April 14, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/14, I distributed two handouts, Assignment #2, due Friday 4/28 (which is reproduced below), and the case you'll be briefing, Gaeth v. Deacon. (If you weren't in class, you can also access the case by going to Google Scholar, checking the bullet for "case law", and entering 2009 ME 9). We talked about the subject of the case, which is constructive service of "process" (the 2 pieces of paper that start a court case, the summons and the complaint). I also assigned the class to read the textbook material about this subject, which is on pp. 159-162. We then finished up our discussion of the Butler (dictum) case by talking about "voluntariness" as a separate issue from Miranda. Finally for Butler, we talked about why the Miranda rules even theoretically might apply to Butler's case, since the interrogation during which Butler made his statement preceded the Miranda decision. I talked about Johnson v. New Jersey, in which the Supreme Court decided to which cases in the legal pipeline Miranda would apply. We then moved on to the Dempsey case. In the federal court system we compared the "old" flexible rule (that sometimes allowed prospective only application) to the "new" bright line rule (that automatically applied the new rule to all cases still in the pipeline). We discussed why the Montana Supreme Court has the authority to set its own rule (even in the face of contrary U.S. Supreme Court opinions), and how they chose a compromise between the federal flexible versus bright-line approaches. Finally we went over the set-up of the Strunk v. Strunk case, and left off with the question of whether any person or court has the authority to say that it is in Jerry's interest to give up one of his kidneys.
The assignment for Monday 4/17 is to read in the text pp. 159-162; to begin work on the Gaeth case brief; review Strunk; and to read in addition pp. 113-116 (Hubbard v. Greason).

Assignment due Friday, April 28, 2017

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Gaeth v. Deacon,
2009 ME 9, 964 A.2d 621 (also distributed to the class today).

Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.

Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed, including this: after giving the winner’s facts, give the loser’s facts with a phrase that starts “even though...”.

For example: Under the 4th Amendment’s requirement of “probable cause”, was there a fair probability that drug-related evidence would be found at the suspect’s residence when there were multiple informants who substantiated the suspect’s drug activity, and that the suspect lived at the particular property, and the officer used her knowledge and experience to assert that evidence of drug activity would likely be found in a drug-trafficker’s home even though there was no information that the suspect had used his home in connection with his business?

Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.

Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Friday 4/28, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me. Do not plagiarize any other work. Do not even consult any other work. The whole point of the assignment is to have you learn how to get the most of the your own reading of the case.

IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.



POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/14, we looked at how the law of free exercise developed after the Reynolds (polygamy) case. We talked about Pierce (compulsory public school; Cantwell (license to solicit); Gobitis (compulsory flag salute); Prince (child religious pamphleteering); and Braunfeld (Sunday closing laws). We saw in Braunfeld how the Warren plurality opinion added additional hurdles to the flow chart, even if they didn't result there in any change to the outcome of the case for Mr. Braunfeld.
The assignment for Monday 4/17 is to review Sherbert v. Verner (previously assigned) and to read in addition Wisconsin v. Yoder (through p.115). In addition, continue working on your WWH outline, due 4/21.