April 3. 2018

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/3, I distributed three handouts: an article about the acquittal of Noor Salman, Assignment #2 (reproduced below), and the case you'll be briefing, U.S. v. Corbin. We discussed the Salman verdict, and speculated whether she could have been charged under the federal misprision statute. I talked about a current arbitration case heard in October by the U.S. Supreme Court, Epic Systems v. Lewis. We then went through Caperton v. Massey Coal, seeing how Kennedy first told us what Due Process required (the test) and then applied the facts of the case to the newly minted test. Along the way, we went over the difference between a subjective v. an objective standard. Finally I went over a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case, Williams v. Pennsylvania, in which the Supreme Court dealt with the question of recusal of a state Supreme Court Justice when that Justice had been the District Attorney supervising the prosecution of the defendant in an earlier phase of the case.
The assignment for Thursday 4/5 is first to read the Corbin case, so that I can answer questions that you might have about the case brief. In addition, read in Chapter 3 of the text through p.98, including NFIB v. Sebelius.

Assignment #2 due Thursday, April 12, 2018

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Corbin, 827 F.Supp. 2d 26 (D. Me. 2011) (also distributed to the class today).

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, 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 4/12, 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. Even if a classmate has missed a class in which we discuss the case brief, do not share the class discussion with the absent classmate. I am the only person with whom the case brief can be discussed. 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 4/3, I first talked about a qualified immunity case that the U.S. Supreme Court decided yesterday, Kisela v. Hughes. In that case, the Court dealt with a 9th Circuit opinion that had held that the officer Kisela was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Court reversed, and found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. More than anything else, the case hinged on the proper interpretation of a prior 9th Circuit opinion, because the question was whether any officer would know (from precedent) that it was not allowed to shoot the victim in the circumstances presented. We then went back to the text and finished our discussion of Escobedo. We began our discussion of Miranda, starting by looking at the arguments for the parties, and how the situation differed from Escobedo. We will finish Miranda on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 4/5 is to review Miranda, and to read to the end of the chapter, including Missouri v. Seibert.