April 24, 2018

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/24, I distributed three handouts: an excerpt from Obergefell v. Hodges about recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, an excerpt of Maine statutes regarding adoptions, and Maine statutes regarding subject-matter jurisdiction. I started class by reviewing the concept of conflict of laws (or "choice of laws") by going over the recent case of Norris v. Myers Springs. We saw how a double dose of bad lawyering may have gotten the plaintiff what he wanted all along. We then moved on to Full Faith and Credit. We discussed the difference in recognition of judicial judgments versus things like marriage that do not require a court's blessing. We went over Finstuen v. Crutcher, and then we went over the excerpt from Obergefell that mandated recognition of out-of-state same sex marriages. I talked about a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, V.L. v. E.L., in which the necessity of recognition of an out-of-state adoption depended on whether that out-of-state adoption court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the adoption, even if it appears that it didn't follow the state statute. We then began our discussion of subject matter jurisdiction and the Cheap Escape case. On Thursday I will begin by looking at today's handout of Maine statutes on adoption, and ask whether Maine would grant an adoption in the same circumstance as in V.L., as well as what federal law says about recognition of same sex relationships. We will then finish our discussion of Cheap Escape. I plan to discuss some Maine and federal cases regarding what those governments mean by the the term subject matter jurisdiction.
The assignment for Thursday 4/26 is review Cheap Escape, review today's handouts, and to read in addition pp. 129-136 of the text, including Swoboda v. Hero Decks.


POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 4/24, I handed back the Assignment #2 papers, as well as a sheet of notes about my comments on the papers and an explanation of how the papers were graded. I also distributed two other handouts, both a preview and an analysis of the oral argument in the current Supreme Court case of McCoy v. Louisiana. In that case, the accused wanted to maintain his innocence, but his lawyer basically overrode the client's wishes, and admitted guilt (in a fruitless effort to avoid the death penalty). If the lawyer does that, is the client denied the effective assistance of counsel?
After going over the assignment, we went through the Powell v. Alabama case. We looked at four issues brought up by the majority: whether the appointment of counsel lasted beyond the arraignment; whether the lack of a lawyer to make use of the time between the arraignment and the trial violated due process; whether the failure to appoint counsel who was specifically responsible for the case violated due process; and whether due process requires that appointment in the circumstances, include not only of a lawyer, but the appointment of an effective lawyer.
The assignment for Thursday 4/26 is to read the two handouts, review Gideon, and to read in addition through p. 556 of the text (Batson).