October 8. 2019

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/8, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below), and the case you'll be briefing, Bishop v. State of Georgia. We went over the requirements of the assignment. We then went back to Katko v. Briney. We finished our examination of the authority cited by the Katko court. We talked about the role of a directed verdict versus a question that should be submitted to the jury. I also went over the four basic mental states: intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. We then turned to the Maine statute about defense of premises, and worked through the question of how the facts of Katko would come out in a Maine criminal prosecution. Finally, we began our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, just getting through the parties. We'll pick up with the rest of Suggs on Thursday
The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to review Suggs v. Norris (previously assigned), and to begin work on your Bishop case brief. Since there will be no class next Tuesday, 10/15, this Thursday 10/10 will be our only chance to address questions about the Bishop brief as a class.

Assignment due Thursday, October 17, 2019
(Since there is no class on Tuesday 10/15, the only chance that we will have to discuss the case together as a class is on Thursday 10/10.)

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Bishop v. State, 356 S.E.2d 503 (Ga., 1987) (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 holdings just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.

For this brief, include both the winner’s facts (“..., when...”) and the loser’s facts (“..., even though...”). The Issue should be in the format of:
Under this law
the legal question
when there are these circumstances
(even though the loser points to these other circumstances)?

In addition, include a paragraph at the end of the brief summarizing Justice Smith's dissenting opinion.

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 with your 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 10/17, 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 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/8, I distributed one handout, the opinion in U.S. v. Swindle, the "You Decide 3.5" from p.88 of the text. We began class by discussing the Hester outline due on Thursday 10/10. I explained how you should not change the structure that the court uses, but should add introductory sections for the paragraphs that aren't put by the court in the main structure, and also add appropriate sub-elements below existing structure.
We then went over Wardlow, and the definition of "reasonable suspicion". We discussed both the majority decision and the concurrence/dissent. Finally, we went back to the Swindle case, the "You Decide" 3.5. We answered the questions about when the "seizure" took place, and why that was significant. I also talked about the court's analysis of reasonable suspicion, and why that question was not even relevant.
The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to finish your Hester outlines, due at the beginning of class on Thursday. In addition read today's Swindle handout, and read in the text pp. 119-121 (Hiibel).