November 19, 2013

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/19, I first handed back the Raich case briefs, together with my key to the numbered comments I made about those case briefs. We briefly went over the Raich briefs. We then returned to the concepts of Chapter 3 in the text. We discussed the prohibition against ex post facto laws in the context of the Sex Offender Registries that reach back in time to offenders who have already served their time. We then talked about the Butler case, and the concept of dictum. I went over a later U.S. Supreme Court case, Harris v. N.Y. that covered the same question as had the Ohio court in Butler. We then went over Dempsey, and the decision made by the Montana Supreme Court regarding the retroactive application of new decisions. The assignment for Thursday 11/21 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 115 of the text.

POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/19, I distributed assignment #2, reproduced below, and due Tuesday 11/26. I also distributed the Bryant case on which the assignment is based. We went over the requirements of the assignment, and then I gave a brief history of the cases leading up to Bryant. We went over Ohio v.Roberts (1980) and then the modern Confrontation clause jurisprudence of Crawford v. Washington (2004), Davis v. Washington (2006), and Hammon v. Indiana (2006). These are the legal background to the Bryant decision. We then went back to our discussion of Batson and the use of racial peremptories in jury selection. We got as far as Marshall's concurrence. The assignment for Thursday 11/21 is to begin work on the Bryant assignment below.

Assignment #2
For this assignment, I’m asking you for three brief sections, identified as such (Number the sections of your responses. Don’t copy any of the assignment as part of your answers; just use the numbering I’ve provided.). While this assignment does not ask you to make an outline of the opinions, one may well prove useful to you.

First, I would like you to make a “she said” (Sotomayor) / “he said” (Scalia) chart of Bryant. Using your own words, briefly identify the position taken by Sotomayor in the following three areas, and then identify Scalia’s response.

The three areas I want you to discuss are:
a. Whether there was in this case an “emergency in progress” situation.
b. Whether the court should look to the purpose of the police in asking questions of the declarant.
c. Whether the “reliability” of the statement is a factor in determining whether its admission complies with the Confrontation Clause.

Here’s an (inaccurate) example of what I’m looking for (provided simply to give a sense of how brief a description I’m looking for):
a. Sotomayor: There was an “emergency”, because getting Covington the victim to treatment was not something that could be delayed, the victim was in great pain, and Covington had explained to the police that Rick was out to kill everyone he saw.
a. Scalia: There was no emergency because the police knew immediately that the victim had suffered a fatal wound, they knew that Rick was only dangerous to Covington, and they knew just where to find Rick and capture him.

Note that these answers start with the position taken by each Justice, followed by the “because” segment of the answer. That’s the format I want you to follow.
Second, briefly give your own opinion about whether Covington’s statement (“Rick shot me”) should be allowed into evidence and why. A short paragraph should do. In other words, do you think that Sotomayor has the better position or Scalia, and why (or do you have a better idea than either one).

Third, analyze the following hypothetical situation in the way that you would do under your preferred approach from the second segment above. What questions do you need to ask, and how do those questions get answered. The three questions covered above should be included in your discussion, but you can add other questions as you think necessary.

Ugarte has stolen some very valuable letters of transit. Fearing that the authorities are after him, Ugarte brings the letters to his “friend” Rick to hide for him. Rick decides that he doesn’t just want to keep the letters for Ugarte, he wants to own them himself. Rick tries to kill Ugarte by knifing him, but he only succeeds in wounding Ugarte. Ugarte is very upset with Rick for betraying his trust, and wants Rick brought to justice Ugarte flees to the nearby police station, where the police see him, bleeding. Before they ask Ugarte anything, Ugarte blurts out that Rick stabbed him, with the knife, in the café, and that the reason for the stabbing was that Rick was jealous of Ugarte’s romantic conquests (he couldn’t very well tell the police about the stolen letters of transit, could he?). Although Ugarte thinks that the wound is serious, the police, with their superior training, believe that it is not. The police leave Ugarte alone in the station, and go to arrest Rick at his nearby cafe. They have been wanting to arrest Rick for a long time, because they consider him a loose cannon who is likely to hurt people on a whim. Unfortunately, while Ugarte’s wound would not have been lethal if it had been treated, no one has done anything to stop the bleeding, and, by the time the police return to the station (with the arrested Rick), Ugarte has bled to death. The prosecutor charges Rick with the crime, and at trial the prosecutor offers into evidence the statement that Ugarte made before he died: “Rick stabbed him, with the knife, in the café, and that the reason for the stabbing was that Rick was jealous of Ugarte’s romantic conquests”.

Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather on how well you complete the assignment and support your position. The paper 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.

The paper should be a minimum of 2 pages long, and no more than 3 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Tuesday November 26th. 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. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.


The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.