February 24, 2014

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/24, we first finished our discussion of Katko. We went over the use of secondary authority in the case. We then discussed whether a warning to Katko would have led to a different result. We discussed the concept of intent, and looked at the difference between the majority and dissent regarding intent to do what. We discussed the difference between what is intended, versus what actually results. I went over the four levels of mental states (at least under Maine law), intent, knowledge, recklessness and negligence. We also looked at the issue of punitive damages, and what bad lawyering looks like. We then started looking at the Maine defense of premises statute, looking at the definition of dwelling place as it relates to abandoned farmhouses, and the definition of deadly force, especially as it relates to the use of a gun. We'll put together the definitions and the rules under the Maine criminal statute on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 2/26 is to review Suggs v. Norris, previously assigned.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/24, I distributed one handout, my version of the Cohen outline. We went through that case and outline, following Harlan's opinion regarding what was and what was not the issue, and how the issue gets resolved. We will finish on Wednesday with a look at Harlan's final paragraph, and a look at the dissent. The assignment for Wednesday 2/26 is to read Hill v. Colorado (through p. 253). I want you to write out an outline of both the majority opinion in Hill, and of Scalia's dissent (not graded or handed in).


POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 2/24, we began going through the Lozano oral argument. We concentrated on those areas in which each lawyer seemed to be arguing against their natural position: Regan was arguing that return (even applying equitable tolling) was not automatic, but could take the best interests of the kid into account. Moskowitz argued in turn that, even if the kid was settled, non-return was not automatic, and concealment could play a part in determining return. We went through the construction of Article 12(2) regarding what would happen in case there was settlement under 12(2). The assignment for Wednesday 2/26 is to continue studying the oral argument, looking this time for specific indications that might allow us to predict how individual Justices may vote in the case.