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.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)