May 2. 2016

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 5/2, I distributed one handout, the federal venue statute. We first discussed schedules, as there is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). I also said that our Exam #2 will be Monday 5/9 10:30 - 11:45 (not 2 hours, as is on the finals schedule). We discussed the idea behind federal court diversity jurisdiction, and the reasons that a party might want to be or not be in federal court, as opposed to state court. We went over St. James Apartments, and the citizenship of an LLC. I then talked about a March U.S. Supreme Court case, Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra, which decided the correct way to figure the citizenship of a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). We also discussed Frump v. Claire's Boutiques, which dealt with the question of how to figure the amount in controversy. The assignment for Friday 5/6 is to read today's handout on federal court venue, and to read in the text through p. 159 (Salmon v. Atkinson).


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 5/2, we first discussed schedules, as there is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). I also said that our Exam #2 will be Wednesday 5/11 10:30 - 11:45 (not 2 hours, as is on the finals schedule). I handed back the Assignment #2 papers, as well as a page of my Notes about the assignment and what I was looking for. We then discussed the confrontation clause. We started with the text of the clause, and talked about the three protections of the Clause. I then talked about the hearsay rule, and how it also dealt with the situation of not being able to confront the person who made the statement. I went over the dramatic change in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence in the Crawford case, which said that the Confrontation Clause is not tied to the hearsay rule and its exceptions. I read an excerpt from Scalia's dissent in Michigan v. Bryant, in which he accused the Court majority of reverting to a pre-Crawford tying of the Confrontation Clause to the hearsay exceptions. We then waded into the three opinions in Ohio v. Clark, which, despite the unanimity of the decision, had three very different views. We went over the concept of "testimony", and how some out-of-court statements are testimonial, while others are not. We looked at the emergency role of the police versus the prosecution-preparation role of the police. We examined the three opinions in terms of whether teachers could be considered to be in the same shoes as the police. I will begin on Friday with Thomas' view of the correct question to ask to determine if something is testimonial, which is different from the question asked by the other Justices. The assignment for Friday 5/6 is to review Ohio v. Clark, and to read in the text pp. 596 - 598 (double jeopardy).