as the words of the 8th Amendment). That brought us to the Miller case. We went through the case brief of Miller, focusing especially on the key facts of the case (upon what circumstances and factors did Kagan rely to find that this sentence violated the Eighth Amendment). Along the way, I went over 4 previous decisions of the Court regarding punishment of juveniles: Thompson v. Oklahoma; Stanford v. Kentucky; Roper v. Simmons; and Graham v. Florida. We looked at the lineup of Justices in Roper, Graham, and Miller, and, using the handout of Justices, talked about what effect the Presidential election may have on the outcome of cases like Miller. On Tuesday we will go over the other opinions in the Miller case (concurring and dissenting) and I will also talk about the 2016 case of Montgomery v. Louisiana. The assignment for Tuesday 9/13 is to review the rest of Miller, and today's handouts, and to read in the text through p. 34. Write out (for yourself, not handed in) a case brief of Glucksberg.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
September 7, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 9/7, I distributed two handouts: a list of the Supreme Court Justices with a few useful Supreme Court websites; and my version of an outline of Ginsburg's opinion in Evenwel. We used the structure of the "questions" handout from last week to continue our discussion of voting and the constitution. We went over the Hasen article about the future of voting in the Court after Scalia. We discussed the Crawford voter id. case, and the recent successful challenges to voter id. laws. We talked about the Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court's removal of the VRA's key provision. We then turned to apportionment and redistricting. We used Ginsburg's opinion in Evenwel to go over the prior Supreme Court redistricting cases, and what they had to say about the separate question of the base measure for apportionment. I talked about the 1966 case of Burns v. Richardson, and how it dealt with Hawaii's base apportionment measure of actually registered voters versus citizens of voting age. We talked about the different "population" measures that might be used in apportionment: total population, legal residents, citizens, citizens of voting age, or registered voters. We went through Ginsburg's opinion and saw its structure and outline. We then went through the Thomas and Alito concurring opinions. Along the way we talked about Supreme Court citation format; facial versus as-applied legal challenges; the difference between a concurrence in the opinion versus a concurrence in the judgment; originalism; accepting as decided precedent with which a Justice disagrees, versus not accepting precedent; and appeals as of right versus petitions for a writ of certiorari. The assignment for next week, 9/14 is to read the Constitution (especially the part through the Bill of Rights; in the text pp.3-10; 343-355;and 367-387.
In class today, Wednesday 9/7, I distributed two handouts: a list of the Supreme Court Justices with a few useful Supreme Court websites; and my version of an outline of Ginsburg's opinion in Evenwel. We used the structure of the "questions" handout from last week to continue our discussion of voting and the constitution. We went over the Hasen article about the future of voting in the Court after Scalia. We discussed the Crawford voter id. case, and the recent successful challenges to voter id. laws. We talked about the Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court's removal of the VRA's key provision. We then turned to apportionment and redistricting. We used Ginsburg's opinion in Evenwel to go over the prior Supreme Court redistricting cases, and what they had to say about the separate question of the base measure for apportionment. I talked about the 1966 case of Burns v. Richardson, and how it dealt with Hawaii's base apportionment measure of actually registered voters versus citizens of voting age. We talked about the different "population" measures that might be used in apportionment: total population, legal residents, citizens, citizens of voting age, or registered voters. We went through Ginsburg's opinion and saw its structure and outline. We then went through the Thomas and Alito concurring opinions. Along the way we talked about Supreme Court citation format; facial versus as-applied legal challenges; the difference between a concurrence in the opinion versus a concurrence in the judgment; originalism; accepting as decided precedent with which a Justice disagrees, versus not accepting precedent; and appeals as of right versus petitions for a writ of certiorari. The assignment for next week, 9/14 is to read the Constitution (especially the part through the Bill of Rights; in the text pp.3-10; 343-355;and 367-387.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
September 6, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/6, we first reviewed the parts of the Mahmoud opinion that we had covered last week (the propriety of giving any instruction at all on eyewitness identification, whether the evidence generated an instruction of suggestive identification, and whether the instruction given about stress was good enough. We reviewed the idea that the law involved in the case was common law, in that it was a rule made by judges in the absence of enacted law. We finished up Mahmoud with the issue of whether the instruction given about accuracy and the witness's level of confidence was also good enough. We went through the format of the case brief, and we also added the loser's facts ("...even though...") to the last two issues of the brief.
We then turned to the textbook. I talked about the concept of natural law, and we looked together at Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from the Birmingham jail. We talked about uplifting versus degrading human personality, and how those concepts might be involved in a controversy such as the right to abortion.
The assignment for Thursday 9/8 is to read in the textbook through p. 23 (the Miller case). Write out for yourself the Issue or Issues that you think that the Court majority was deciding, in the format of the brief template and sample Mahmoud case brief that I had handed out last week (not handed in or graded, but do write it out for yourself and our class discussion).
In class today, Tuesday 9/6, we first reviewed the parts of the Mahmoud opinion that we had covered last week (the propriety of giving any instruction at all on eyewitness identification, whether the evidence generated an instruction of suggestive identification, and whether the instruction given about stress was good enough. We reviewed the idea that the law involved in the case was common law, in that it was a rule made by judges in the absence of enacted law. We finished up Mahmoud with the issue of whether the instruction given about accuracy and the witness's level of confidence was also good enough. We went through the format of the case brief, and we also added the loser's facts ("...even though...") to the last two issues of the brief.
We then turned to the textbook. I talked about the concept of natural law, and we looked together at Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from the Birmingham jail. We talked about uplifting versus degrading human personality, and how those concepts might be involved in a controversy such as the right to abortion.
The assignment for Thursday 9/8 is to read in the textbook through p. 23 (the Miller case). Write out for yourself the Issue or Issues that you think that the Court majority was deciding, in the format of the brief template and sample Mahmoud case brief that I had handed out last week (not handed in or graded, but do write it out for yourself and our class discussion).
Thursday, September 1, 2016
September 1, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/1, I distributed two handouts: the template for case briefs, and my version of the Mahmoud case brief. We began by going over briefly the proper citation format, the parties involved, the Plaintiff's objective and cause of action, and the trial court defense. We then went into a fair amount of detail about the prior proceeding, because we need in this case to understand what instructions were proposed and which were actually given in the trial court in order to understand the issues in the Maine Supreme Court. We then started with the Supreme Court's discussion of the issues. We began with whether jury instructions on eyewitness identification would be allowed at all, in light of the fact that this exact issue had been decided by the Maine Supreme Court in 1989. We then went over the question of whether there was enough evidence of an improperly suggestive identification, and left off with the question of whether the proposed instruction on "stress" was sufficiently covered by the instruction on "circumstances". We'll finish next week with the issue of the correlation between witness confidence and reliability. Along the way, we also discussed the difference between questions of fact versus questions of law, and why the Supreme Court in this case viewed the facts in the light most favorable to the state. We discussed good lawyering and why the defense attorney proposed jury instructions, but didn't object to the introduction of the eyewitness identifications in the first place.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/6 is to review the Mahmoud opinion, as well as today's handouts, and to read in addition pp 1-15 of the textbook.
In class today, Thursday 9/1, I distributed two handouts: the template for case briefs, and my version of the Mahmoud case brief. We began by going over briefly the proper citation format, the parties involved, the Plaintiff's objective and cause of action, and the trial court defense. We then went into a fair amount of detail about the prior proceeding, because we need in this case to understand what instructions were proposed and which were actually given in the trial court in order to understand the issues in the Maine Supreme Court. We then started with the Supreme Court's discussion of the issues. We began with whether jury instructions on eyewitness identification would be allowed at all, in light of the fact that this exact issue had been decided by the Maine Supreme Court in 1989. We then went over the question of whether there was enough evidence of an improperly suggestive identification, and left off with the question of whether the proposed instruction on "stress" was sufficiently covered by the instruction on "circumstances". We'll finish next week with the issue of the correlation between witness confidence and reliability. Along the way, we also discussed the difference between questions of fact versus questions of law, and why the Supreme Court in this case viewed the facts in the light most favorable to the state. We discussed good lawyering and why the defense attorney proposed jury instructions, but didn't object to the introduction of the eyewitness identifications in the first place.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/6 is to review the Mahmoud opinion, as well as today's handouts, and to read in addition pp 1-15 of the textbook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)