February 19, 2019

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/19, I distributed 3 handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief; Assignment #1 (reproduced below); and the case you'll be briefing, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Carter.
We first finished out discussion of the majority decision in Glucksberg. We reviewed the flow chart of whether due process protects individual rights against what the legislature restricts. We did Venn diagrams of personal autonomy and fundamental rights, and of the rationale for government restrictions and the actual restrictions imposed. We also talked about the use of precedent, and we discussed three options when dealing with precedent: following it (the same side wins because the context is the same; overruling it (because the prior case was wrongly decided); and distinguishing it (the different side wins because the context is different). We then went through the Maine statutory handout from last week on murder and assisted suicide, and did as much as we could to figure out the meaning of the terms used in those statutes. We also reviewed Maine statutory citation form. We went through the excerpt from Obergefell that I handed out last week, seeing how the Court majority treated the Glucksberg flow chart, and then saw what Roberts in dissent thought of the majority's adherence to Glucksberg.
On Thursday we will begin by discussing Souter's concurrence in Glucksberg. Then we will discuss the Carter case that's the subject of the case brief.
The assignment for Thursday 2/21 is to review Souter's concurrence in Glucksberg, and then to read and be prepared to discuss all of the Michelle Carter case.

Assignment due Thursday, February 28, 2019

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Commonwealth v. Carter, __Mass.__ (2019) (also distributed to the class today).

For the Issue, Facts, and Holding, I want you to only include Issues “a” (Sufficiency of the evidence); “d” “Infliction” of serious bodily injury; and “e” “Reasonable juvenile”. I do want you to read all of the Opinion, though, as well as to include all of the arguments in the other portions of the brief, including “appellant’s contentions on appeal”.

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.

For this brief, include only the winner’s facts (“..., when...”) and not the loser’s facts (“..., even though...”)

Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed.

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 2/28, 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.

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.

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. To the extent that we discuss this case in class, do not share that discussion with others, even if they have missed class. Do no outside research. Do not troll the internet. Just work from the handout itself. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.





POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 2/19, I handed back the Gamble papers, and we went over them. I also went over the Kagan and Gorsuch questions about the effect that incorporation had on the dual sovereigns exception. We began our discussion of Madison by going over the 1970s cases of Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia, in which the Supreme Court found that execution was not "cruel and unusual" as long as there was justification for the execution (and there were proper procedures for imposing execution as a penalty). A plurality held that, while deterrence did not provide a justification, retribution did. I then went over the 1986 case of Ford v. Wainwright, in which a plurality held that retribution was not a sufficient justification for execution of the insane. We will pick up on Thursday with the handout of the Panetti case, and continue onto the Madison briefs.
The assignment for Thursday 2/21 is to review Panetti v. Quarterman, and the Madison v. Alabama briefs, previously distributed.