November 8, 2011

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/8, we first discussed the Penn State situation regarding mandated reporting of child abuse in the football program, and also talked about the Maine Law Court being in Bangor for a few days. We then turned to the Johnson case and punitive damages. I went over the 2007 Supreme Court punitive damages case of Philip Morris v. Williams. We went over the two major issues that the California Supreme Court dealt with in Johnson. We then briefly went over the attorney advertising case of Florida Bar v. Pape. We will pick up with the Gonzales v. Raich case on Thursday. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 11/10 is to read through p. 130 of the text.

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 11/8, I distributed one handout, the assignment below. Note that it will be due Thursday 11/17, rather than the following Tuesday as we had previously discussed. After going over the requirements of the assignment, we started our discussion of the Court of Appeals decision in our case, discussing how that Court distinguished the Knotts case. The oral argument in Jones was held today, and so the assignment is to read the transcript of that oral argument, as well as the Respondent Jones' Brief to the Supreme Court. We will concentrate our discussion Thursday, though, on going over today's oral argument.

For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Jones. 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 November 17. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of that 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 usually asks 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 Court of Appeals 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.

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”. I don’t need any introduction to the case, its facts, the proceedings below, or precedent.

Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against Jones), 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 Court of Appeals decision. The issues may include, but are not limited to, questions such as whether these issues makes a difference: how unlikely it would be that anyone would be observe all of a person’s movements for a month; how different the intrusion into a person’s privacy is when viewing a few snapshots of person’s movements, as opposed to all of them; how a ruling one way or the other will affect police work and will affect privacy of all individuals; whether the attachment itself of the GPs device was a search or seizure.

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

Justice Thomas raised questions about Jones’ predictions regarding the dire consequences if the warrantless GPS attachments are allowed. He asked Leckar (Jones’ lawyer) whether the consequences wouldn’t be even worse if he ruled against the government, since then they might be limited in conducting even a long-term visual surveillance of a suspect. Leckar replied that the means of a GPS intrusion is important, even if other means such as visual surveillance might be permitted. (25:14). Thomas retorted that if the Founders had had GPS, they would have allowed it, just as they allowed the use of a spyglass (26:2). This exchange indicates that Thomas thinks that the original intent of the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit GPS use, or alternatively, that the government should win because Lecker’s test would hamper law enforcement too much. I predict therefore that Thomas will vote against Jones.

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 the government’s position is correct, how do you answer Jones’ objections that permitting such searches would allow 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.