February 20, 2018

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/20 I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #1, reproduced below, and the case you'll be briefing, State v. Legassie. I let the class know I plan our Exam #1 for Tuesday March 6th. I talked about the case brief assignment, and a little about the Best Evidence rule issue that you will not be briefing. We then went through Lawrence v. Texas, and put it into the format of a case brief. We saw how Kennedy criticized the "fundamental right" analysis of Bowers v. Hardwick, but then surprisingly did not find a fundamental right to be involved in Lawrence. I also talked about the concurring opinion of Justice O'Connor, which was based on Equal Protection instead of Due Process. We talked about the scope of the Lawrence holding, and how it might apply to the assigned case of Legassie and Indecent Conduct. Along the way, we also discussed the concept of de novo review by an appellate court (usually limited to questions of law), as contrasted with review of the sufficiency of the evidence (usually applied to questions of fact), and how that wasn't the process in Texas in the Lawrence prior proceedings.
The assignment for Thursday 2/22 is to read Legassie, so that we can discuss it in class, and to read in the text pp.34-38, including Speelman v. Housing Authority.

Assignment due Thursday, March 1, 2018

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the Indecent Conduct portion the case of State v. Legassie, 2017 ME 202, __ A.3d __ (also distributed to the class today). (I have omitted the second part of the case, regarding the Best Evidence rule, and the assignment is to just brief the Indecent Conduct discussion).

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. For this assignment, do not include the loser's facts (the "even though" portion of the facts).

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 Thursday 3/1, 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 no outside research. Do not troll the internet.

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 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 2/20 I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #1, reproduced below, and the case you'll be outlining, D.C. v. Wesby. I let the class know I plan our Exam #1 for Tuesday March 6th. We first went over the requirements of the outline, and I gave some explanation of the second issue in Wesby, the existence of qualified immunity even if there had been no probable cause for the arrests. We then moved to the definition of probable cause, and the Gates case. We went over the pre-Gates test, and saw how Gates changed it. We outlined together the Gates opinion, putting Roman Numerals and sub-elements into the opinion. We also went over the dissent. I then talked about a 2014 case Navarette v. California, in which the Court decided whether reasonable suspicion was generated by an anonymous tip. I left off at the question of how the the Court found support for the existence of an on-going crime, which is where I'll pick up on Thursday. Along the way, we also discussed the concept of de novo review by an appellate court (usually limited to questions of law), as contrasted with review of the sufficiency of the evidence (as in the decision of the Magistrate regarding probable cause).
The assignment for Thursday 2/22 is to read the Wesby case (so that I can answer any questions) and read in the text pp. 483-487 (including Florida v. Jardines).

Assignment due Thursday, March 1, 2018

The assignment is to do an outline of Justice Thomas' opinion in D.C. v. Wesby (also distributed to the class today).

Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I've distributed, with the following clarification: Use Question only for the Roman numerals, and then Question and Answer for all the other elements. Both the questions and the answers should be complete sentences.

The structure should go like this:
Roman numeral; Capital Letter; Numbers; Lower Case Letter.
For example:
I. (Question)
A. (Question and Answer)
1. (Question and Answer)
2. (Question and Answer)
a. (Question and Answer)
b. (Question and Answer)
B. (Question and Answer)
II. (Question)

Follow the structure already provided by Justice Thomas:
I.
II.
III.
A.
B.
IV.
A.
B.
Add additional sub-elements to this as is appropriate, but don't alter Thomas' structure. What makes an addition appropriate? Basically, when Thomas is addressing a different question.

If there's a (1), there should be a (2). If you've only got one thing to say, just say it without the further division.

Here's my suggestion for the best way to proceed: First, figure out what the thought is for each paragraph. Second, group the paragraphs together in terms of what question they are addressing. Last, put the actual questions in, with the roman numerals questions as the final thing. In other words, work from smallest to largest.

The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline 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.

Please make two copies of your outline, 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 assignment. 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 Thursday 3/1, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. 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.

The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else's paper. Do not do any outside research. Just work from the handout itself. Do not troll the internet. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.


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