February 24, 2011

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term 2011
In class today, Thursday 2/24, I distributed assignment #2,which is copied below. After going through the assignment, we waded through the beginning of the oral argument, seeing the places in which Farley got sidetracked or into a thicket.The assignment for Tuesday March 15 is to work on the King assignment. I hope you have a fun and safe spring break.


Assignment #2
For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case of Kentucky v. King. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.

The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 6 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday March 17. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.

The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: Go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case. (Take a pass for Justice Thomas, who as usual asked no questions). Discuss how the questions asked or the comments made by a Justice may reflect a view of what the outcome should be. Remember that the Court issues two kinds of things: a Judgment (whether the decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court is affirmed or reversed); and an Opinion (the reasoning used to get to the result), Justices may agree on a result (a judgment) without agreeing on an opinion.

Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers. Start out the paper by telling me whether the page numbers from the transcript from which you are working are located on the bottom of the page, or at the top right of the page (so that I can follow the version of the transcript that you are working from).

You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange are crucial.

The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument”.

Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against King), but also rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties. An important part of the assignment is for you to identify those issues. For this, you will need to be guided by the arguments raised by the parties in their briefs, as well as the assigned Amicus Brief. The issues may include, but are not limited to, questions such as whether “lawful” is the correct legal standard for testing police-created exigent circumstances; does it allow the police too much leeway; if “lawfulness” is accepted as the standard, does it gut the warrant requirement too much; if the Court does not accept the “lawfulness” standard, what standard should it choose for police-created exigencies; does it make any difference whether the knock is a request for consent, rather than just a prelude to kicking the door in; does it make a difference whether the police made a demand for the door to be opened or not.

Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:

Justice Thomas raised questions about Drake’s proposed test of overall reasonableness of the search. He asked Drake why kicking down doors isn’t justified, and therefore “reasonable”, as soon as the police smelled the marijuana (25:7) Drake replied that, while the smell of marijuana would supply probable cause for the police to get a warrant, there still has to be an exigent circumstance before the police can enter without a warrant (25:14). Thomas replied that if “reasonableness” is the standard, he doesn’t see why it’s unreasonable to just kick down the door once the police know that there’s marijuana behind the door (26:2). This exchange indicates that Thomas either accepts overall reasonableness as a standard, (and since the police action is reasonable, King loses) or that reasonableness is not a good standard (in which case King also loses). I predict therefore that Thomas will vote against King.

For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Kentucky’s position is correct, how do you answer King’s objections that the “lawfulness” standard allows police too much leeway?

You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try used an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.

The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.

As I write this assignment, the Supreme Court has not yet decided this case; naturally, I hope they don’t decide it before March 17, because that would really complicate the process of evaluating a prediction. But, if they do decide the case before March 17 , I will post a modification to the assignment on the blog. Be sure to check the blog (even if you don’t miss any classes) to see if the Court has complicated my life.


POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 2/24, the class took Exam #1. I will return the exams, and we will go over them, when we return on Tuesday 3/15. The additional assignment for that day is to read in the text pp. 72-89. Have a fun and safe Spring Break.