POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/12, I distributed one last handout, the Maine civil and criminal jurisdiction statutes, and we went over how to read them. I reminded the class that Exam #2 will be Tuesday 12/17 from 9:30-10:45. If you are missing any handouts, email me with your requests by 8:00 pm on Monday 12/16. I also reminded the class to please complete the on-line evaluations.
We then looked at the recognition statutes that I distributed last class, and saw how the federal statute regarding non-recognition for out-of-state same sex marriages is still on the books, even though the Supreme Court has said that it is unconstitutional. We then discussed both the Maine Supreme Court case of Landmark Realty v. Leasure, and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell, and noted the different approaches taken by the the two courts for the definition of subject-matter jurisdiction within their respective court systems. Finally, I talked to the class about the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court case of Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing, which unanimously ruled on whether a failure to meet a deadline in the federal rules was a failure of subject-matter jurisdiction.
See you Tuesday.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 12/12, I first reminded the class that Exam #2 will be Thursday 12/19 from 9:30-10:45. If you are missing any handouts, email me with your requests by 8:00 pm on Wednesday 12/18. I also reminded the class to please complete the on-line evaluations.
We then spent the class period looking at Montejo v. Louisiana. We first clarified what Jackson had decided, and how the 2 sides in Montego had different visions of how Jackson should be interpreted under the Louisiana procedure for appointment of counsel. We looked at the outline of Scalia's opinion, and then saw how the Court majority reached an issue that neither party had brought up.
See you Thursday.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
December 10, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/10, I distributed 3 handouts: the Maine Supreme Cort opinion in Landmark Realty v. Leasure, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell, and Maine and federal recognition statutes.
I reminded the class to please fill out the online evaluations. I also reminded the class that Exam #2 will be on Tuesday 12/17 from 9:30-10:45.
We first went over Finstuen v. Crutcher, covering both the requirements of Full Faith and Credit for recognition of the adoption judgment, and then the rules regarding enforcement of the judgment. We then discussed the Obergefell excerpt, going over the constitutional basis for forced recognition of marriage. We discussed VL v. EL, which dealt with both Full Faith and Credit, and subject-matter jurisdiction. We began our look at the Maine and federal statutes by looking at the Maine adoption statute, and will pick up on Thursday by looking at the other statutes, especially the federal statute.
The assignment for Thursday 12/12 is to read all 3 of today's handouts.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 12/10, I distributed 1 handout: the U.S. Supreme Court case of Montejo v. Louisiana.
I reminded the class to please fill out the online evaluations. I also reminded the class that Exam #2 will be on Thursday 12/19 from 9:30-10:45.
We first looked at the text of the 6th Amendment and its list of protections fro the criminal defendant. We then focused on the last of those protections, the right to counsel. I went over the Due Process protections in Powell v. Alabama, and then the rejection of incorporation in Betts. We talked about how Gideon v. Wainwright overruled Betts (though I still want to discuss on Thursday the question of to which criminal prosecutions the right to counsel attaches (is it capital cases, felonies, all crimes that have the potential penalty of imprisonment?). We looked at the progression from Jackson to Montejo (waiver), and from Henry to Kuhlmann (informants). We compared the resultin Rhode v. Innis to that in Brewer v. Williams. Then we went through the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment issues in Dominique.
The assignment for Thursday 12/12 is to review Gideon v. Wainwright, and to read today's handout.
In class today, Tuesday 12/10, I distributed 3 handouts: the Maine Supreme Cort opinion in Landmark Realty v. Leasure, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell, and Maine and federal recognition statutes.
I reminded the class to please fill out the online evaluations. I also reminded the class that Exam #2 will be on Tuesday 12/17 from 9:30-10:45.
We first went over Finstuen v. Crutcher, covering both the requirements of Full Faith and Credit for recognition of the adoption judgment, and then the rules regarding enforcement of the judgment. We then discussed the Obergefell excerpt, going over the constitutional basis for forced recognition of marriage. We discussed VL v. EL, which dealt with both Full Faith and Credit, and subject-matter jurisdiction. We began our look at the Maine and federal statutes by looking at the Maine adoption statute, and will pick up on Thursday by looking at the other statutes, especially the federal statute.
The assignment for Thursday 12/12 is to read all 3 of today's handouts.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 12/10, I distributed 1 handout: the U.S. Supreme Court case of Montejo v. Louisiana.
I reminded the class to please fill out the online evaluations. I also reminded the class that Exam #2 will be on Thursday 12/19 from 9:30-10:45.
We first looked at the text of the 6th Amendment and its list of protections fro the criminal defendant. We then focused on the last of those protections, the right to counsel. I went over the Due Process protections in Powell v. Alabama, and then the rejection of incorporation in Betts. We talked about how Gideon v. Wainwright overruled Betts (though I still want to discuss on Thursday the question of to which criminal prosecutions the right to counsel attaches (is it capital cases, felonies, all crimes that have the potential penalty of imprisonment?). We looked at the progression from Jackson to Montejo (waiver), and from Henry to Kuhlmann (informants). We compared the resultin Rhode v. Innis to that in Brewer v. Williams. Then we went through the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment issues in Dominique.
The assignment for Thursday 12/12 is to review Gideon v. Wainwright, and to read today's handout.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
December 5, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/5, I distributed 2 handouts: an excerpt from the same-sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges, and the Supreme Court opinion of V.L. v. E.L. We went through the textbook cases of Hubbard v. Greeson and Land v. Yamaha, admiring the seemingly good lawyering in Hubbard, and criticizing the seemingly bad lawyering in Land, in terms of getting the right forum state, which will apply the right choice of law rule, which will then apply the right substantive law. I also discussed the Maine case of Collins v. Trius, in which the Court had to decide whether Maine or Canadian damages law applied to a bus accident in Maine. Finally, I gave an introduction to our next topic, Full Faith and Credit.
I also reminded the class to fill out the on-line class evaluation that you should have received in your email. Please and thank you.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/10 is to read today's 2 handouts, and to read in the text pp. 116-120, including Finstuen v. Crutcher.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 12/5, I distributed one handout, the Maine Supreme Court opinion of State v. Dominique, 2008 ME 180. We reviewed and then finished our discussion of Nightingale, going over all 4 of Nightingale's contentions. We then went back into the text, including Moran v. Burbine and Rhode Island v. Innis.
I also reminded the class to fill out the on-line class evaluation that you should have received in your email. Please and thank you.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/10 is to read today's handout, to review in the text pp. 340-345 and to read in the text pp. 487-490 (Gideon v. Wainwright).
In class today, Thursday 12/5, I distributed 2 handouts: an excerpt from the same-sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges, and the Supreme Court opinion of V.L. v. E.L. We went through the textbook cases of Hubbard v. Greeson and Land v. Yamaha, admiring the seemingly good lawyering in Hubbard, and criticizing the seemingly bad lawyering in Land, in terms of getting the right forum state, which will apply the right choice of law rule, which will then apply the right substantive law. I also discussed the Maine case of Collins v. Trius, in which the Court had to decide whether Maine or Canadian damages law applied to a bus accident in Maine. Finally, I gave an introduction to our next topic, Full Faith and Credit.
I also reminded the class to fill out the on-line class evaluation that you should have received in your email. Please and thank you.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/10 is to read today's 2 handouts, and to read in the text pp. 116-120, including Finstuen v. Crutcher.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 12/5, I distributed one handout, the Maine Supreme Court opinion of State v. Dominique, 2008 ME 180. We reviewed and then finished our discussion of Nightingale, going over all 4 of Nightingale's contentions. We then went back into the text, including Moran v. Burbine and Rhode Island v. Innis.
I also reminded the class to fill out the on-line class evaluation that you should have received in your email. Please and thank you.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/10 is to read today's handout, to review in the text pp. 340-345 and to read in the text pp. 487-490 (Gideon v. Wainwright).
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
November 26, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/26, I handed back the Betton case briefs, and also handed out the Betton Comment Key. I made a few comments about the grading of the case briefs. We then started exploring the question of retroactivity. We went over why Miranda applied to the Butler case at all, even though the interrogation in Butler took place well before the Supreme Court decided Miranda. I discussed Johnson v. New Jersey, the 1966 Supreme Court case that decided the question of the retroactive application of Miranda. We went over Dempsey, and how the Montana Supreme Court made their own rule regarding retroactivity. Once we finished retroactivity, and we went over Strunk and the lack of precedent, I gave an introduction to our next subject of conflict of law rules. We discussed the relationship between personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and conflict of law rules.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/3 is to read in the text pp. 113-116 (Hubbard v. Greeson) and pp. 144-146 (Land v. Yamaha).
Have a good Thanksgiving break.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/26, we admired the technique of Detective Keegan in securing admissible confessions in all of these cases. We began by going over the Jones case, discussing "custody", consideration of age, and voluntariness. We then turned to Nightingale. We got up through the plurality and the Kennedy positions in terms of "Miranda in the middle", and we'll pick up next week with how the Maine Supreme Court decided what the holding of Seibert really was.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/3 is to review Nightingale, and review the previous assignment in the textbook. In addition, read the rest of Chapter 8 in the text, through p. 345 of the text.
Have a good Thanksgiving break.
In class today, Tuesday 11/26, I handed back the Betton case briefs, and also handed out the Betton Comment Key. I made a few comments about the grading of the case briefs. We then started exploring the question of retroactivity. We went over why Miranda applied to the Butler case at all, even though the interrogation in Butler took place well before the Supreme Court decided Miranda. I discussed Johnson v. New Jersey, the 1966 Supreme Court case that decided the question of the retroactive application of Miranda. We went over Dempsey, and how the Montana Supreme Court made their own rule regarding retroactivity. Once we finished retroactivity, and we went over Strunk and the lack of precedent, I gave an introduction to our next subject of conflict of law rules. We discussed the relationship between personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and conflict of law rules.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/3 is to read in the text pp. 113-116 (Hubbard v. Greeson) and pp. 144-146 (Land v. Yamaha).
Have a good Thanksgiving break.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/26, we admired the technique of Detective Keegan in securing admissible confessions in all of these cases. We began by going over the Jones case, discussing "custody", consideration of age, and voluntariness. We then turned to Nightingale. We got up through the plurality and the Kennedy positions in terms of "Miranda in the middle", and we'll pick up next week with how the Maine Supreme Court decided what the holding of Seibert really was.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/3 is to review Nightingale, and review the previous assignment in the textbook. In addition, read the rest of Chapter 8 in the text, through p. 345 of the text.
Have a good Thanksgiving break.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
November 21, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/21, I collected the Betton case briefs, and also distributed my version of the brief. We went over the Betton case, including possible strategies for the defense on remand. We then went over the Butler case and the issue of dictum. I reviewed three types of dictum that we've encountered this semester. I then discussed the 1971 case of Harris v. New York in which the Supreme Court confronted the same question as in Butler.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/26 is to read in the text through p. 113, including Dempsey and Strunk.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/21, I distributed one handout, the Maine Supreme Court opinion in State v. Nightingale, 2012 ME 132. We then began our study of the 3 Maine cases assigned for today, Prescott, Bragg, and Jones. We got through Prescott and Bragg, but not to Jones. So we will begin class on Tuesday with Jones, and then go on to the textbook assignment (below) and to Nightingale.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/26 is to review Jones, read in the text pp. 317-340, including Moran v. Burbine and Rhode Island v. Innis, and also today's handout, Nightingale.
In class today, Thursday 11/21, I collected the Betton case briefs, and also distributed my version of the brief. We went over the Betton case, including possible strategies for the defense on remand. We then went over the Butler case and the issue of dictum. I reviewed three types of dictum that we've encountered this semester. I then discussed the 1971 case of Harris v. New York in which the Supreme Court confronted the same question as in Butler.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/26 is to read in the text through p. 113, including Dempsey and Strunk.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/21, I distributed one handout, the Maine Supreme Court opinion in State v. Nightingale, 2012 ME 132. We then began our study of the 3 Maine cases assigned for today, Prescott, Bragg, and Jones. We got through Prescott and Bragg, but not to Jones. So we will begin class on Tuesday with Jones, and then go on to the textbook assignment (below) and to Nightingale.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/26 is to review Jones, read in the text pp. 317-340, including Moran v. Burbine and Rhode Island v. Innis, and also today's handout, Nightingale.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
November 19, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/19, we first went over some aspects of the Betton case brief due at the beginning of class on Thursday. We then discussed NFIB v. Sebelius from the textbook. I went over a little history of the limitations on Congressional power (no "police power"), and how the interstate commerce power has sometimes had a narrow, and sometimes, a broad, interpretation from the Supreme Court. I gave a little background to the confusing votes in the case, and how the individual mandate was eventually upheld, not under the interstate commerce power, but under Congress' taxing power. I then talked to the class about the current case of Texas v. U.S. in which the U.S. District Court struck down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, as the individual mandate had lost its mooring to the Congressional taxing power. That case is currently awaiting decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. We also talked about the concept of dictum, and saw how that concept came into play in NFIB v. Sebelius.
The assignment for Thursday 11/21 is to finish up the Betton case briefs, due at the beginning of Thursday's class. Also read in the text through p. 107, including State v. Butler,
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/19, I distributed 3 handouts: the Maine Supreme Court opinions in State v. Prescott 2012 ME 96, State v. Bragg, 2012 ME 102, and State v. Jones, 2012 ME 126 (2012 was a very good year for Miranda cases in Maine). I began by discussing the Maine case of State v. Rees, 2000 ME 55, in which the Maine Supreme Court elected not to follow Colorado v. Connnelly. We then went through the elements of the Miranda opinion. In terms of what it means to be in custody, we looked at Berkemer v. McCarty at p. 310 of the text. Finally we discussed the majority and dissenting opinions in J.D.B. and the juvenile suspect.
The assignment for Thursday 11/21 is to read today's three handouts. (If you weren't in class, you can access the cases most easily by going to Google Scholar, selecting "case law" and "select courts", select the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, and type the citation into the search dialog box.)
In class today, Tuesday 11/19, we first went over some aspects of the Betton case brief due at the beginning of class on Thursday. We then discussed NFIB v. Sebelius from the textbook. I went over a little history of the limitations on Congressional power (no "police power"), and how the interstate commerce power has sometimes had a narrow, and sometimes, a broad, interpretation from the Supreme Court. I gave a little background to the confusing votes in the case, and how the individual mandate was eventually upheld, not under the interstate commerce power, but under Congress' taxing power. I then talked to the class about the current case of Texas v. U.S. in which the U.S. District Court struck down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, as the individual mandate had lost its mooring to the Congressional taxing power. That case is currently awaiting decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. We also talked about the concept of dictum, and saw how that concept came into play in NFIB v. Sebelius.
The assignment for Thursday 11/21 is to finish up the Betton case briefs, due at the beginning of Thursday's class. Also read in the text through p. 107, including State v. Butler,
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/19, I distributed 3 handouts: the Maine Supreme Court opinions in State v. Prescott 2012 ME 96, State v. Bragg, 2012 ME 102, and State v. Jones, 2012 ME 126 (2012 was a very good year for Miranda cases in Maine). I began by discussing the Maine case of State v. Rees, 2000 ME 55, in which the Maine Supreme Court elected not to follow Colorado v. Connnelly. We then went through the elements of the Miranda opinion. In terms of what it means to be in custody, we looked at Berkemer v. McCarty at p. 310 of the text. Finally we discussed the majority and dissenting opinions in J.D.B. and the juvenile suspect.
The assignment for Thursday 11/21 is to read today's three handouts. (If you weren't in class, you can access the cases most easily by going to Google Scholar, selecting "case law" and "select courts", select the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, and type the citation into the search dialog box.)
Thursday, November 14, 2019
November 14, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/14, we spent most of the class period clarifying aspects of the Betton case brief due next Thursday. We worked through all of the segments of the brief up to the Issues, Facts, and Holding. I also specified that if you are unable to come to class when the brief is due next Thursday, and you need to submit your brief to me by email, I want you to attach it as a pdf or a Word document, and not in Google docs.
We also went over the 2 bases of federal trial court jurisdiction (federal question and diversity) by way of explaining why Betton was eligible to be heard in the federal court system.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/19 is to continue work on your Betton case brief (due at the beginning of class on 11/21) and to review the textbook through NFIB v. Sebelius, previously assigned.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/14, we began with a little more inquiry into qualified immunity. We talked about the handout of recent Circuit Court cases that granted qualified immunity to police, even though there was a determination that the police had in fact used excessive force. I also discussed the recent case of Betton v. Belue, in which the 4th Circuit found both excessive force, and that the prohibition on the use of such force in those circumstances was clearly established. I also discussed the two bases of federal trial court jurisdiction, federal question and diversity. We then moved onto confessions. We walked through the 5 protections of the 5th Amendment, and then came back to the protection of against being compelled to be a witness against yourself in a criminal case. We saw how the interpretation of that protection was not limited to the actual text of the 5th Amendment, but was also not unlimited. We saw in Connelly how the exercise of free will was not the test for what is compelled, and we saw in Schmerber how simply forcing a suspect to give up incriminating evidence was also not the test.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/19 is to read in the text through p. 317, including Miranda and J.D.B.
In class today, Thursday 11/14, we spent most of the class period clarifying aspects of the Betton case brief due next Thursday. We worked through all of the segments of the brief up to the Issues, Facts, and Holding. I also specified that if you are unable to come to class when the brief is due next Thursday, and you need to submit your brief to me by email, I want you to attach it as a pdf or a Word document, and not in Google docs.
We also went over the 2 bases of federal trial court jurisdiction (federal question and diversity) by way of explaining why Betton was eligible to be heard in the federal court system.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/19 is to continue work on your Betton case brief (due at the beginning of class on 11/21) and to review the textbook through NFIB v. Sebelius, previously assigned.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/14, we began with a little more inquiry into qualified immunity. We talked about the handout of recent Circuit Court cases that granted qualified immunity to police, even though there was a determination that the police had in fact used excessive force. I also discussed the recent case of Betton v. Belue, in which the 4th Circuit found both excessive force, and that the prohibition on the use of such force in those circumstances was clearly established. I also discussed the two bases of federal trial court jurisdiction, federal question and diversity. We then moved onto confessions. We walked through the 5 protections of the 5th Amendment, and then came back to the protection of against being compelled to be a witness against yourself in a criminal case. We saw how the interpretation of that protection was not limited to the actual text of the 5th Amendment, but was also not unlimited. We saw in Connelly how the exercise of free will was not the test for what is compelled, and we saw in Schmerber how simply forcing a suspect to give up incriminating evidence was also not the test.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/19 is to read in the text through p. 317, including Miranda and J.D.B.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
November 12, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/12, I distributed 4 handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below)); the case you'll be briefing, Betton v. Belue; a newspaper article about the Betton case; and and a magazine article about a recent call for recusal of two Supreme Court Justices. We went over the requirements of Assignment #2, which we'll be discussing in class at more length on Thursday 11/14. We then went back to Caperton. We went over the successive layers of definitions involved in this situation: what is "due process"; what is a substantial risk of bias; what is a disproportional contribution? I then talked to the class about the case of Williams v. Pennsylvania, a more recent Supreme Court case that raised the question of recusal in the context of a former prosecutor in a case now serving as a judge. We looked at today's handout about the 2 Supreme Court Justices who met with a person whose organization had submitted an amicus brief in a pending Supreme Court case. Finally I went over the case of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, a Maine Supreme Court case on the ethical responsibilities of Maine lawyers to turn in a colleague who is acting illegally.
The assignment for Thursday 11/14 is to begin work on your Betton case brief, read today's handouts, and review NFIB v. Sebelius, previously assigned.
Assignment due Thursday, November 21, 2019
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Betton v. Belue, ___F.3d___ (4th Cir., 2019) (also distributed to the class today).
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.
For this brief, include both the winner’s facts (“..., when...”) and the loser’s facts (“..., even though...”).
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 11/24, 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.
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.
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. To the extent that we discuss this case in class, do not share that discussion with others, even if they have missed class. Do no outside research. Do not troll the internet. Just work from the handout itself. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/12, I returned the Mitchell outlines, as well as my comment key to those outlines. We then reviewed the exclusionary rule regarding good faith compliance with binding appellate authority. We compared that with the qualified immunity question of whether a rule of police use of force is clearly established. We went through the Court's opinion in Kisela, as well as Sotomayor's dissent. We saw how their view of previous cases was the mirror image of each other, in terms of which cases were right on point, and which cases were different. We also saw how Sotomayor was willing to look at precedent from other circuits which were more closely aligned with the facts of this case.
The assignment for Thursday 11/14 is to review what has already been assigned in Chapter 8 (p. 283-294), and to read in addition through p. 301 (including Schmerber).
In class today, Tuesday 11/12, I distributed 4 handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below)); the case you'll be briefing, Betton v. Belue; a newspaper article about the Betton case; and and a magazine article about a recent call for recusal of two Supreme Court Justices. We went over the requirements of Assignment #2, which we'll be discussing in class at more length on Thursday 11/14. We then went back to Caperton. We went over the successive layers of definitions involved in this situation: what is "due process"; what is a substantial risk of bias; what is a disproportional contribution? I then talked to the class about the case of Williams v. Pennsylvania, a more recent Supreme Court case that raised the question of recusal in the context of a former prosecutor in a case now serving as a judge. We looked at today's handout about the 2 Supreme Court Justices who met with a person whose organization had submitted an amicus brief in a pending Supreme Court case. Finally I went over the case of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, a Maine Supreme Court case on the ethical responsibilities of Maine lawyers to turn in a colleague who is acting illegally.
The assignment for Thursday 11/14 is to begin work on your Betton case brief, read today's handouts, and review NFIB v. Sebelius, previously assigned.
Assignment due Thursday, November 21, 2019
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Betton v. Belue, ___F.3d___ (4th Cir., 2019) (also distributed to the class today).
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.
For this brief, include both the winner’s facts (“..., when...”) and the loser’s facts (“..., even though...”).
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 11/24, 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.
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.
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. To the extent that we discuss this case in class, do not share that discussion with others, even if they have missed class. Do no outside research. Do not troll the internet. Just work from the handout itself. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/12, I returned the Mitchell outlines, as well as my comment key to those outlines. We then reviewed the exclusionary rule regarding good faith compliance with binding appellate authority. We compared that with the qualified immunity question of whether a rule of police use of force is clearly established. We went through the Court's opinion in Kisela, as well as Sotomayor's dissent. We saw how their view of previous cases was the mirror image of each other, in terms of which cases were right on point, and which cases were different. We also saw how Sotomayor was willing to look at precedent from other circuits which were more closely aligned with the facts of this case.
The assignment for Thursday 11/14 is to review what has already been assigned in Chapter 8 (p. 283-294), and to read in addition through p. 301 (including Schmerber).
Thursday, November 7, 2019
November 7, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/7, I first let the class know of my plan to distribute the next case brief assignment on Tuesday 11/12, with a planned due date of Thursday 11/21. We then finished our discussion of Glassford, looking at both substantive and procedural unconscionability, and severability. I then talked to the class about a 2018 SCOTUS case, Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which the Court 5-4 ruled on how the provisions of the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act interacted with the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. Then we began our discussion of Caperton v. Massey Coal. We had gotten as far as the background to the case, and looked at the standard used by Justice Benjamin for his refusal to recuse. We looked at the Tumey case, and will begin next Tuesday by comparing the standard used by Benjamin with the standard in Tumey.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/12 is to review Caperton, and to read in addition through p. 98 of the text,including NFIB v. Sebelius.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/7, I collected the Mitchell outlines, and we went over them. I also distributed my version of the outline. I plan to grade them this weekend and return them on Tuesday.
We then went back to Davis. I explained how the majority and the dissent had different views on the relationship between retroactivity analysis and the exclusion of evidence. We also discussed how the Davis view of the good faith exception to suppression expanded on previous incarnations of the good faith exception. We began our discussion of qualified immunity and the Kisela case. We will pick up on Tuesday with the majority's decision about which issue to address, the existence of a constitutional violation, or the existence of qualified immunity, and how the dissent viewed the same question.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/12 is to review Kisela, and review Tuesday's handout on recent Court of Appeals qualified immunity cases, and to read in the textbook pp. 283-294, including Connelly.
In class today, Thursday 11/7, I first let the class know of my plan to distribute the next case brief assignment on Tuesday 11/12, with a planned due date of Thursday 11/21. We then finished our discussion of Glassford, looking at both substantive and procedural unconscionability, and severability. I then talked to the class about a 2018 SCOTUS case, Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which the Court 5-4 ruled on how the provisions of the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act interacted with the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. Then we began our discussion of Caperton v. Massey Coal. We had gotten as far as the background to the case, and looked at the standard used by Justice Benjamin for his refusal to recuse. We looked at the Tumey case, and will begin next Tuesday by comparing the standard used by Benjamin with the standard in Tumey.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/12 is to review Caperton, and to read in addition through p. 98 of the text,including NFIB v. Sebelius.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/7, I collected the Mitchell outlines, and we went over them. I also distributed my version of the outline. I plan to grade them this weekend and return them on Tuesday.
We then went back to Davis. I explained how the majority and the dissent had different views on the relationship between retroactivity analysis and the exclusion of evidence. We also discussed how the Davis view of the good faith exception to suppression expanded on previous incarnations of the good faith exception. We began our discussion of qualified immunity and the Kisela case. We will pick up on Tuesday with the majority's decision about which issue to address, the existence of a constitutional violation, or the existence of qualified immunity, and how the dissent viewed the same question.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/12 is to review Kisela, and review Tuesday's handout on recent Court of Appeals qualified immunity cases, and to read in the textbook pp. 283-294, including Connelly.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
November 5, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/5, we first finished going through the Maine statutes involving the duty to report. We then turned to Lawrence v. Texas. We discussed how Kennedy dealt with the question of whether to treat the case as a due process or as an equal protection issue. We looked at how he analyzed the issue in terms of fundamental rights (high hurdles) versus non-fundamental rights (low hurdles). We also discussed the question of whether the majority can criminalize conduct simply because the majority feels that the conduct is wrong. I also talked about O'Connor's concurrence in the case, and the dissent. Then we began our discussion of Glassford. We talked about arbitration clauses in general, and the provisions of this arbitration clause in particular. We went over the prior proceedings, and we'll pick up on Thursday with the Court's analysis.
The assignment for Thursday 11/7 is first to review Glassford. Brief the issues in the case (not handed in or graded). In addition, read to the end of Chapter 2, including Caperton v. Massey coal.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/5, I distributed one handout, a list of recent Court of Appeals cases involving qualified immunity for law enforcement. I began by reminding the class of the Mitchell outline due Thursday. In terms of length of the outline/summaries, I said that my total paper was 3 pages. I discussed how Sotomayor's dissent in Mitchell may require more than one paragraph in explanation of her views. I then talked about the 2018 Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Lemeunier-Fitzgerald, in which the Court split 4-3 over the question of whether Maine's implied consent law (distributed last week) in fact counted as constitutionally sufficient consent to a blood draw, or whether it was instead too coercive to constitute real consent.
We then turned to a new topic of enforcement of the 4th Amendment. We talked about two possible methods of enforcement, exclusion of unconstitutionally seized evidence, and civil suits against the officers who violate the constitutional rules. I went over a case from the textbook that I had not assigned, Utah v. Strieff (p.400) in which the Court found that an intervening factor (an outstanding warrant) meant that the evidence that was seized through an unconstitutional stop should still be admitted as evidence. We then talked about the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. I discussed Leon and Evans, two case that were included in today's assignment. I talked about who exactly was the party that made the error in those cases. Then we went through the Herring case, discussing the levels of culpability (intent, recklessness, etc.) and how Herring expanded the exceptions to the exclusionary rule. We began our discussion of Davis v. U.S., and saw how it fit within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. We will pick up on Thursday with how the retroactive application of Arizona v. Gant was viewed by both the majority and the dissent.
The assignment for Thursday 11/7 is to finish up your Mitchell v. Wisconsin outlines, due at the beginning of class on 11/7. Review Davis, read today's handout, and read in the text p. 432-440, including Kisela v. Hughes.
In class today, Tuesday 11/5, we first finished going through the Maine statutes involving the duty to report. We then turned to Lawrence v. Texas. We discussed how Kennedy dealt with the question of whether to treat the case as a due process or as an equal protection issue. We looked at how he analyzed the issue in terms of fundamental rights (high hurdles) versus non-fundamental rights (low hurdles). We also discussed the question of whether the majority can criminalize conduct simply because the majority feels that the conduct is wrong. I also talked about O'Connor's concurrence in the case, and the dissent. Then we began our discussion of Glassford. We talked about arbitration clauses in general, and the provisions of this arbitration clause in particular. We went over the prior proceedings, and we'll pick up on Thursday with the Court's analysis.
The assignment for Thursday 11/7 is first to review Glassford. Brief the issues in the case (not handed in or graded). In addition, read to the end of Chapter 2, including Caperton v. Massey coal.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/5, I distributed one handout, a list of recent Court of Appeals cases involving qualified immunity for law enforcement. I began by reminding the class of the Mitchell outline due Thursday. In terms of length of the outline/summaries, I said that my total paper was 3 pages. I discussed how Sotomayor's dissent in Mitchell may require more than one paragraph in explanation of her views. I then talked about the 2018 Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Lemeunier-Fitzgerald, in which the Court split 4-3 over the question of whether Maine's implied consent law (distributed last week) in fact counted as constitutionally sufficient consent to a blood draw, or whether it was instead too coercive to constitute real consent.
We then turned to a new topic of enforcement of the 4th Amendment. We talked about two possible methods of enforcement, exclusion of unconstitutionally seized evidence, and civil suits against the officers who violate the constitutional rules. I went over a case from the textbook that I had not assigned, Utah v. Strieff (p.400) in which the Court found that an intervening factor (an outstanding warrant) meant that the evidence that was seized through an unconstitutional stop should still be admitted as evidence. We then talked about the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. I discussed Leon and Evans, two case that were included in today's assignment. I talked about who exactly was the party that made the error in those cases. Then we went through the Herring case, discussing the levels of culpability (intent, recklessness, etc.) and how Herring expanded the exceptions to the exclusionary rule. We began our discussion of Davis v. U.S., and saw how it fit within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. We will pick up on Thursday with how the retroactive application of Arizona v. Gant was viewed by both the majority and the dissent.
The assignment for Thursday 11/7 is to finish up your Mitchell v. Wisconsin outlines, due at the beginning of class on 11/7. Review Davis, read today's handout, and read in the text p. 432-440, including Kisela v. Hughes.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
October 31, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/31, we first finished our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia. We then went through State v. Mobbley, and followed that by looking at the Maine statute regarding hindering apprehension. We then went over Holland v. Florida, and again looked at the Maine statutes regarding the creation of common law crimes, and the Massachusetts and federal laws that create a criminal responsibility for failure to report certain crimes. We will pick up next Tuesday with those Maine statutes that do create a responsibility to report in certain limited situations..
The assignment for Tuesday 11/5 is to read in the textbook through p.77, including Lawrence v. Texas and Glassford v. BrickKicker.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/31, I distributed 4 handouts: excerpts from the Maine drunk driving statutes; Scalia's concurrence in Gant; the case that the subject of the "You Decide" 6.5 from p. 205, Taylor v. State; and a case on a new subject, Davis v. U.S. We first went over the majority and dissenting opinions in Gant, and then talked about Scalia's concurrence. We then went over the Maryland Taylor case (You Decide 6.5), and how it dealt with the issue of car searches after an arrest for drunk driving. We then looked at the Maine drunk driving statutes, and also talked about a whole other way to search a car after an arrest without a warrant, an "inventory" search. I also talked about S. Dakota v. Opperman, which allowed these inventory searches.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/5 is to continue working on your Mitchell outlines, and to read all 4 of today's handouts. In addition, read p. 402-408 of the text, including Herring v. U.S.
In class today, Thursday 10/31, we first finished our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia. We then went through State v. Mobbley, and followed that by looking at the Maine statute regarding hindering apprehension. We then went over Holland v. Florida, and again looked at the Maine statutes regarding the creation of common law crimes, and the Massachusetts and federal laws that create a criminal responsibility for failure to report certain crimes. We will pick up next Tuesday with those Maine statutes that do create a responsibility to report in certain limited situations..
The assignment for Tuesday 11/5 is to read in the textbook through p.77, including Lawrence v. Texas and Glassford v. BrickKicker.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/31, I distributed 4 handouts: excerpts from the Maine drunk driving statutes; Scalia's concurrence in Gant; the case that the subject of the "You Decide" 6.5 from p. 205, Taylor v. State; and a case on a new subject, Davis v. U.S. We first went over the majority and dissenting opinions in Gant, and then talked about Scalia's concurrence. We then went over the Maryland Taylor case (You Decide 6.5), and how it dealt with the issue of car searches after an arrest for drunk driving. We then looked at the Maine drunk driving statutes, and also talked about a whole other way to search a car after an arrest without a warrant, an "inventory" search. I also talked about S. Dakota v. Opperman, which allowed these inventory searches.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/5 is to continue working on your Mitchell outlines, and to read all 4 of today's handouts. In addition, read p. 402-408 of the text, including Herring v. U.S.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
October 29, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/29, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I distributed one handout, excerpts from the Maine and federal statutes about hindering apprehension, common law crimes, duty to report crimes, etc. We started going over Gregg v. Georgia, and last week's handout about the story of the capital punishment cases. We got through the Stewart plurality opinion, and will pick up on Thursday with the dissents.
The assignment for Thursday 10/31 is to review the dissents in Gregg, read in the text through p. 67 (including Mobbley and Holland) and read today's statutory handout.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/29, I distributed one handout, an article about the upcoming Supreme Court argument in Kansas v. Glover, involving the definition of reasonable suspicion in the context of suspended licenses. We then turned to Mitchell v. Wisconsin, whose outline is due next Thursday 11/7. I went through the three theories of why warrantless blood alcohol tests may be reasonable: search incident to arrest; implied consent; and exigency. We saw how, for blood tests, search incident to arrest had already been foreclosed. We also saw how the Court plurality in Mitchell decided not to rule on the implied consent issue, and to instead tackle exigency. We looked at the previous exigency/drunk driving case, Missouri v. McNeely, how the plurality dealt with McNeely, and how the dissent disagreed with the plurality. We looked at the breakdown of the votes in both McNeely and Mitchell, and saw how a change in Court personnel made all the difference, as none of the Justices really changed what side they were on.
The assignment for Thursday 10/31 is to read in the text pp. 200-205, including Arizona v. Gant, as well as reading today's handout.
In class today, Tuesday 10/29, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I distributed one handout, excerpts from the Maine and federal statutes about hindering apprehension, common law crimes, duty to report crimes, etc. We started going over Gregg v. Georgia, and last week's handout about the story of the capital punishment cases. We got through the Stewart plurality opinion, and will pick up on Thursday with the dissents.
The assignment for Thursday 10/31 is to review the dissents in Gregg, read in the text through p. 67 (including Mobbley and Holland) and read today's statutory handout.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/29, I distributed one handout, an article about the upcoming Supreme Court argument in Kansas v. Glover, involving the definition of reasonable suspicion in the context of suspended licenses. We then turned to Mitchell v. Wisconsin, whose outline is due next Thursday 11/7. I went through the three theories of why warrantless blood alcohol tests may be reasonable: search incident to arrest; implied consent; and exigency. We saw how, for blood tests, search incident to arrest had already been foreclosed. We also saw how the Court plurality in Mitchell decided not to rule on the implied consent issue, and to instead tackle exigency. We looked at the previous exigency/drunk driving case, Missouri v. McNeely, how the plurality dealt with McNeely, and how the dissent disagreed with the plurality. We looked at the breakdown of the votes in both McNeely and Mitchell, and saw how a change in Court personnel made all the difference, as none of the Justices really changed what side they were on.
The assignment for Thursday 10/31 is to read in the text pp. 200-205, including Arizona v. Gant, as well as reading today's handout.
Thursday, October 24, 2019
October 24, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/24, the class took Exam #1. I plan to grade the exams this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. I also distributed one handout, an article about capital punishment history in the Supreme Court.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/29 is to review Gregg v. Georgia (previously assigned, and to read in addition today's handout.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/24, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be outlining, Mitchell v. Wisconsin. We went through the requirements of the assignment. Then we discussed exigent circumstances and the Welsh v. Wisconsin case assigned for today.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/29 is to read Mitchell and start work on your outline.
Assignment due Thursday, November 7, 2019
The assignment is to do an outline of Justice Alito's opinion in Mitchell v. Wisconsin (also distributed to the class today). In addition, write a short paragraph for each of the opinions by Thomas, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch (so, three paragraphs that will follow the Alito outline), which explain the major point(s) made by the opinion, especially how it deals with Alito's plurality opinion.
For the outline, follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Use Titles for the Roman numerals, and then Question and Answer for all the other elements. Both the questions and the answers should be complete sentences.
The structure should go like this:
Roman numeral; Capital Letter; Numbers; Lower Case Letter.
For example:
I. (Title)
A. (Question and Answer)
1. (Question and Answer)
2. (Question and Answer)
a. (Question and Answer)
b. (Question and Answer)
B. (Question and Answer)
II. (Title)
Follow the structure already provided by Justice Alito:
I.
(A.)
(B.)
II.
III.
(A.)
(B.)
(1.)
(2.)
IV.
Add Introductory Sections and sub-elements to this as is appropriate, but don’t alter Alito's structure. What makes an addition appropriate? Basically, when Alito is addressing a different question. When you add elements, italicize the heading, numbers or letters of your additions. There are Introductory sections in ¶1-2, 15, and 26-27.
If there’s a (1), there should be a (2). If you’ve only got one thing to say, just say it without the further division.
Here’s my suggestion for the best way to proceed: First, figure out what the thought is for each paragraph. Second, group the paragraphs together in terms of what question they are addressing. Last, put the actual questions in, with the roman numerals questions as the final thing. In other words, work from smallest to largest.
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 11/7, 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. Do not do any outside research. Just work from the handout itself. Do not troll the internet. 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, Thursday 10/24, the class took Exam #1. I plan to grade the exams this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. I also distributed one handout, an article about capital punishment history in the Supreme Court.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/29 is to review Gregg v. Georgia (previously assigned, and to read in addition today's handout.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/24, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be outlining, Mitchell v. Wisconsin. We went through the requirements of the assignment. Then we discussed exigent circumstances and the Welsh v. Wisconsin case assigned for today.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/29 is to read Mitchell and start work on your outline.
Assignment due Thursday, November 7, 2019
The assignment is to do an outline of Justice Alito's opinion in Mitchell v. Wisconsin (also distributed to the class today). In addition, write a short paragraph for each of the opinions by Thomas, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch (so, three paragraphs that will follow the Alito outline), which explain the major point(s) made by the opinion, especially how it deals with Alito's plurality opinion.
For the outline, follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Use Titles for the Roman numerals, and then Question and Answer for all the other elements. Both the questions and the answers should be complete sentences.
The structure should go like this:
Roman numeral; Capital Letter; Numbers; Lower Case Letter.
For example:
I. (Title)
A. (Question and Answer)
1. (Question and Answer)
2. (Question and Answer)
a. (Question and Answer)
b. (Question and Answer)
B. (Question and Answer)
II. (Title)
Follow the structure already provided by Justice Alito:
I.
(A.)
(B.)
II.
III.
(A.)
(B.)
(1.)
(2.)
IV.
Add Introductory Sections and sub-elements to this as is appropriate, but don’t alter Alito's structure. What makes an addition appropriate? Basically, when Alito is addressing a different question. When you add elements, italicize the heading, numbers or letters of your additions. There are Introductory sections in ¶1-2, 15, and 26-27.
If there’s a (1), there should be a (2). If you’ve only got one thing to say, just say it without the further division.
Here’s my suggestion for the best way to proceed: First, figure out what the thought is for each paragraph. Second, group the paragraphs together in terms of what question they are addressing. Last, put the actual questions in, with the roman numerals questions as the final thing. In other words, work from smallest to largest.
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 11/7, 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. Do not do any outside research. Just work from the handout itself. Do not troll the internet. 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.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
October 22, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/22, I distributed 3 handouts: my version of the Bishop case brief; the comment key to my comments on your case briefs; and a sample test in preparation for Thursday's test. I handed back your Bishop case briefs, and we went over them and the comment key. We the finished up our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, and I went over a Maine case, Paffhausen v. Balano, that also asked about contract formation in the context of a claim against an estate. I also discussed citation form for all levels of the federal court system: U.S. District Courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Thursday 10/24, the class will take Exam #1. If you are missing any handouts, email me by 8:00 pm on Wednesday 10/23 with your requests. Remember that the exam is open book and open note, and those using laptops or other devices may not perform any searches or other operations that those having paper materials are unable to perform.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/22, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand the exams back and go over them on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 10/24 is to read in the text pp. 152-159, including Welsh v. Wisconsin.
In class today, Tuesday 10/22, I distributed 3 handouts: my version of the Bishop case brief; the comment key to my comments on your case briefs; and a sample test in preparation for Thursday's test. I handed back your Bishop case briefs, and we went over them and the comment key. We the finished up our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, and I went over a Maine case, Paffhausen v. Balano, that also asked about contract formation in the context of a claim against an estate. I also discussed citation form for all levels of the federal court system: U.S. District Courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Thursday 10/24, the class will take Exam #1. If you are missing any handouts, email me by 8:00 pm on Wednesday 10/23 with your requests. Remember that the exam is open book and open note, and those using laptops or other devices may not perform any searches or other operations that those having paper materials are unable to perform.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/22, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand the exams back and go over them on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 10/24 is to read in the text pp. 152-159, including Welsh v. Wisconsin.
Thursday, October 17, 2019
October 17, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
The University cancelled this morning's classes, including ours.
Here's how I'd like to proceed: please email your Bishop case briefs to me this morning, Thursday 10/17 (assuming that you have power; if you don't have power, email the case briefs to me as soon as your power is restored.)
When we meet next Tuesday 10/22, I'll hand back the briefs, and we'll go over them. We'll do a sample exam, finish Suggs, and then discuss Gregg.
The exam will be moved to Thursday 10/24.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/17, I handed back the Hester outlines. I also distributed the Comment Key to my comments on your outlines. We went over the grading of the outlines, and the remarks in the Comment Key. I distributed a Sample Test to give the class a sense of what to look for in Tuesday's Exam #1. We then began our discussion of the warrant exception of a search incident to arrest. We went over Chimel and Riley, so those 2 cases are the limit as to what the exam will cover.
On Tuesday 10/22, the class will have Exam #1. If you are missing any handouts, email me by 8:00 pm on Monday 10/21 with your requests. Remember that the exam is open book and open note, and those using laptops or other devices may not perform any searches or other operations that those having paper materials are unable to perform.
The University cancelled this morning's classes, including ours.
Here's how I'd like to proceed: please email your Bishop case briefs to me this morning, Thursday 10/17 (assuming that you have power; if you don't have power, email the case briefs to me as soon as your power is restored.)
When we meet next Tuesday 10/22, I'll hand back the briefs, and we'll go over them. We'll do a sample exam, finish Suggs, and then discuss Gregg.
The exam will be moved to Thursday 10/24.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/17, I handed back the Hester outlines. I also distributed the Comment Key to my comments on your outlines. We went over the grading of the outlines, and the remarks in the Comment Key. I distributed a Sample Test to give the class a sense of what to look for in Tuesday's Exam #1. We then began our discussion of the warrant exception of a search incident to arrest. We went over Chimel and Riley, so those 2 cases are the limit as to what the exam will cover.
On Tuesday 10/22, the class will have Exam #1. If you are missing any handouts, email me by 8:00 pm on Monday 10/21 with your requests. Remember that the exam is open book and open note, and those using laptops or other devices may not perform any searches or other operations that those having paper materials are unable to perform.
Thursday, October 10, 2019
October 10, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/10, we first went over some aspects of the Bishop case brief that's due next Thursday. We discussed what "malice" murder means, and what the source of that law is. We went over the basic English version of the contentions that Bishop had, and then the more exact way that you can phrase the legal question that the court decides. We went over those contentions, and the winner's and loser's facts. We also discussed how the facts of Bishop would have come out under Maine law.
After our Bishop discussion, we resumed our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, going over the the issues of what the law is in N. Carolina about public policy when the agreement may be based on a sexual relationship, and then whether the evidence demonstrated that this was not a sex-for-pay agreement. We will pick up our discussion of Suggs with the issue of whether Suggs was working for free.
There is no class on Tuesday 10/15 (Fall break). The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to finish work on your Bishop case briefs (due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/17), review Suggs v.Norris, and to read in the text through p. 58 (including Gregg v. Georgia). A reminder as well that Exam #1 is planned for Tuesday 10/22.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/10, I collected the Hester outlines, and we went over them. I also distributed my own version of the Hester outline. I plan to return the papers on Thursday 10/17. After going through the Hester outline, we also discussed the concept the dictum. We went through the Hiibel case and the constitutionality of identification laws. Finally, I discussed the Maine case of State v. Johnson, and the Maine statute requiring someone to provide credible evidence of their identification.
There is no class on Tuesday 10/15 (Fall break). The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to read in the text from 190-200 (searches incident to an arrest). A reminder as well that Exam #1 is planned for Tuesday 10/22.
In class today, Thursday 10/10, we first went over some aspects of the Bishop case brief that's due next Thursday. We discussed what "malice" murder means, and what the source of that law is. We went over the basic English version of the contentions that Bishop had, and then the more exact way that you can phrase the legal question that the court decides. We went over those contentions, and the winner's and loser's facts. We also discussed how the facts of Bishop would have come out under Maine law.
After our Bishop discussion, we resumed our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, going over the the issues of what the law is in N. Carolina about public policy when the agreement may be based on a sexual relationship, and then whether the evidence demonstrated that this was not a sex-for-pay agreement. We will pick up our discussion of Suggs with the issue of whether Suggs was working for free.
There is no class on Tuesday 10/15 (Fall break). The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to finish work on your Bishop case briefs (due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/17), review Suggs v.Norris, and to read in the text through p. 58 (including Gregg v. Georgia). A reminder as well that Exam #1 is planned for Tuesday 10/22.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/10, I collected the Hester outlines, and we went over them. I also distributed my own version of the Hester outline. I plan to return the papers on Thursday 10/17. After going through the Hester outline, we also discussed the concept the dictum. We went through the Hiibel case and the constitutionality of identification laws. Finally, I discussed the Maine case of State v. Johnson, and the Maine statute requiring someone to provide credible evidence of their identification.
There is no class on Tuesday 10/15 (Fall break). The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to read in the text from 190-200 (searches incident to an arrest). A reminder as well that Exam #1 is planned for Tuesday 10/22.
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
October 8. 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/8, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below), and the case you'll be briefing, Bishop v. State of Georgia. We went over the requirements of the assignment. We then went back to Katko v. Briney. We finished our examination of the authority cited by the Katko court. We talked about the role of a directed verdict versus a question that should be submitted to the jury. I also went over the four basic mental states: intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. We then turned to the Maine statute about defense of premises, and worked through the question of how the facts of Katko would come out in a Maine criminal prosecution. Finally, we began our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, just getting through the parties. We'll pick up with the rest of Suggs on Thursday
The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to review Suggs v. Norris (previously assigned), and to begin work on your Bishop case brief. Since there will be no class next Tuesday, 10/15, this Thursday 10/10 will be our only chance to address questions about the Bishop brief as a class.
Assignment due Thursday, October 17, 2019
(Since there is no class on Tuesday 10/15, the only chance that we will have to discuss the case together as a class is on Thursday 10/10.)
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Bishop v. State, 356 S.E.2d 503 (Ga., 1987) (also distributed to the class today).
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 holdings just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
For this brief, include both the winner’s facts (“..., when...”) and the loser’s facts (“..., even though...”). The Issue should be in the format of:
Under this law
the legal question
when there are these circumstances
(even though the loser points to these other circumstances)?
In addition, include a paragraph at the end of the brief summarizing Justice Smith's dissenting opinion.
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 with your 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 10/17, 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.
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.
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. To the extent that we discuss this case in class, do not share that discussion with others, even if they have missed class. Do no outside research. Do not troll the internet. Just work from the handout itself. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/8, I distributed one handout, the opinion in U.S. v. Swindle, the "You Decide 3.5" from p.88 of the text. We began class by discussing the Hester outline due on Thursday 10/10. I explained how you should not change the structure that the court uses, but should add introductory sections for the paragraphs that aren't put by the court in the main structure, and also add appropriate sub-elements below existing structure.
We then went over Wardlow, and the definition of "reasonable suspicion". We discussed both the majority decision and the concurrence/dissent. Finally, we went back to the Swindle case, the "You Decide" 3.5. We answered the questions about when the "seizure" took place, and why that was significant. I also talked about the court's analysis of reasonable suspicion, and why that question was not even relevant.
The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to finish your Hester outlines, due at the beginning of class on Thursday. In addition read today's Swindle handout, and read in the text pp. 119-121 (Hiibel).
In class today, Tuesday 10/8, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below), and the case you'll be briefing, Bishop v. State of Georgia. We went over the requirements of the assignment. We then went back to Katko v. Briney. We finished our examination of the authority cited by the Katko court. We talked about the role of a directed verdict versus a question that should be submitted to the jury. I also went over the four basic mental states: intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. We then turned to the Maine statute about defense of premises, and worked through the question of how the facts of Katko would come out in a Maine criminal prosecution. Finally, we began our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, just getting through the parties. We'll pick up with the rest of Suggs on Thursday
The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to review Suggs v. Norris (previously assigned), and to begin work on your Bishop case brief. Since there will be no class next Tuesday, 10/15, this Thursday 10/10 will be our only chance to address questions about the Bishop brief as a class.
Assignment due Thursday, October 17, 2019
(Since there is no class on Tuesday 10/15, the only chance that we will have to discuss the case together as a class is on Thursday 10/10.)
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Bishop v. State, 356 S.E.2d 503 (Ga., 1987) (also distributed to the class today).
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 holdings just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
For this brief, include both the winner’s facts (“..., when...”) and the loser’s facts (“..., even though...”). The Issue should be in the format of:
Under this law
the legal question
when there are these circumstances
(even though the loser points to these other circumstances)?
In addition, include a paragraph at the end of the brief summarizing Justice Smith's dissenting opinion.
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 with your 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 10/17, 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.
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.
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. To the extent that we discuss this case in class, do not share that discussion with others, even if they have missed class. Do no outside research. Do not troll the internet. Just work from the handout itself. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/8, I distributed one handout, the opinion in U.S. v. Swindle, the "You Decide 3.5" from p.88 of the text. We began class by discussing the Hester outline due on Thursday 10/10. I explained how you should not change the structure that the court uses, but should add introductory sections for the paragraphs that aren't put by the court in the main structure, and also add appropriate sub-elements below existing structure.
We then went over Wardlow, and the definition of "reasonable suspicion". We discussed both the majority decision and the concurrence/dissent. Finally, we went back to the Swindle case, the "You Decide" 3.5. We answered the questions about when the "seizure" took place, and why that was significant. I also talked about the court's analysis of reasonable suspicion, and why that question was not even relevant.
The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to finish your Hester outlines, due at the beginning of class on Thursday. In addition read today's Swindle handout, and read in the text pp. 119-121 (Hiibel).
Thursday, October 3, 2019
October 3, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/3, I distributed 2 handouts: my version of the Katko case brief, and the Maine constitutional provision and statutory laws regarding residency for voting purposes. We went over the definition of residency again (allowing me to correct an incorrect statement that I had made on Tuesday). We then went back and finished our collective case brief of Katko. We went over the different types of authority cited in Katko, and I discussed primary authority versus secondary authority, with primary authority divided into mandatory authority versus persuasive authority. I also expanded the treatment of authority to include not only follow, distinguish, and overrule, but also to extend. We got as far in authority as Hooker v. Miller, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. Also, I let the class know that I plan to distribute our first graded case brief on Tuesday, 10/8, with a due date of 10/17.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/8 is to review the rest of the authority cited in Katko, review the handout of Maine's Defense of Premises statute (figuring out how the facts of Katko would have come out under Maine's criminal statute), and read in the text the rest of Chapter 1, including Suggs v. Norris.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/3, I first clarified one aspect of the Hester outline due next Thursday, namely that the class should ignore all references to the issue of sentencing enhancement. You're outlining just the suppression issue, nothing about sentencing enhancement. We then made a detour to talk about two of the cases that will be argued before SCOTUS on Monday, the first day of the new session. We talked about Kahler v. Kansas, about the constitutional requirement for an insanity defense, and Ramos v. Louisiana, about the incorporation of the requirement for unanimous juries as protections against the states as well as against the federal government. We then went into the textbook. We started with Terry v. Ohio, and saw how there could be a seizure that was short of an arrest. We then went back to Hodari, and saw how the Court defined the concept of a seizure based on the response to a show of authority, rather than just the show of authority itself.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/8 is to read in the textbook up to p. 104 (including Wardlow), prepare to discuss the "You Decide" 3.5 on p. 87. and continue work on your Hester outlines, due Thursday 10/10.
In class today, Thursday 10/3, I distributed 2 handouts: my version of the Katko case brief, and the Maine constitutional provision and statutory laws regarding residency for voting purposes. We went over the definition of residency again (allowing me to correct an incorrect statement that I had made on Tuesday). We then went back and finished our collective case brief of Katko. We went over the different types of authority cited in Katko, and I discussed primary authority versus secondary authority, with primary authority divided into mandatory authority versus persuasive authority. I also expanded the treatment of authority to include not only follow, distinguish, and overrule, but also to extend. We got as far in authority as Hooker v. Miller, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. Also, I let the class know that I plan to distribute our first graded case brief on Tuesday, 10/8, with a due date of 10/17.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/8 is to review the rest of the authority cited in Katko, review the handout of Maine's Defense of Premises statute (figuring out how the facts of Katko would have come out under Maine's criminal statute), and read in the text the rest of Chapter 1, including Suggs v. Norris.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/3, I first clarified one aspect of the Hester outline due next Thursday, namely that the class should ignore all references to the issue of sentencing enhancement. You're outlining just the suppression issue, nothing about sentencing enhancement. We then made a detour to talk about two of the cases that will be argued before SCOTUS on Monday, the first day of the new session. We talked about Kahler v. Kansas, about the constitutional requirement for an insanity defense, and Ramos v. Louisiana, about the incorporation of the requirement for unanimous juries as protections against the states as well as against the federal government. We then went into the textbook. We started with Terry v. Ohio, and saw how there could be a seizure that was short of an arrest. We then went back to Hodari, and saw how the Court defined the concept of a seizure based on the response to a show of authority, rather than just the show of authority itself.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/8 is to read in the textbook up to p. 104 (including Wardlow), prepare to discuss the "You Decide" 3.5 on p. 87. and continue work on your Hester outlines, due Thursday 10/10.
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
October 1, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/1, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding Use of Force in Defense of Premises. We first finished the Speelman case brief with the Preliminary Injunction issues (after likelihood of success on the merits). We went over the possible defenses on the merits once Speelman does get a hearing, basically comparing the notice of termination with the BHA rules that are sought to be enforced. We also talked about the concept of residency, as opposed to occupancy. We went over the hypotheticals from last week's handout, focusing on the downside to gathering too much information. I then told the class about a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Jones v. Flowers. In that case, the Court addressed the due process requirements when the sender knows that the intended recipient never received the letter because the certified letter was returned to the sender as undeliverable. Then we began our discussion of Katko v. Briney, getting as far in the case brief as the prior proceedings, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 10/3 is to review Katko, and to study today's Maine statutory handout, figuring out whether what the Brineys did would constitute a crime in Maine.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/1, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below), and the case you'll be outlining, U.S. v.Hester. We went over the requirements of the assignment. Then we finished up our discussion of Carpenter. We went over how Roberts distinguished the 3rd party doctrine cases, and also how he looked to the majority of the votes in the Jones GPS case, rather than the majority opinion in Jones. We also looked at the two dissenting opinions in Carpenter and saw how Kennedy's dissent was different from Alito's dissent.
The assignment for Thursday 10/3 is to begin work on your Hester outline, review Hodari D. (previously assigned) and read in addition through p. 101 of the text, including Terry v. Ohio.
Assignment due Thursday, October 10, 2019
The assignment is to do an outline of the Third Circuit Opinion in U.S. v. Hester, 910 F.3d 78 (3rd. Cir., 2018) (also distributed to the class today).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed: Use Title for the Roman numerals, and then Question and Answer for all the other elements. Both the questions and the answers should be complete sentences. The questions and answers should provide enough detail so that a reader can understand exactly what the court asked, and what it answered.
The structure of an outline should go like this:
Roman numeral; Capital Letter; Numbers; Lower Case Letter.
For example:
I. (Title)
A. (Question and Answer)
1. (Question and Answer)
2. (Question and Answer)
a. (Question and Answer)
b. (Question and Answer)
B. (Question and Answer)
II. (Title)
Follow the structure already provided by the Hester court:
I.
II.
III.
A.
B.
C.
Add additional sub-elements to this as is appropriate, but don’t alter the court's structure. This includes adding "Introductory" sections. When you add any element, italicize that element. What makes an addition appropriate? Basically, when the court is addressing a different question.
If there’s a (1), there should be a (2). If you’ve only got one thing to say, just say it without the further division.
Here’s my suggestion for the best way to proceed: First, figure out what the thought is for each paragraph. Second, group the paragraphs together in terms of what question they are addressing. Last, put the actual questions in, with the roman numerals questions as the final thing. In other words, work from smallest to largest.
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.
Please make two copies of your outline, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 10/10, 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. Do not do any outside research. Just work from the handout itself. The only one you can discuss your questions with is me, Sol Goldman. Do not troll the internet. 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 10/1, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding Use of Force in Defense of Premises. We first finished the Speelman case brief with the Preliminary Injunction issues (after likelihood of success on the merits). We went over the possible defenses on the merits once Speelman does get a hearing, basically comparing the notice of termination with the BHA rules that are sought to be enforced. We also talked about the concept of residency, as opposed to occupancy. We went over the hypotheticals from last week's handout, focusing on the downside to gathering too much information. I then told the class about a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Jones v. Flowers. In that case, the Court addressed the due process requirements when the sender knows that the intended recipient never received the letter because the certified letter was returned to the sender as undeliverable. Then we began our discussion of Katko v. Briney, getting as far in the case brief as the prior proceedings, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 10/3 is to review Katko, and to study today's Maine statutory handout, figuring out whether what the Brineys did would constitute a crime in Maine.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/1, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below), and the case you'll be outlining, U.S. v.Hester. We went over the requirements of the assignment. Then we finished up our discussion of Carpenter. We went over how Roberts distinguished the 3rd party doctrine cases, and also how he looked to the majority of the votes in the Jones GPS case, rather than the majority opinion in Jones. We also looked at the two dissenting opinions in Carpenter and saw how Kennedy's dissent was different from Alito's dissent.
The assignment for Thursday 10/3 is to begin work on your Hester outline, review Hodari D. (previously assigned) and read in addition through p. 101 of the text, including Terry v. Ohio.
Assignment due Thursday, October 10, 2019
The assignment is to do an outline of the Third Circuit Opinion in U.S. v. Hester, 910 F.3d 78 (3rd. Cir., 2018) (also distributed to the class today).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed: Use Title for the Roman numerals, and then Question and Answer for all the other elements. Both the questions and the answers should be complete sentences. The questions and answers should provide enough detail so that a reader can understand exactly what the court asked, and what it answered.
The structure of an outline should go like this:
Roman numeral; Capital Letter; Numbers; Lower Case Letter.
For example:
I. (Title)
A. (Question and Answer)
1. (Question and Answer)
2. (Question and Answer)
a. (Question and Answer)
b. (Question and Answer)
B. (Question and Answer)
II. (Title)
Follow the structure already provided by the Hester court:
I.
II.
III.
A.
B.
C.
Add additional sub-elements to this as is appropriate, but don’t alter the court's structure. This includes adding "Introductory" sections. When you add any element, italicize that element. What makes an addition appropriate? Basically, when the court is addressing a different question.
If there’s a (1), there should be a (2). If you’ve only got one thing to say, just say it without the further division.
Here’s my suggestion for the best way to proceed: First, figure out what the thought is for each paragraph. Second, group the paragraphs together in terms of what question they are addressing. Last, put the actual questions in, with the roman numerals questions as the final thing. In other words, work from smallest to largest.
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.
Please make two copies of your outline, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 10/10, 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. Do not do any outside research. Just work from the handout itself. The only one you can discuss your questions with is me, Sol Goldman. Do not troll the internet. 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.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
September 26, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/26, I distributed 2 handouts: my version of the Speelman case brief, and a set of hypotheticals based on Speelman. We first finished up our discussion of Glucksberg by going over Souter's concurrence. We discussed 3 kinds of institutional conflicts that frequently make their way to the courts: the rights of individuals versus the powers of government; the powers of the federal government versus the powers of state government; and the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. We then went through Speelman, and put it into our case brief format. We also discussed how a change in the wording of the notice BHA to Speelman might have made all the difference in terms of whether they knew that she was not in the residence on the date that they sent out the notice. We got up to the preliminary injunctive requirements beyond likelihood of success on the merits, which is where we'll pick up on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/1 is to review today's handouts, consider the Speelman hypotheticals handed out, and then read and do a case brief (not handed in or graded) of Katko v. Briney, reading through p. 43 of the text.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/26, we picked up with the end of the Collins majority opinion, and then went through Thomas' concurrence and Alito's dissent. We then began our discussion of Carpenter. I talked about the line-up of the Justices in Carpenter, and then we discussed the requirements of the Stored Communications Act, subpoenas and warrants, and 4 levels of suspicion. We identified the issue in Carpenter, and that's where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/1 is to review Carpenter, and then read to the end of Chapter 3 of the text, including Hodari.
In class today, Thursday 9/26, I distributed 2 handouts: my version of the Speelman case brief, and a set of hypotheticals based on Speelman. We first finished up our discussion of Glucksberg by going over Souter's concurrence. We discussed 3 kinds of institutional conflicts that frequently make their way to the courts: the rights of individuals versus the powers of government; the powers of the federal government versus the powers of state government; and the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. We then went through Speelman, and put it into our case brief format. We also discussed how a change in the wording of the notice BHA to Speelman might have made all the difference in terms of whether they knew that she was not in the residence on the date that they sent out the notice. We got up to the preliminary injunctive requirements beyond likelihood of success on the merits, which is where we'll pick up on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/1 is to review today's handouts, consider the Speelman hypotheticals handed out, and then read and do a case brief (not handed in or graded) of Katko v. Briney, reading through p. 43 of the text.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/26, we picked up with the end of the Collins majority opinion, and then went through Thomas' concurrence and Alito's dissent. We then began our discussion of Carpenter. I talked about the line-up of the Justices in Carpenter, and then we discussed the requirements of the Stored Communications Act, subpoenas and warrants, and 4 levels of suspicion. We identified the issue in Carpenter, and that's where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/1 is to review Carpenter, and then read to the end of Chapter 3 of the text, including Hodari.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
September 24, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/24 I distributed one handout, my version of the Glucksberg case brief. We went through the Glucksberg issues, including the characterization of the right asserted, the history and tradition of that right, and then the flow chart of high hurdles versus low hurdles depending on whether the asserted right is fundamental or not. We also looked at the argument by the doctors that the right has in any case already been established by precedent of the Court. We discussed mandatory versus persuasive authority, and then following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We looked at the summary of the Maine Death with Dignity Act passed this year, and we also discussed the possible significance of the growing trend of states to legislatively allow assisted suicide in terms of the constitutional analysis of whether the states must allow patients to have such a choice. We also went over the handout of the Obergefell excerpt, in which the majority and the dissent disagreed about how the Glucksberg precedent applied to the issue of same-sex marriage.
The assignment for Thursday 9/26 is to review Souter's concurrence in Glucksberg, and then to read in the text through p. 38 including Speelman v. Bellingham Housing Authority. Do a case brief of Speelman (not handed in or graded, but practice for composing a case brief).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/24, I distributed one handout, my version of the Collins outline. We went through the Collins majority opinion up to III (B), which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. We'll finish the majority opinion, and then discuss the concurrence and dissent.
The assignment for Thursday 9/26 is to read through p. 83 of the text, including Carpenter v. U.S.
In class today, Tuesday 9/24 I distributed one handout, my version of the Glucksberg case brief. We went through the Glucksberg issues, including the characterization of the right asserted, the history and tradition of that right, and then the flow chart of high hurdles versus low hurdles depending on whether the asserted right is fundamental or not. We also looked at the argument by the doctors that the right has in any case already been established by precedent of the Court. We discussed mandatory versus persuasive authority, and then following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We looked at the summary of the Maine Death with Dignity Act passed this year, and we also discussed the possible significance of the growing trend of states to legislatively allow assisted suicide in terms of the constitutional analysis of whether the states must allow patients to have such a choice. We also went over the handout of the Obergefell excerpt, in which the majority and the dissent disagreed about how the Glucksberg precedent applied to the issue of same-sex marriage.
The assignment for Thursday 9/26 is to review Souter's concurrence in Glucksberg, and then to read in the text through p. 38 including Speelman v. Bellingham Housing Authority. Do a case brief of Speelman (not handed in or graded, but practice for composing a case brief).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/24, I distributed one handout, my version of the Collins outline. We went through the Collins majority opinion up to III (B), which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. We'll finish the majority opinion, and then discuss the concurrence and dissent.
The assignment for Thursday 9/26 is to read through p. 83 of the text, including Carpenter v. U.S.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
September 19, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/19, I distributed 3 handouts: an article by Brittany Maynard about assisted suicide, the summary of the new Maine Death with Dignity statute, and an excerpt from the SCOTUS same-sex case of Obergefell v. Hodges regarding the recognition of fundamental rights. We began by going over the Maine sentencing statute, including statutory citation form. I talked about the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the rise of substantive due process. We worked together through the case brief for Glucksberg down to the "issue", which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/24 is to figure out the rest of the Glucksberg case brief (not handed in or graded), and to read today's 3 handouts.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/19, I distributed 2 handouts: the 7th Circuit opinion in Whitaker, and the 2018 SCOTUS decision in Collins v. Virginia. We used the textbook's "You Decide" feature (p. 68) to discuss the Whitaker case, and examined the 7th Circuit's opinion that I handed out. We also went over the lines of authority in both the federal court system and the Maine court system, and differentiated mandatory authority from persuasive authority. We then went through the Kyllo decision, both majority and dissent.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/24 is to read the Whitaker decision, and read all of the Collins decision. In Collins, do an outline of the majority opinion (not handed in or graded, but do actually do it).
In class today, Thursday 9/19, I distributed 3 handouts: an article by Brittany Maynard about assisted suicide, the summary of the new Maine Death with Dignity statute, and an excerpt from the SCOTUS same-sex case of Obergefell v. Hodges regarding the recognition of fundamental rights. We began by going over the Maine sentencing statute, including statutory citation form. I talked about the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the rise of substantive due process. We worked together through the case brief for Glucksberg down to the "issue", which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/24 is to figure out the rest of the Glucksberg case brief (not handed in or graded), and to read today's 3 handouts.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/19, I distributed 2 handouts: the 7th Circuit opinion in Whitaker, and the 2018 SCOTUS decision in Collins v. Virginia. We used the textbook's "You Decide" feature (p. 68) to discuss the Whitaker case, and examined the 7th Circuit's opinion that I handed out. We also went over the lines of authority in both the federal court system and the Maine court system, and differentiated mandatory authority from persuasive authority. We then went through the Kyllo decision, both majority and dissent.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/24 is to read the Whitaker decision, and read all of the Collins decision. In Collins, do an outline of the majority opinion (not handed in or graded, but do actually do it).
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
September 17, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/17, we began by going over the Miller majority opinion again, stressing exactly what it was that the Court held. We went over the concurrence by Breyer, and the dissents by Roberts and Thomas. I talked about the difference between an concurrence in the opinion versus a concurrence in the judgment. I then discussed the 2016 case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, in which the Court dealt with the issue of whether the Miller holding was to be applied retroactively. I gave the line-up of Justices in both Miller and Montgomery, and speculated about the one Justice who "switched sides" between the two opinions. Then we went through the 2 handouts of the Summary of Argument in the current SCOTUS case of Mathena v. Malvo.
The assignment for Thursday 9/19 is to review the Maine sentencing statute handout from last week, and to read and prepare to discuss through p. 34 of the text, including Washington v. Glucksberg.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/17, I distributed one handout, my version of the outline of the Jardines dissenting opinion. We began, though, by both reviewing the majority opinion in Jardines, and then discussing Kagan's concurrence. We then went through Alito's dissenting opinion. As we went along, we put the dissent in the format of the outline. Along the way, I clarified the meaning of common law regarding the law of trespass that Alito discussed. I then went over the facts of the 1988 Maine Law Court opinion in State v. Cloutier, 544 A.2d 1277. We discussed how the case would come out under the Jardines intrusion test (rather than the privacy test that the Law Court did apply). Finally, we went back to the handout of the Maine statute regarding use of drones in law enforcement, and puzzled out the language of exceptions to the warrant requirement that's in the statute. We also went over Maine statutory citation form.
The assignment for Thursday 9/19 is to read through p. 72 of the text, including Kyllo v. U.S.
In class today, Tuesday 9/17, we began by going over the Miller majority opinion again, stressing exactly what it was that the Court held. We went over the concurrence by Breyer, and the dissents by Roberts and Thomas. I talked about the difference between an concurrence in the opinion versus a concurrence in the judgment. I then discussed the 2016 case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, in which the Court dealt with the issue of whether the Miller holding was to be applied retroactively. I gave the line-up of Justices in both Miller and Montgomery, and speculated about the one Justice who "switched sides" between the two opinions. Then we went through the 2 handouts of the Summary of Argument in the current SCOTUS case of Mathena v. Malvo.
The assignment for Thursday 9/19 is to review the Maine sentencing statute handout from last week, and to read and prepare to discuss through p. 34 of the text, including Washington v. Glucksberg.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/17, I distributed one handout, my version of the outline of the Jardines dissenting opinion. We began, though, by both reviewing the majority opinion in Jardines, and then discussing Kagan's concurrence. We then went through Alito's dissenting opinion. As we went along, we put the dissent in the format of the outline. Along the way, I clarified the meaning of common law regarding the law of trespass that Alito discussed. I then went over the facts of the 1988 Maine Law Court opinion in State v. Cloutier, 544 A.2d 1277. We discussed how the case would come out under the Jardines intrusion test (rather than the privacy test that the Law Court did apply). Finally, we went back to the handout of the Maine statute regarding use of drones in law enforcement, and puzzled out the language of exceptions to the warrant requirement that's in the statute. We also went over Maine statutory citation form.
The assignment for Thursday 9/19 is to read through p. 72 of the text, including Kyllo v. U.S.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
September 12, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/12, I distributed 4 handouts: my version of the Miller case brief; the Maine sentencing statutes; and the Petioner and Respondent briefs in the current SCOTUS case that follows up on Miller, Mathena v. Malvo.
I began class by going through some of the concepts in the introductory section of the test, including natural law, equity, common law. and the tension between what's just and what's speedy. I also went through the organization of the Maine court system, with our 2 trial courts and no intermediate appellate court. I discussed 4 juvenile sentencing cases that preceded Miller: Thompson v. Oklahoma; Sanford v. Kentucky; Roper v. Simmons; and Graham v. Florida. We then went through the majority opinion in Miller, putting it into the format of our case brief.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/17 is to read the other (concurring and dissenting) opinions in Miller, and to read today's 4 handouts.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/12, I distributed one handout, my version of the outline of the Jardines majority opinion. On the reverse side of the handout is my guide to the format that I'm looking for in an outline.
We went through the Jardines majority opinion and created an outline of it. Along the way, I went over a few of the cases discussed in Jardines, including Whren (§17), Jones (§8), and Kyllo (§21).
The assignment for Tuesday 9/17 is to review the the concurring and dissenting opinions in Jardines, and to do an outline of the dissenting opinion in Jardines (not handed in or graded).
In class today, Thursday 9/12, I distributed 4 handouts: my version of the Miller case brief; the Maine sentencing statutes; and the Petioner and Respondent briefs in the current SCOTUS case that follows up on Miller, Mathena v. Malvo.
I began class by going through some of the concepts in the introductory section of the test, including natural law, equity, common law. and the tension between what's just and what's speedy. I also went through the organization of the Maine court system, with our 2 trial courts and no intermediate appellate court. I discussed 4 juvenile sentencing cases that preceded Miller: Thompson v. Oklahoma; Sanford v. Kentucky; Roper v. Simmons; and Graham v. Florida. We then went through the majority opinion in Miller, putting it into the format of our case brief.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/17 is to read the other (concurring and dissenting) opinions in Miller, and to read today's 4 handouts.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/12, I distributed one handout, my version of the outline of the Jardines majority opinion. On the reverse side of the handout is my guide to the format that I'm looking for in an outline.
We went through the Jardines majority opinion and created an outline of it. Along the way, I went over a few of the cases discussed in Jardines, including Whren (§17), Jones (§8), and Kyllo (§21).
The assignment for Tuesday 9/17 is to review the the concurring and dissenting opinions in Jardines, and to do an outline of the dissenting opinion in Jardines (not handed in or graded).
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
September 10, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/10, I distributed one handout, my version of the case brief for Rutherford. We went over the process of putting the Rutherford opinion in the format of the case brief. We discussed whether the prosecution can now re-try Rutherford, or whether that would be barred by Double Jeopardy, and saw how the SCOTUS case of Lockhart v. Nelson resolved that question. I talked about the use of precedent in Rutherford in terms of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We went over how both the police and the prosecution can learn from the Rutherford opinion how to do things better next time. Finally, I went over fn.2 of the opinion (about State v. McKenney) and discussed the concept of dictum.
The assignment for Thursday 9/12 is to read in the text pp. 1-19, including the majority opinion in Miller v. Alabama.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/10, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding the use of drones in law enforcement. We went through the Katz case in terms of the 3 major definitional issues addressed: "search"; "person, house, paper, effect"; and "unreasonable". We saw how the Court changed after Katz, to produce a lack of protection for open fields, information shared with third parties, and abandoned property. We looked at the Bangor garbage ordinance (handed out last week) and asked (without an answer) whether such a strong municipal condemnation of taking someone's garbage has any effect on whether society is prepared to accept the expectation of privacy in garbage as reasonable. Finally, we began our discussion of Jardines by going over Scalia's definition of "search". We will continue with the majority opinion in Jardines on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 9/12 is to read all three Jardines opinions (majority, concurrence, dissent). For the majority opinion, using Scalia's outline as the bare bones of the structure of the opinion (I, IIA, IIB, III) first put labels on those segments, and then see if there's additional structure (outline) in the majority opinion. For each piece of the outline, figure out what question is being asked, and also the answer that Scalia provides (not handed in or graded).
In class today, Tuesday 9/10, I distributed one handout, my version of the case brief for Rutherford. We went over the process of putting the Rutherford opinion in the format of the case brief. We discussed whether the prosecution can now re-try Rutherford, or whether that would be barred by Double Jeopardy, and saw how the SCOTUS case of Lockhart v. Nelson resolved that question. I talked about the use of precedent in Rutherford in terms of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We went over how both the police and the prosecution can learn from the Rutherford opinion how to do things better next time. Finally, I went over fn.2 of the opinion (about State v. McKenney) and discussed the concept of dictum.
The assignment for Thursday 9/12 is to read in the text pp. 1-19, including the majority opinion in Miller v. Alabama.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/10, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding the use of drones in law enforcement. We went through the Katz case in terms of the 3 major definitional issues addressed: "search"; "person, house, paper, effect"; and "unreasonable". We saw how the Court changed after Katz, to produce a lack of protection for open fields, information shared with third parties, and abandoned property. We looked at the Bangor garbage ordinance (handed out last week) and asked (without an answer) whether such a strong municipal condemnation of taking someone's garbage has any effect on whether society is prepared to accept the expectation of privacy in garbage as reasonable. Finally, we began our discussion of Jardines by going over Scalia's definition of "search". We will continue with the majority opinion in Jardines on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 9/12 is to read all three Jardines opinions (majority, concurrence, dissent). For the majority opinion, using Scalia's outline as the bare bones of the structure of the opinion (I, IIA, IIB, III) first put labels on those segments, and then see if there's additional structure (outline) in the majority opinion. For each piece of the outline, figure out what question is being asked, and also the answer that Scalia provides (not handed in or graded).
Thursday, September 5, 2019
September 5, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/5, I distributed one handout, the template for the case brief format that we'll be using. We went back to the Rutherford questions, and got through the concept of precedent. On the way there, we went over citation form a little more (both Maine and SCOTUS), the definition of hearsay, the role and discretion given to the trial court versus the role of the appellate court, missteps by the prosecution, and how the facts in Rutherford compared with those in the precedent cited by the Court. That is where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/10 is to review and re-read Rutherford (over and over) and, using the Case Brief Template distributed today, try your hand at (not handed in or graded, but really try to produce) a case brief in the format given of Rutherford.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/5, I distributed two handouts: an except from the Bangor rules regarding going through someone's garbage, and the SCOTUS opinions in Florida v. Jardines. I began by going through some of the concepts of Chapters 1 and 2 (that were not assigned): the organization of the federal and Maine court system; the concept of mandatory authority between the federal courts of appeal and the state supreme courts; the treatment of precedent in terms of following. distinguishing, or overruling precedent; the 14th Amendment's long strange journey; and the incorporation of the protections of due process as protections as against the states. We then began our discussion of what the term "search" means in Supreme Court precedent.We talked about Olmstead and Goldman from the text, and I also discussed Silverman v. U.S., the 1961 spike mike case. We then began our discussion of Katz v. U.S. We clarified that the first issue was whether there had been a "search" by the placement of the listening device. We saw how the police carefully structured their activities to come within the existing precedent, and then how the Court changed the question that defined whether there had been a search. We will pick up with the specifics of the the Katz test on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/10 is to review the previously assigned portion of the text (pp.48-67), and to read and consider the effect of the Bangor ordinance on the Greenwood analysis. In addition, as time permits, read the majority opinion in Jardines.
In class today, Thursday 9/5, I distributed one handout, the template for the case brief format that we'll be using. We went back to the Rutherford questions, and got through the concept of precedent. On the way there, we went over citation form a little more (both Maine and SCOTUS), the definition of hearsay, the role and discretion given to the trial court versus the role of the appellate court, missteps by the prosecution, and how the facts in Rutherford compared with those in the precedent cited by the Court. That is where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/10 is to review and re-read Rutherford (over and over) and, using the Case Brief Template distributed today, try your hand at (not handed in or graded, but really try to produce) a case brief in the format given of Rutherford.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/5, I distributed two handouts: an except from the Bangor rules regarding going through someone's garbage, and the SCOTUS opinions in Florida v. Jardines. I began by going through some of the concepts of Chapters 1 and 2 (that were not assigned): the organization of the federal and Maine court system; the concept of mandatory authority between the federal courts of appeal and the state supreme courts; the treatment of precedent in terms of following. distinguishing, or overruling precedent; the 14th Amendment's long strange journey; and the incorporation of the protections of due process as protections as against the states. We then began our discussion of what the term "search" means in Supreme Court precedent.We talked about Olmstead and Goldman from the text, and I also discussed Silverman v. U.S., the 1961 spike mike case. We then began our discussion of Katz v. U.S. We clarified that the first issue was whether there had been a "search" by the placement of the listening device. We saw how the police carefully structured their activities to come within the existing precedent, and then how the Court changed the question that defined whether there had been a search. We will pick up with the specifics of the the Katz test on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/10 is to review the previously assigned portion of the text (pp.48-67), and to read and consider the effect of the Bangor ordinance on the Greenwood analysis. In addition, as time permits, read the majority opinion in Jardines.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
September 3, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/3, I distributed 4 handouts: the syllabus (reproduced below), the Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Rutherford, some questions to guide your reading of Rutherford; and an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Evidence. We went over the Syllabus, and then began our investigation of the Rutherford case. We went over several different types of enacted rules: constitutions; statutes; regulations; ordinances; executive orders; rules of court; and contracts. We went over the vocabulary of plaintiff/defendant and of cause of action. We discussed Maine citation form, and the Maine rule about the order of the parties listed in the citation to a case.
The assignment for Thursday 9/5 is to read the 4 handouts from today. We had gotten partway through the Rutherford questions, and so think about those questions as you make your way though the Rutherford case.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW Fall 2019
Sol Goldman e-mail: solomon.goldman@maine.edu
Blog: www.goldmanmaine.blogspot.com
Office Hours: I will be in 241B N. Stevens from 8:00-9:15 and 11:00-12:15 on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or by appointment.
Description: This course is designed to educate students in the American legal system, focusing on its evolution and function as a dynamic social instrument.
Textbook: Introduction to Law and the Legal System, 11th edition, Schubert, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2015.
Student Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of the course, students will be able to:
1. Identify our various court systems, both federal and state
2. Understand the role of appellate and trial courts (e.g. findings of fact v. findings of law)
3. Identify various levels of review by appellate courts (e.g. de novo, clear error)
4. Identify stages of litigation (e.g. summary judgment, trial) and their implications for appellate review
5. Identify and critically analyze the use of precedent (e.g. mandatory v. persuasive; distinguish v. follow)
6. Identify the interplay between legislative and judicial lawmaking (e.g. common law, legislative intent)
7. Produce a case brief that succinctly leads to a statement of a court opinion’s holding
8. Critically analyze judicial decisions
9. Identify and critically analyze a sampling of substantive and procedural legal rules.
Grading:
1. Two homework assignments, each 21.25% of the final grade
2. Two tests, each 21.25% of the final grade
3. Class participation and attendance 15% of the final grade
[Grading plan is subject to change]
How I calculate the final grade:
I first convert each grade to a number on a 4.0 scale. So, for example, an A- is 3.67, B is 3.00, C+ 2.33, and C- is 1.67. I multiply that number by the percentage that the individual grade makes up of the final grade (here, 21.25%). So the A- is .78, the B is .64, the C+ is .50 and the C- is .35. Add them together for 2.27.
Attendance and participation is the remaining 15% of the grade. I take your unexcused absences and assign a letter grade (A-F). If you have participated usefully in class discussions, I can raise that grade by an appropriate amount. So, in our example, let’s say that you’ve had three unexcused absences during the semester, and I assign a preliminary grade of B. But you’ve participated unusually well in our class discussions, and so I raise that to an A. I convert that A to a 4.00, and multiply by the 15% of the final grade for participation and attendance. That’s .60. Added to the 2.27, that’s now 2.87.
An A is 3.83 to 4.00. A- is 3.50 to 3.82. B+ is 3.15 to 3.49. B is 2.83 to 3.14. B- is 2.50 to 2.82. And so on. In the example, 2.87= B as the final grade. Note that if there had not been the participation boost, the attendance grade of B would have converted to .45, which added to 2.27 would have yielded 2.72, or B-. If the student had say, 9 unexcused absences, that would be an F for participation and attendance, and the resulting 2.27 would leave a final grade of C+.
Policies:
1. Homework should be typed. Homework that is not typed may be rejected, at the discretion of the instructor.
2. There are no extra credit assignments.
3. Homework that is not passed in by the time it is due may receive a zero, at the discretion of the instructor. If homework is accepted late, then it may have a grade or more deducted. Even if homework is accepted late once, you should expect that a second assignment will not be accepted late. Even if you are absent from class, you should still, if at all possible, get the homework that is due for that class meeting to me on time. If you must be absent from class, you may e-mail your homework to me. At the discretion of the instructor, alternative homework assignments may be given in lieu of the original assignment.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
I will confirm any work that is submitted to me by e-mail. If you do not get a confirmation from me, the work has not been considered submitted.
4. I expect everyone to take the exams when they are given. If an emergency arises, it is your responsibility to be in touch with me as soon as possible. The decision on whether you will be allowed to make up a missed exam is at the discretion of the instructor. If you are allowed to make up an exam, you must have completed the make-up exam before the beginning of the class period in which the exam is handed back (generally, the next class).
Make-up examinations, if allowed, will be scheduled at the instructor’s discretion.
5. Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. Students who cheat will be subject to a range of penalties, from grade deductions to failure of the assignment to failure of the course, at the discretion of the instructor. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, the following: copying from another student’s papers, exams or homework assignments; reading from another student’s notes or written materials during an exam; allowing work to be copied by another student; collaboration on homework assignments; plagiarism. Do not discuss your work with other students; do not show your work to other students or look at their work. If we have discussed some aspect of the homework in class, do not talk to other students about our classroom discussion. In addition to any academic action taken by an instructor, these violations are also subject to action under the University of Maine Student Conduct Code. The maximum possible sanction under the student conduct code is dismissal from the University.
Special Accommodations: If you have a disability for which you may be requesting an accommodation, please contact Student Accessibility Services, 121 East Annex, 581.2319, as early as possible in the term. Students who have already been approved for accommodations by SAS and have a current accommodation letter should meet with me (the instructor of the course) privately as soon as possible.
Attendance Policy-
I expect that you will attend all classes. Attendance will be taken at the beginning of each class and monitored throughout the semester. Students who regularly attend classes are more likely to succeed in the class overall.
If you have a good reason for being absent from class, so that I should consider the absence to be an excused absence, it is your responsibility to e-mail me before or immediately following the missed class, to explain why you believe that the absence should be excused. The decision to excuse the absence will be at the discretion of the instructor. Each absence requires a separate, timely email to me. I keep track of excused absences only by the e-mail record, so e-mail is the only acceptable method of letting me know about absences that should be excused.
I will respond by email to every email notice of absence sent to me. If you get no timely response from me (usually, end of the day) it means that I have not received your absence notice, and therefore cannot consider it for an excused absence
Students will be responsible for the material covered in each class, including lecture notes. Therefore, I encourage you to get to know your classmates and to make sure that you have a complete set of lecture notes.
If you are absent from class, it is your responsibility to get the assignment for the following class. You can get it from the blog, from a fellow student, or you can e-mail me, but I expect you to come to the following class prepared. At the end of each class session the assignment for the following class will be announced. That assignment will also be posted on the blog.
If you are absent from class, it is your responsibility to get any handouts that were distributed to the class.
Homework Assignments and Exams:
This syllabus does not contain a schedule of specific class-by-class homework assignments and exam schedules, because I have found that I invariably stray from such a schedule. Instead, I will announce in class the actual dates, and also post that information on the blog. If you miss class, always check the blog for information on what we covered in class, and what the assignment is for the future classes.
NO CELL PHONE USE AND NO COMPUTER USE FOR OTHER THAN APPROVED CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES IS ALLOWED IN CLASS.
Sexual Discrimination Reporting
The University of Maine is committed to making campus a safe place for students. Because of this commitment, if you tell a teacher about an experience of sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, relationship abuse (dating violence and domestic violence), sexual misconduct or any form of gender discrimination involving members of the campus, your teacher is required to report this information to the campus Office of Sexual Assault & Violence Prevention or the Office of Equal Opportunity.
If you want to talk in confidence to someone about an experience of sexual discrimination, please contact these resources:
For confidential resources on campus: Counseling Center: 207-581-1392 or Cutler Health Center: at 207-581-4000.
For confidential resources off campus: Rape Response Services: 1-800-310-0000 or Spruce Run: 1-800-863-9909.
Other resources: The resources listed below can offer support but may have to report the incident to others who can help:
For support services on campus: Office of Sexual Assault & Violence Prevention: 207-581-1406, Office of Community Standards: 207-581-1409, University of Maine Police: 207-581-4040 or 911. Or see the OSAVP website for a complete list of services at http://www.umaine.edu/osavp/
In the event of an extended disruption of normal classroom activities, the format for this course may be modified to enable its completion within its programmed time frame. In that event, you will be provided an addendum to the syllabus that will supersede this version.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/3, I distributed 3 handouts: the syllabus (reproduced below), some questions raised by the text of the 4th Amendment; and a list of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. We went over the Syllabus, the SCOTUS Justices, and the 4th Amendment text and questions.
The assignment for Thursday 9/5 is to read in the text pp. 48-67, including Katz and Greenwood.
UNIVERSITY OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
POS 484 AMERICAN CONSTITUTION AND CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS Fall 2019
Sol Goldman e-mail: solomon.goldman@maine.edu
Blog: www.goldmanmaine.blogspot.com
Office Hours: I will be in 241B N. Stevens from 8:00-9:15 and 11:00-12:15 on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or by appointment.
Description: This course examines the development of Supreme Court doctrines governing the jurisprudence of constitutional rights afforded the criminally accused. Areas examined include the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the Constitution and their applicability to the states via the 14th Amendment.
Textbook: Matthew Lippman, Criminal Procedure, 4th Edition, Sage Publications
Student Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of the course, students will be able to
1. Identify and critically analyze constitutional rules regarding criminal procedure.
2. Identify and critically analyze implementation arguments in favor of certain judicial outcomes and philosophies (e.g. ease of implementation of a rule; consistency v. flexibility; broad v. narrow scope of decisions).
3. Identify and critically analyze approaches to constitutional analysis (e.g. textualism, originalism, evolving standards).
4. Understand the process by which precedent is followed, extended, limited or overruled.
Grading:
1. Two homework assignments, each 21.25% of the final grade
2. Two tests, each 21.25% of the final grade
3. Class participation and attendance 15% of the final grade
[Grading plan is subject to change]
How I calculate the final grade:
I first convert each grade to a number on a 4.0 scale. So, for example, an A- is 3.67, B is 3.00, C+ 2.33, and C- is 1.67. I multiply that number by the percentage that the individual grade makes up of the final grade (here, 21.25%). So the A- is .78, the B is .64, the C+ is .50 and the C- is .35. Add them together for 2.27.
Attendance and participation is the remaining 15% of the grade. I take your unexcused absences and assign a letter grade (A-F). If you have participated usefully in class discussions, I can raise that grade by an appropriate amount. So, in our example, let’s say that you’ve had three unexcused absences during the semester, and I assign a preliminary grade of B. But you’ve participated unusually well in our class discussions, and so I raise that to an A. I convert that A to a 4.00, and multiply by the 15% of the final grade for participation and attendance. That’s .60. Added to the 2.27, that’s now 2.87.
An A is 3.83 to 4.00. A- is 3.50 to 3.82. B+ is 3.15 to 3.49. B is 2.83 to 3.14. B- is 2.50 to 2.82. And so on. In the example, 2.87= B as the final grade. Note that if there had not been the participation boost, the attendance grade of B would have converted to .45, which added to 2.27 would have yielded 2.72, or B-. If the student had say, 9 unexcused absences, that would be an F for participation and attendance, and the resulting 2.27 would leave a final grade of C+.
Policies:
1. Homework should be typed. Homework that is not typed may be rejected, at the discretion of the instructor.
2. There are no extra credit assignments.
3. Homework that is not passed in by the time it is due may receive a zero, at the discretion of the instructor. If homework is accepted late, then it may have a grade or more deducted. Even if homework is accepted late once, you should expect that a second assignment will not be accepted late. Even if you are absent from class, you should still, if at all possible, get the homework that is due for that class meeting to me on time. If you must be absent from class, you may e-mail your homework to me. At the discretion of the instructor, alternative homework assignments may be given in lieu of the original assignment.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
I will confirm any work that is submitted to me by e-mail. If you do not get a confirmation from me, the work has not been considered submitted.
4. I expect everyone to take the exams when they are given. If an emergency arises, it is your responsibility to be in touch with me as soon as possible. The decision on whether you will be allowed to make up a missed exam is at the discretion of the instructor. If you are allowed to make up an exam, you must have completed the make-up exam before the beginning of the class period in which the exam is handed back (generally, the next class).
Make-up examinations, if allowed, will be scheduled at the instructor’s discretion.
5. Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. Students who cheat will be subject to a range of penalties, from grade deductions to failure of the assignment to failure of the course, at the discretion of the instructor. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, the following: copying from another student’s papers, exams or homework assignments; reading from another student’s notes or written materials during an exam; allowing work to be copied by another student; collaboration on homework assignments; plagiarism. Do not discuss your work with other students; do not show your work to other students or look at their work. If we have discussed some aspect of the homework in class, do not talk to other students about our classroom discussion. In addition to any academic action taken by an instructor, these violations are also subject to action under the University of Maine Student Conduct Code. The maximum possible sanction under the student conduct code is dismissal from the University.
Special Accommodations: If you have a disability for which you may be requesting an accommodation, please contact Student Accessibility Services, 121 East Annex, 581-2319, as early as possible in the term. Students who have already been approved for accommodations by SAS and have a current accommodation letter should meet with me (the instructor of the course) privately as soon as possible.
Attendance Policy-
I expect that you will attend all classes. Attendance will be taken at the beginning of each class and monitored throughout the semester. Students who regularly attend classes are more likely to succeed in the class overall.
If you have a good reason for being absent from class, so that I should consider the absence to be an excused absence, it is your responsibility to e-mail me before or immediately following the missed class, to explain why you believe that the absence should be excused. The decision to excuse the absence will be at the discretion of the instructor. Each absence requires a separate, timely email to me. I keep track of excused absences only by the e-mail record, so e-mail is the only acceptable method of letting me know about absences that should be excused.
I will respond by email to every email notice of absence sent to me. If you get no timely response from me (usually, end of the day) it means that I have not received your absence notice, and therefore cannot consider it for an excused absence
Students will be responsible for the material covered in each class, including lecture notes. Therefore, I encourage you to get to know your classmates and to make sure that you have a complete set of lecture notes.
If you are absent from class, it is your responsibility to get the assignment for the following class. You can get it from the blog, from a fellow student, or you can e-mail me, but I expect you to come to the following class prepared. At the end of each class session the assignment for the following class will be announced. That assignment will also be posted on the blog.
If you are absent from class, it is your responsibility to get any handouts that were distributed to the class.
Homework Assignments and Exams:
This syllabus does not contain a schedule of specific class-by-class homework assignments and exam schedules, because I have found that I invariably stray from such a schedule. Instead, I will announce in class the actual dates, and also post that information on the blog. If you miss class, always check the blog for information on what we covered in class, and what the assignment is for the future classes.
NO CELL PHONE USE AND NO COMPUTER USE FOR OTHER THAN APPROVED CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES IS ALLOWED IN CLASS.
In the event of an extended disruption of normal classroom activities, the format for this course may be modified to enable its completion within its programmed time frame. In that event, you will be provided an addendum to the syllabus that will supersede this version.
Sexual Discrimination Reporting
The University of Maine is committed to making campus a safe place for students. Because of this commitment, if you tell a teacher about an experience of sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, relationship abuse (dating violence and domestic violence), sexual misconduct or any form of gender discrimination involving members of the campus, your teacher is required to report this information to the campus Office of Sexual Assault & Violence Prevention or the Office of Equal Opportunity.
If you want to talk in confidence to someone about an experience of sexual discrimination, please contact these resources:
For confidential resources on campus: Counseling Center: 207-581-1392 or Cutler Health Center: at 207-581-4000.
For confidential resources off campus: Rape Response Services: 1-800-310-0000 or Spruce Run: 1-800-863-9909.
Other resources: The resources listed below can offer support but may have to report the incident to others who can help:
For support services on campus: Office of Sexual Assault & Violence Prevention: 207-581-1406, Office of Community Standards: 207-581-1409, University of Maine Police: 207-581-4040 or 911. Or see the OSAVP website for a complete list of services at http://www.umaine.edu/osavp/
In class today, Tuesday 9/3, I distributed 4 handouts: the syllabus (reproduced below), the Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Rutherford, some questions to guide your reading of Rutherford; and an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Evidence. We went over the Syllabus, and then began our investigation of the Rutherford case. We went over several different types of enacted rules: constitutions; statutes; regulations; ordinances; executive orders; rules of court; and contracts. We went over the vocabulary of plaintiff/defendant and of cause of action. We discussed Maine citation form, and the Maine rule about the order of the parties listed in the citation to a case.
The assignment for Thursday 9/5 is to read the 4 handouts from today. We had gotten partway through the Rutherford questions, and so think about those questions as you make your way though the Rutherford case.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW Fall 2019
Sol Goldman e-mail: solomon.goldman@maine.edu
Blog: www.goldmanmaine.blogspot.com
Office Hours: I will be in 241B N. Stevens from 8:00-9:15 and 11:00-12:15 on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or by appointment.
Description: This course is designed to educate students in the American legal system, focusing on its evolution and function as a dynamic social instrument.
Textbook: Introduction to Law and the Legal System, 11th edition, Schubert, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2015.
Student Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of the course, students will be able to:
1. Identify our various court systems, both federal and state
2. Understand the role of appellate and trial courts (e.g. findings of fact v. findings of law)
3. Identify various levels of review by appellate courts (e.g. de novo, clear error)
4. Identify stages of litigation (e.g. summary judgment, trial) and their implications for appellate review
5. Identify and critically analyze the use of precedent (e.g. mandatory v. persuasive; distinguish v. follow)
6. Identify the interplay between legislative and judicial lawmaking (e.g. common law, legislative intent)
7. Produce a case brief that succinctly leads to a statement of a court opinion’s holding
8. Critically analyze judicial decisions
9. Identify and critically analyze a sampling of substantive and procedural legal rules.
Grading:
1. Two homework assignments, each 21.25% of the final grade
2. Two tests, each 21.25% of the final grade
3. Class participation and attendance 15% of the final grade
[Grading plan is subject to change]
How I calculate the final grade:
I first convert each grade to a number on a 4.0 scale. So, for example, an A- is 3.67, B is 3.00, C+ 2.33, and C- is 1.67. I multiply that number by the percentage that the individual grade makes up of the final grade (here, 21.25%). So the A- is .78, the B is .64, the C+ is .50 and the C- is .35. Add them together for 2.27.
Attendance and participation is the remaining 15% of the grade. I take your unexcused absences and assign a letter grade (A-F). If you have participated usefully in class discussions, I can raise that grade by an appropriate amount. So, in our example, let’s say that you’ve had three unexcused absences during the semester, and I assign a preliminary grade of B. But you’ve participated unusually well in our class discussions, and so I raise that to an A. I convert that A to a 4.00, and multiply by the 15% of the final grade for participation and attendance. That’s .60. Added to the 2.27, that’s now 2.87.
An A is 3.83 to 4.00. A- is 3.50 to 3.82. B+ is 3.15 to 3.49. B is 2.83 to 3.14. B- is 2.50 to 2.82. And so on. In the example, 2.87= B as the final grade. Note that if there had not been the participation boost, the attendance grade of B would have converted to .45, which added to 2.27 would have yielded 2.72, or B-. If the student had say, 9 unexcused absences, that would be an F for participation and attendance, and the resulting 2.27 would leave a final grade of C+.
Policies:
1. Homework should be typed. Homework that is not typed may be rejected, at the discretion of the instructor.
2. There are no extra credit assignments.
3. Homework that is not passed in by the time it is due may receive a zero, at the discretion of the instructor. If homework is accepted late, then it may have a grade or more deducted. Even if homework is accepted late once, you should expect that a second assignment will not be accepted late. Even if you are absent from class, you should still, if at all possible, get the homework that is due for that class meeting to me on time. If you must be absent from class, you may e-mail your homework to me. At the discretion of the instructor, alternative homework assignments may be given in lieu of the original assignment.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
I will confirm any work that is submitted to me by e-mail. If you do not get a confirmation from me, the work has not been considered submitted.
4. I expect everyone to take the exams when they are given. If an emergency arises, it is your responsibility to be in touch with me as soon as possible. The decision on whether you will be allowed to make up a missed exam is at the discretion of the instructor. If you are allowed to make up an exam, you must have completed the make-up exam before the beginning of the class period in which the exam is handed back (generally, the next class).
Make-up examinations, if allowed, will be scheduled at the instructor’s discretion.
5. Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. Students who cheat will be subject to a range of penalties, from grade deductions to failure of the assignment to failure of the course, at the discretion of the instructor. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, the following: copying from another student’s papers, exams or homework assignments; reading from another student’s notes or written materials during an exam; allowing work to be copied by another student; collaboration on homework assignments; plagiarism. Do not discuss your work with other students; do not show your work to other students or look at their work. If we have discussed some aspect of the homework in class, do not talk to other students about our classroom discussion. In addition to any academic action taken by an instructor, these violations are also subject to action under the University of Maine Student Conduct Code. The maximum possible sanction under the student conduct code is dismissal from the University.
Special Accommodations: If you have a disability for which you may be requesting an accommodation, please contact Student Accessibility Services, 121 East Annex, 581.2319, as early as possible in the term. Students who have already been approved for accommodations by SAS and have a current accommodation letter should meet with me (the instructor of the course) privately as soon as possible.
Attendance Policy-
I expect that you will attend all classes. Attendance will be taken at the beginning of each class and monitored throughout the semester. Students who regularly attend classes are more likely to succeed in the class overall.
If you have a good reason for being absent from class, so that I should consider the absence to be an excused absence, it is your responsibility to e-mail me before or immediately following the missed class, to explain why you believe that the absence should be excused. The decision to excuse the absence will be at the discretion of the instructor. Each absence requires a separate, timely email to me. I keep track of excused absences only by the e-mail record, so e-mail is the only acceptable method of letting me know about absences that should be excused.
I will respond by email to every email notice of absence sent to me. If you get no timely response from me (usually, end of the day) it means that I have not received your absence notice, and therefore cannot consider it for an excused absence
Students will be responsible for the material covered in each class, including lecture notes. Therefore, I encourage you to get to know your classmates and to make sure that you have a complete set of lecture notes.
If you are absent from class, it is your responsibility to get the assignment for the following class. You can get it from the blog, from a fellow student, or you can e-mail me, but I expect you to come to the following class prepared. At the end of each class session the assignment for the following class will be announced. That assignment will also be posted on the blog.
If you are absent from class, it is your responsibility to get any handouts that were distributed to the class.
Homework Assignments and Exams:
This syllabus does not contain a schedule of specific class-by-class homework assignments and exam schedules, because I have found that I invariably stray from such a schedule. Instead, I will announce in class the actual dates, and also post that information on the blog. If you miss class, always check the blog for information on what we covered in class, and what the assignment is for the future classes.
NO CELL PHONE USE AND NO COMPUTER USE FOR OTHER THAN APPROVED CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES IS ALLOWED IN CLASS.
Sexual Discrimination Reporting
The University of Maine is committed to making campus a safe place for students. Because of this commitment, if you tell a teacher about an experience of sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, relationship abuse (dating violence and domestic violence), sexual misconduct or any form of gender discrimination involving members of the campus, your teacher is required to report this information to the campus Office of Sexual Assault & Violence Prevention or the Office of Equal Opportunity.
If you want to talk in confidence to someone about an experience of sexual discrimination, please contact these resources:
For confidential resources on campus: Counseling Center: 207-581-1392 or Cutler Health Center: at 207-581-4000.
For confidential resources off campus: Rape Response Services: 1-800-310-0000 or Spruce Run: 1-800-863-9909.
Other resources: The resources listed below can offer support but may have to report the incident to others who can help:
For support services on campus: Office of Sexual Assault & Violence Prevention: 207-581-1406, Office of Community Standards: 207-581-1409, University of Maine Police: 207-581-4040 or 911. Or see the OSAVP website for a complete list of services at http://www.umaine.edu/osavp/
In the event of an extended disruption of normal classroom activities, the format for this course may be modified to enable its completion within its programmed time frame. In that event, you will be provided an addendum to the syllabus that will supersede this version.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/3, I distributed 3 handouts: the syllabus (reproduced below), some questions raised by the text of the 4th Amendment; and a list of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. We went over the Syllabus, the SCOTUS Justices, and the 4th Amendment text and questions.
The assignment for Thursday 9/5 is to read in the text pp. 48-67, including Katz and Greenwood.
UNIVERSITY OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
POS 484 AMERICAN CONSTITUTION AND CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS Fall 2019
Sol Goldman e-mail: solomon.goldman@maine.edu
Blog: www.goldmanmaine.blogspot.com
Office Hours: I will be in 241B N. Stevens from 8:00-9:15 and 11:00-12:15 on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or by appointment.
Description: This course examines the development of Supreme Court doctrines governing the jurisprudence of constitutional rights afforded the criminally accused. Areas examined include the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the Constitution and their applicability to the states via the 14th Amendment.
Textbook: Matthew Lippman, Criminal Procedure, 4th Edition, Sage Publications
Student Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of the course, students will be able to
1. Identify and critically analyze constitutional rules regarding criminal procedure.
2. Identify and critically analyze implementation arguments in favor of certain judicial outcomes and philosophies (e.g. ease of implementation of a rule; consistency v. flexibility; broad v. narrow scope of decisions).
3. Identify and critically analyze approaches to constitutional analysis (e.g. textualism, originalism, evolving standards).
4. Understand the process by which precedent is followed, extended, limited or overruled.
Grading:
1. Two homework assignments, each 21.25% of the final grade
2. Two tests, each 21.25% of the final grade
3. Class participation and attendance 15% of the final grade
[Grading plan is subject to change]
How I calculate the final grade:
I first convert each grade to a number on a 4.0 scale. So, for example, an A- is 3.67, B is 3.00, C+ 2.33, and C- is 1.67. I multiply that number by the percentage that the individual grade makes up of the final grade (here, 21.25%). So the A- is .78, the B is .64, the C+ is .50 and the C- is .35. Add them together for 2.27.
Attendance and participation is the remaining 15% of the grade. I take your unexcused absences and assign a letter grade (A-F). If you have participated usefully in class discussions, I can raise that grade by an appropriate amount. So, in our example, let’s say that you’ve had three unexcused absences during the semester, and I assign a preliminary grade of B. But you’ve participated unusually well in our class discussions, and so I raise that to an A. I convert that A to a 4.00, and multiply by the 15% of the final grade for participation and attendance. That’s .60. Added to the 2.27, that’s now 2.87.
An A is 3.83 to 4.00. A- is 3.50 to 3.82. B+ is 3.15 to 3.49. B is 2.83 to 3.14. B- is 2.50 to 2.82. And so on. In the example, 2.87= B as the final grade. Note that if there had not been the participation boost, the attendance grade of B would have converted to .45, which added to 2.27 would have yielded 2.72, or B-. If the student had say, 9 unexcused absences, that would be an F for participation and attendance, and the resulting 2.27 would leave a final grade of C+.
Policies:
1. Homework should be typed. Homework that is not typed may be rejected, at the discretion of the instructor.
2. There are no extra credit assignments.
3. Homework that is not passed in by the time it is due may receive a zero, at the discretion of the instructor. If homework is accepted late, then it may have a grade or more deducted. Even if homework is accepted late once, you should expect that a second assignment will not be accepted late. Even if you are absent from class, you should still, if at all possible, get the homework that is due for that class meeting to me on time. If you must be absent from class, you may e-mail your homework to me. At the discretion of the instructor, alternative homework assignments may be given in lieu of the original assignment.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
I will confirm any work that is submitted to me by e-mail. If you do not get a confirmation from me, the work has not been considered submitted.
4. I expect everyone to take the exams when they are given. If an emergency arises, it is your responsibility to be in touch with me as soon as possible. The decision on whether you will be allowed to make up a missed exam is at the discretion of the instructor. If you are allowed to make up an exam, you must have completed the make-up exam before the beginning of the class period in which the exam is handed back (generally, the next class).
Make-up examinations, if allowed, will be scheduled at the instructor’s discretion.
5. Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. Students who cheat will be subject to a range of penalties, from grade deductions to failure of the assignment to failure of the course, at the discretion of the instructor. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, the following: copying from another student’s papers, exams or homework assignments; reading from another student’s notes or written materials during an exam; allowing work to be copied by another student; collaboration on homework assignments; plagiarism. Do not discuss your work with other students; do not show your work to other students or look at their work. If we have discussed some aspect of the homework in class, do not talk to other students about our classroom discussion. In addition to any academic action taken by an instructor, these violations are also subject to action under the University of Maine Student Conduct Code. The maximum possible sanction under the student conduct code is dismissal from the University.
Special Accommodations: If you have a disability for which you may be requesting an accommodation, please contact Student Accessibility Services, 121 East Annex, 581-2319, as early as possible in the term. Students who have already been approved for accommodations by SAS and have a current accommodation letter should meet with me (the instructor of the course) privately as soon as possible.
Attendance Policy-
I expect that you will attend all classes. Attendance will be taken at the beginning of each class and monitored throughout the semester. Students who regularly attend classes are more likely to succeed in the class overall.
If you have a good reason for being absent from class, so that I should consider the absence to be an excused absence, it is your responsibility to e-mail me before or immediately following the missed class, to explain why you believe that the absence should be excused. The decision to excuse the absence will be at the discretion of the instructor. Each absence requires a separate, timely email to me. I keep track of excused absences only by the e-mail record, so e-mail is the only acceptable method of letting me know about absences that should be excused.
I will respond by email to every email notice of absence sent to me. If you get no timely response from me (usually, end of the day) it means that I have not received your absence notice, and therefore cannot consider it for an excused absence
Students will be responsible for the material covered in each class, including lecture notes. Therefore, I encourage you to get to know your classmates and to make sure that you have a complete set of lecture notes.
If you are absent from class, it is your responsibility to get the assignment for the following class. You can get it from the blog, from a fellow student, or you can e-mail me, but I expect you to come to the following class prepared. At the end of each class session the assignment for the following class will be announced. That assignment will also be posted on the blog.
If you are absent from class, it is your responsibility to get any handouts that were distributed to the class.
Homework Assignments and Exams:
This syllabus does not contain a schedule of specific class-by-class homework assignments and exam schedules, because I have found that I invariably stray from such a schedule. Instead, I will announce in class the actual dates, and also post that information on the blog. If you miss class, always check the blog for information on what we covered in class, and what the assignment is for the future classes.
NO CELL PHONE USE AND NO COMPUTER USE FOR OTHER THAN APPROVED CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES IS ALLOWED IN CLASS.
In the event of an extended disruption of normal classroom activities, the format for this course may be modified to enable its completion within its programmed time frame. In that event, you will be provided an addendum to the syllabus that will supersede this version.
Sexual Discrimination Reporting
The University of Maine is committed to making campus a safe place for students. Because of this commitment, if you tell a teacher about an experience of sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, relationship abuse (dating violence and domestic violence), sexual misconduct or any form of gender discrimination involving members of the campus, your teacher is required to report this information to the campus Office of Sexual Assault & Violence Prevention or the Office of Equal Opportunity.
If you want to talk in confidence to someone about an experience of sexual discrimination, please contact these resources:
For confidential resources on campus: Counseling Center: 207-581-1392 or Cutler Health Center: at 207-581-4000.
For confidential resources off campus: Rape Response Services: 1-800-310-0000 or Spruce Run: 1-800-863-9909.
Other resources: The resources listed below can offer support but may have to report the incident to others who can help:
For support services on campus: Office of Sexual Assault & Violence Prevention: 207-581-1406, Office of Community Standards: 207-581-1409, University of Maine Police: 207-581-4040 or 911. Or see the OSAVP website for a complete list of services at http://www.umaine.edu/osavp/
Thursday, May 2, 2019
May 2, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 5/2, I distributed 2 handouts: an excerpt from the U.S. Supreme Court same sex marriage recognition case of Obergefell v.Hodges, and the U.S. Supreme Court recognition of same sex adoption case of V.L. v. E.L. We first went through Full Faith and Credit and the Finstuen case from the text, and then we went into Chapter 4 and discussed the subject-matter jurisdiction case of Cheap Escape v. Haddox. Regarding subject-matter jurisdiction, I also went over the Maine case of Landmark Realty v. Leasure (2004 ME 85) and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing (11/8/2017). We discussed the different requirements of full faith and credit depending on whether there is a state statute involved, versus a state court judgment. We also discussed how lack of subject-matter is a powerful requirement that can never be waived. We saw how the two doctrines, full faith and credit and subject-matter jurisdiction were resolved in the V.L. v. E.L. case
Exam #2 will be Tuesday 5/7 from 8:00-9:15, open-book and open-note. Remember that if you are using a laptop, you may not connect to the internet or do any other function that someone using paper cannot do. If you are missing any handouts, be sure to email me by 8:00 pm on Monday 5/6, and specify exactly which handouts you need a copy of.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 5/2, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I also talked about the current free speech case of Nieves v. Bartlett, in which the Court will decide whether the existence of probable cause to arrest a suspect automatically defeats the suspect's later claim that the arrest is based on retaliation for the exercise of his free speech rights.
Have a good summer, and I hope to see some of you next semester.
In class today, Thursday 5/2, I distributed 2 handouts: an excerpt from the U.S. Supreme Court same sex marriage recognition case of Obergefell v.Hodges, and the U.S. Supreme Court recognition of same sex adoption case of V.L. v. E.L. We first went through Full Faith and Credit and the Finstuen case from the text, and then we went into Chapter 4 and discussed the subject-matter jurisdiction case of Cheap Escape v. Haddox. Regarding subject-matter jurisdiction, I also went over the Maine case of Landmark Realty v. Leasure (2004 ME 85) and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing (11/8/2017). We discussed the different requirements of full faith and credit depending on whether there is a state statute involved, versus a state court judgment. We also discussed how lack of subject-matter is a powerful requirement that can never be waived. We saw how the two doctrines, full faith and credit and subject-matter jurisdiction were resolved in the V.L. v. E.L. case
Exam #2 will be Tuesday 5/7 from 8:00-9:15, open-book and open-note. Remember that if you are using a laptop, you may not connect to the internet or do any other function that someone using paper cannot do. If you are missing any handouts, be sure to email me by 8:00 pm on Monday 5/6, and specify exactly which handouts you need a copy of.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 5/2, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I also talked about the current free speech case of Nieves v. Bartlett, in which the Court will decide whether the existence of probable cause to arrest a suspect automatically defeats the suspect's later claim that the arrest is based on retaliation for the exercise of his free speech rights.
Have a good summer, and I hope to see some of you next semester.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
April 30, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/30, the class first decided that our exam next Tuesday 5/7 will be from 8:00 until 9:15. If you are missing any handouts, email with your requests by 8:00 pm on Monday 5/6. I also reminded the class to fill out the online class evaluations.
We then turned to conflict of law rules. In Hubbard v. Greeson, we discussed the difference in Illinois versus Indiana law; which state (applying its own conflict of law rules) would apply Illinois law; ans how it all went wrong when the Indiana Supreme Court changed its rules. In Land v. Yamaha, we saw how the federal court was required to apply the Indiana Hubbard v. Greeson conflict of law rule, and how that basically ended the case against Yamaha. Along the way, we discussed Statutes of Repose versus Statutes of Limitation, and also the two bases of federal trial court jurisdiction. Finally, I went over the Maine 1995 Supreme Court decision in Collins v. Trius, which involved the choice between applying Canadian versus Maine law.
The assignment for Thursday 5/2 is to read in the text through p. 129 of the text, including Finstuen v. Crutcher (full faith and credit) and Cheap Escape v. Haddox (subject matter jurisdiction).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 4/30, the class took Exam #2. I will return and go over that exam on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 5/2 is to show up for class, and to make sure that you have filled out the online class evaluation.
In class today, Tuesday 4/30, the class first decided that our exam next Tuesday 5/7 will be from 8:00 until 9:15. If you are missing any handouts, email with your requests by 8:00 pm on Monday 5/6. I also reminded the class to fill out the online class evaluations.
We then turned to conflict of law rules. In Hubbard v. Greeson, we discussed the difference in Illinois versus Indiana law; which state (applying its own conflict of law rules) would apply Illinois law; ans how it all went wrong when the Indiana Supreme Court changed its rules. In Land v. Yamaha, we saw how the federal court was required to apply the Indiana Hubbard v. Greeson conflict of law rule, and how that basically ended the case against Yamaha. Along the way, we discussed Statutes of Repose versus Statutes of Limitation, and also the two bases of federal trial court jurisdiction. Finally, I went over the Maine 1995 Supreme Court decision in Collins v. Trius, which involved the choice between applying Canadian versus Maine law.
The assignment for Thursday 5/2 is to read in the text through p. 129 of the text, including Finstuen v. Crutcher (full faith and credit) and Cheap Escape v. Haddox (subject matter jurisdiction).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 4/30, the class took Exam #2. I will return and go over that exam on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 5/2 is to show up for class, and to make sure that you have filled out the online class evaluation.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
April 25, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/25, I reminded the class about completing the on-line evaluations of the class. We began by discussing the Butler case. I went over three types of dictum that we've encountered, and I also discussed the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. N.Y. We then discussed the question of retroactivity and the Dempsey case. We reviewed Montgomery v. Louisiana, and I also discussed the 1966 case of Johnson v. N.J. We went over the two primary federal models of retroactive application, and saw how Montana was free to make its own choice, and how it chose neither of the federal models. Finally we discussed the Strunk case, and what a court does in the absence of precedent.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/30 is to read through p. 115 of the text (including Hubbard v. Greeson) and to read on addition pp. 144-146 (including Land v. Yamaha).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 4/25, I reminded the class about completing the on-line evaluations of the class. We finished going through the census briefs, completing the blow-by-blow of Commerce punches and NY counter-punches. We then got to spend a short time with the oral argument that was assigned. We saw how Ginsburg was able to get an admission from Francisco that the reason for getting rid of the citizenship question in 1960 was to improve accuracy. We also saw how Roberts weighed in on the standing issue.
On Tuesday 4/30 we will have Exam #2. If you are missing any handouts, email me with your requests by 8:00 pm on Monday 4/29. Remember that, if you are using a computer, you may not connect to the internet or do any other activity that someone using paper is not able to do.
In class today, Thursday 4/25, I reminded the class about completing the on-line evaluations of the class. We began by discussing the Butler case. I went over three types of dictum that we've encountered, and I also discussed the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. N.Y. We then discussed the question of retroactivity and the Dempsey case. We reviewed Montgomery v. Louisiana, and I also discussed the 1966 case of Johnson v. N.J. We went over the two primary federal models of retroactive application, and saw how Montana was free to make its own choice, and how it chose neither of the federal models. Finally we discussed the Strunk case, and what a court does in the absence of precedent.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/30 is to read through p. 115 of the text (including Hubbard v. Greeson) and to read on addition pp. 144-146 (including Land v. Yamaha).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 4/25, I reminded the class about completing the on-line evaluations of the class. We finished going through the census briefs, completing the blow-by-blow of Commerce punches and NY counter-punches. We then got to spend a short time with the oral argument that was assigned. We saw how Ginsburg was able to get an admission from Francisco that the reason for getting rid of the citizenship question in 1960 was to improve accuracy. We also saw how Roberts weighed in on the standing issue.
On Tuesday 4/30 we will have Exam #2. If you are missing any handouts, email me with your requests by 8:00 pm on Monday 4/29. Remember that, if you are using a computer, you may not connect to the internet or do any other activity that someone using paper is not able to do.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
April 23, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/23, I first reminded students to fill out the on-line evaluations for the class. We went through the NFIB v. Sebelius case, discussing dictum, and Roberts' view of text, definitions, precedent, and the federal government's arguments. We also discussed the Ginsburg dissent, and the "joint dissent". We discussed the police power, federal supremacy and the delivery of internet sales of cigarette sales, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and ex post facto laws (regarding sex offender registries). We will pick upon Thursday with the Butler case and dictum.
The assignment for Thursday 4/25 is review what was previously assigned in the text through p.109 (including Butler and Dempsey), and to read in addition through p.113 (including Strunk).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 4/23, I handed back the Rucho papers, and discussed some aspects of the grading of those papers.I reminded students to fill out the on-line evaluations for the class. We then started going through the briefs in the Census case. We matched the argument made in the Commerce brief with the answer made in the N.Y. brief. We got through the "arbitrary and capricious" portion of the Commerce brief, and will pick up on Thursday with Part I(E) of the Commerce brief, whether adding the citizenship question violates the 1976 Census Act. Along the way, I went over the 2016 Supreme Court decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, which held that a state was allowed to use total population as a basis for redistricting, rather than the count of citizens of voting age.
The assignment for Thursday 4/25 is to review the three Commerce v. N.Y. handouts from last week, as well as reading the transcript of today's oral argument in Commerce v. N.Y.
In class today, Tuesday 4/23, I first reminded students to fill out the on-line evaluations for the class. We went through the NFIB v. Sebelius case, discussing dictum, and Roberts' view of text, definitions, precedent, and the federal government's arguments. We also discussed the Ginsburg dissent, and the "joint dissent". We discussed the police power, federal supremacy and the delivery of internet sales of cigarette sales, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and ex post facto laws (regarding sex offender registries). We will pick upon Thursday with the Butler case and dictum.
The assignment for Thursday 4/25 is review what was previously assigned in the text through p.109 (including Butler and Dempsey), and to read in addition through p.113 (including Strunk).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 4/23, I handed back the Rucho papers, and discussed some aspects of the grading of those papers.I reminded students to fill out the on-line evaluations for the class. We then started going through the briefs in the Census case. We matched the argument made in the Commerce brief with the answer made in the N.Y. brief. We got through the "arbitrary and capricious" portion of the Commerce brief, and will pick up on Thursday with Part I(E) of the Commerce brief, whether adding the citizenship question violates the 1976 Census Act. Along the way, I went over the 2016 Supreme Court decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, which held that a state was allowed to use total population as a basis for redistricting, rather than the count of citizens of voting age.
The assignment for Thursday 4/25 is to review the three Commerce v. N.Y. handouts from last week, as well as reading the transcript of today's oral argument in Commerce v. N.Y.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
April 18, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/18, we began by going over the Caperton case. We looked at the tests for recusal proposed by Justice Benjamin, and then how the Court had a different test for when recusal was mandatory. Having created a test, the Court then defined what the test required in the circumstances of this case. Having defined the circumstances, the Court then applied that definition to the actual facts of the this case. I then went over a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case, Williams v. Pennsylvania, in which the Court had to decide what circumstances required recusal of a justice of the state supreme court when that justice had previously been the District Attorney in the prosecution of the same defendant now appearing before the state supreme court. We then moved on to Chapter 3 of the text, and began our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius. We went over how Congress (unlike the state legislatures) needs a particular grant of power in order to legislate in an area, and how the Court, although rejecting the interstate commerce clause as that grant, did agree that the taxing power worked as the source of the power. (We also discussed recent developments about the repeal of the tax.) We will pick up next Tuesday with the analysis of why the interstate commerce clause was rejected, as well as look at the dissents from that part of the opinion.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/23 is to review NFIB v. Sebelius, and to read in addition through p. 109 of the text (including Butler and Dempsey).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 4/18, I first collected the Rucho papers. I hope that I'll be able to grade them this weekend, and to return them on Tuesday. For Rucho, we discussed what the Court is likely to do with the case, as well as what the class thought that it should do.
I then distributed three handouts from the census case, Dept. of Commerce v. N.Y.: the Commerce brief, the N.Y. brief, and the Commerce Reply brief. I went over the layout of that that case.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/23 is to read the 3 handouts from today. The oral argument in the case is scheduled for the morning of Tuesday 4/23.
In class today, Thursday 4/18, we began by going over the Caperton case. We looked at the tests for recusal proposed by Justice Benjamin, and then how the Court had a different test for when recusal was mandatory. Having created a test, the Court then defined what the test required in the circumstances of this case. Having defined the circumstances, the Court then applied that definition to the actual facts of the this case. I then went over a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case, Williams v. Pennsylvania, in which the Court had to decide what circumstances required recusal of a justice of the state supreme court when that justice had previously been the District Attorney in the prosecution of the same defendant now appearing before the state supreme court. We then moved on to Chapter 3 of the text, and began our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius. We went over how Congress (unlike the state legislatures) needs a particular grant of power in order to legislate in an area, and how the Court, although rejecting the interstate commerce clause as that grant, did agree that the taxing power worked as the source of the power. (We also discussed recent developments about the repeal of the tax.) We will pick up next Tuesday with the analysis of why the interstate commerce clause was rejected, as well as look at the dissents from that part of the opinion.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/23 is to review NFIB v. Sebelius, and to read in addition through p. 109 of the text (including Butler and Dempsey).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 4/18, I first collected the Rucho papers. I hope that I'll be able to grade them this weekend, and to return them on Tuesday. For Rucho, we discussed what the Court is likely to do with the case, as well as what the class thought that it should do.
I then distributed three handouts from the census case, Dept. of Commerce v. N.Y.: the Commerce brief, the N.Y. brief, and the Commerce Reply brief. I went over the layout of that that case.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/23 is to read the 3 handouts from today. The oral argument in the case is scheduled for the morning of Tuesday 4/23.
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
April 16, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/16, I passed back the Pagnani case briefs, as well as distributing my version of the case brief, and the Comment Key to my comments on your case briefs. After a few comments on the case brief, we went over Glassford v.BrickKicker. Among the subjects we covered were arbitration clauses and exculpatory clauses, substantive and procedural unconscionability, and severability. I then talked about a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which the Court dealt with different interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act and its relationship to the National Labor Relations Act.
The assignment for Thursday 4/18 is to read through p. 96 of the text,including both Caperton v. Massey Coal (p. 79) and NFIB v. Sebelius (p. 93).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 4/16, we first decided that exam #2 will be on Tuesday 4/30. I also clarified that the final paragraph of the paper really asks only for clumps of Justices that would join together, rather than actual majorities, concurrences and dissents, as there are only 8 Justices that you're considering, and even within those eight, you're only looking at the two interactions that you've included. I tried to clarify several case references in the Rucho oral argument that you might want to know about. We reviewed the case of the Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Redistricting Commission. In terms of the burden-shifting (e.g. 40:14) I went over the 1977 case of Mt Healthy v. Doyle. And in terms of picking numbers out of a hat, as Breyer suggests at 19:10, I went over the 2014 case of NLRB v. Noel Canning, in which Breyer picked numbers out of a hat in order to define when a "recess" of the Senate was long enough in order to allow a Presidential recess appointment.
The assignment for Thursday 4/18 is to finish work on your Rucho paper, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 4/18.
In class today, Tuesday 4/16, I passed back the Pagnani case briefs, as well as distributing my version of the case brief, and the Comment Key to my comments on your case briefs. After a few comments on the case brief, we went over Glassford v.BrickKicker. Among the subjects we covered were arbitration clauses and exculpatory clauses, substantive and procedural unconscionability, and severability. I then talked about a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which the Court dealt with different interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act and its relationship to the National Labor Relations Act.
The assignment for Thursday 4/18 is to read through p. 96 of the text,including both Caperton v. Massey Coal (p. 79) and NFIB v. Sebelius (p. 93).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 4/16, we first decided that exam #2 will be on Tuesday 4/30. I also clarified that the final paragraph of the paper really asks only for clumps of Justices that would join together, rather than actual majorities, concurrences and dissents, as there are only 8 Justices that you're considering, and even within those eight, you're only looking at the two interactions that you've included. I tried to clarify several case references in the Rucho oral argument that you might want to know about. We reviewed the case of the Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Redistricting Commission. In terms of the burden-shifting (e.g. 40:14) I went over the 1977 case of Mt Healthy v. Doyle. And in terms of picking numbers out of a hat, as Breyer suggests at 19:10, I went over the 2014 case of NLRB v. Noel Canning, in which Breyer picked numbers out of a hat in order to define when a "recess" of the Senate was long enough in order to allow a Presidential recess appointment.
The assignment for Thursday 4/18 is to finish work on your Rucho paper, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 4/18.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
April 11, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/11, I collected the Pagnani case briefs. I plan to grade them this weekend and to return them on Tuesday, as well as to distribute my own version of the Pagnani case brief. We went over the particulars of that case and case brief, concentrating on the three variables of the search incident to an arrest matrix: status of the arrest; timing of the arrest and of the search; and area of the search.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/16 is to review Glassford v. BrickKicker, previously assigned.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 4/11, I distributed one handout, an additional excerpt from Gorsuch's opinion in Bucklew. We went over the Bucklew handouts, and discussed in detail how Gorsuch's opinion appears to hollow out the Baze test, while not disturbing its shell.
We then turned to Rucho and partisan gerrymandering. I went over the right of appeal in redistricting cases, as opposed to petitions for cert. We went over the first of the 3 issues presented, standing. I went over Gill v. Whitford from last term, in which the challengers lost for lack of standing. We then went to justiciability. I went over Baker v. Carr, Davis v. Bandemer, and Vieth v. Jubelirer. We discussed the two basic tests of justiciability: commitment to another branch, and manageable standards. We talked about the efficiency gap, and generating thousands of potential maps that adhere to neutral principles of redistricting.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/16 is to continue working on your Rucho papers, due next Thursday. Review the briefs that I distributed on Tuesday, and keep listening to the Rucho oral argument.
In class today, Thursday 4/11, I collected the Pagnani case briefs. I plan to grade them this weekend and to return them on Tuesday, as well as to distribute my own version of the Pagnani case brief. We went over the particulars of that case and case brief, concentrating on the three variables of the search incident to an arrest matrix: status of the arrest; timing of the arrest and of the search; and area of the search.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/16 is to review Glassford v. BrickKicker, previously assigned.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 4/11, I distributed one handout, an additional excerpt from Gorsuch's opinion in Bucklew. We went over the Bucklew handouts, and discussed in detail how Gorsuch's opinion appears to hollow out the Baze test, while not disturbing its shell.
We then turned to Rucho and partisan gerrymandering. I went over the right of appeal in redistricting cases, as opposed to petitions for cert. We went over the first of the 3 issues presented, standing. I went over Gill v. Whitford from last term, in which the challengers lost for lack of standing. We then went to justiciability. I went over Baker v. Carr, Davis v. Bandemer, and Vieth v. Jubelirer. We discussed the two basic tests of justiciability: commitment to another branch, and manageable standards. We talked about the efficiency gap, and generating thousands of potential maps that adhere to neutral principles of redistricting.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/16 is to continue working on your Rucho papers, due next Thursday. Review the briefs that I distributed on Tuesday, and keep listening to the Rucho oral argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)