October 10, 2019

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/10, we first went over some aspects of the Bishop case brief that's due next Thursday. We discussed what "malice" murder means, and what the source of that law is. We went over the basic English version of the contentions that Bishop had, and then the more exact way that you can phrase the legal question that the court decides. We went over those contentions, and the winner's and loser's facts. We also discussed how the facts of Bishop would have come out under Maine law.
After our Bishop discussion, we resumed our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, going over the the issues of what the law is in N. Carolina about public policy when the agreement may be based on a sexual relationship, and then whether the evidence demonstrated that this was not a sex-for-pay agreement. We will pick up our discussion of Suggs with the issue of whether Suggs was working for free.
There is no class on Tuesday 10/15 (Fall break). The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to finish work on your Bishop case briefs (due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/17), review Suggs v.Norris, and to read in the text through p. 58 (including Gregg v. Georgia). A reminder as well that Exam #1 is planned for Tuesday 10/22.



POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/10, I collected the Hester outlines, and we went over them. I also distributed my own version of the Hester outline. I plan to return the papers on Thursday 10/17. After going through the Hester outline, we also discussed the concept the dictum. We went through the Hiibel case and the constitutionality of identification laws. Finally, I discussed the Maine case of State v. Johnson, and the Maine statute requiring someone to provide credible evidence of their identification.
There is no class on Tuesday 10/15 (Fall break). The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to read in the text from 190-200 (searches incident to an arrest). A reminder as well that Exam #1 is planned for Tuesday 10/22.