Where Are We

Where Are We?... Why Are We Here?... What Have We Done?
(dedicated to Admiral James Stockdale)
PLSC 4338, Spring 2005

updated 24 April 2005

Soundclip from the 1992
Vice Presidential Debate
(thanks to Michael Harms for technical assistance)

At the end of each week of the class, I will briefly review where we are in the course and the readings, the major points we've covered, and what the next week will bring. I will also post whatever idiosyncratic class information that pops up here.

--------------------------

24 April: Dearest Fellow Earthians,
This is likely my last readings-specific notice of the semester. After I wipe away a small tear... there... I will tell you to be through the McCleskey case for the morrow. We will then finish the sentencing/punishment cases on Wednesday when we examine Ewing, Atkins, and Blakely. We will have a quiz between now and the end of the semester, so be prepared for one last, pre-final, burst of thought. Also check out the CSPAN video of the Sandy, Nino, and Steve show posted on the "Legal News and Notes" page of Blackboard. It's actually pretty lively and informative.

--------------------------

18 April: For class on Wednesday (when we take up sentencing and penalties), be through Rummel v. Estelle (1980). Note, too, the addition of the Blakely case, below.

--------------------------

16 April: First, thanks to the thirteen of you who showed to the voluntary make-up class. I thought it fun, and I hope you did, too.

Second, we will start Monday's discussion with Rock and finish up the trial processes/rights section of the syllabus. I hope, too, to get to Furman (1972) -- the Court's first significant death penalty case -- on Monday. The sentencing/penalty cases that aren't in your text can be found on the "Penalty/Sentencing" link on the Blackboard page. Also, since we dropped retrials, let's add the Blakely v. Washington (2004) case to the penalty readings. This is the precursor to the Booker (2005) decision of earlier this year (on the discussion page, in fact).

--------------------------

13 April: Okay, kids. Two announcements, one big the other smallish. First, the small: be prepared with the remainder of the counsel cases for Friday, and also for Illinois v. Allen (which will be presented, assuming he rereads the case and his brief, by Mr. Pfeffer). Second, we will skp the "retrial" section of cases (unless someone really moans and I reconsider) and go from trials to punishment/sentencing.

Saturday class at 10 AM. Figure 1 hour 30 minutes or so. Dress casually... hell, it's Saturday.

--------------------------

11 April: On Wednesday, we will extinguish our conversation about the press-trial "tension," and then turn to Counsel concerns. To be ready for a rampaging discussion, read Faretta, Strickland, and Nix. Read further, if you wish, because Saturday's class (how does 10 or 10:30 sound?) will catch us up completely and then we'll begin a sprint to the end.

--------------------------

4 April: Okay... we'll finish up the jury cases on Wednesday -- that'd be Batson, Turner, Lockhart, and J.E.B., and then take the turn into the "tension" between media coverage and fair trials. For the latter, be through Murphy and Gannett.

Oh..., and I should probably note that your paper is due on Monday, 18 April.

--------------------------

30 March: Like sands through the hourglass, so too the days of our lives.... Friday, 1 April, we will finish pleas, and we will then move on to an examination of jury trials and selection. Read through Taylor v. Louisiana (1975). If you are inclined, you can visit Hoyt v. Florida (1961) if only to wish a bygone era good-bye.

--------------------------

23 March: Be through the Disclosure/Discovery cases, and the Santobello, Bordenkircher, and Mabry cases for Monday.

*****************

21 March: What the hell... let's give it a shot... through the Discovery cases for Wednesday. (You'll have a long weekend to recover.)

*****************

19 March: Do we really have to come back to work after spring break? Sadly, my friends, the answer is yes! However, think about that to which you are coming back: a spirited examination of the trial and punishment phases of the Criminal Process. (And you wondered why you were put on this earth, eh?) For Monday's class, be through the cases on "Speedy Trial and Other Speedy Disposition."

*****************

7 March: Lordy, people! Didn't you bother to associate people and cases to the incorporation controversy? I thought those were going to be free points! Apparently, I thought wrong. Oh, and for those who are sad that they didn't get a chance to write on the Burger/Rehnquist Court (save for the multiple choice questions: 1) I put the "was the Warren Court Revolutionary?" question on the midsemester study questions for a reason, and 2) the comprehensive question on the final -- and one that will be worth roughly half of the points on the final -- will be:

During a pilgrimage to see my parents, I was sitting next to the pool table with some old college chums in Hansen’s Bar in Beloit, Wisconsin. (Wednesdays are two-for-one burger nights!) A maddened, semi-sober, misfit from those same hellion days of my youth suddenly came out of the restroom. Seeing us, she came over to our table. She reported that she was a lawyer and inquired as to our present pursuits. Upon learning of my vocation, she grew red all over – previously only her nose held a crimson hue – and sputtered out the following:

The Burger/Rehnquist Court has destroyed the Constitution. It is a mere tool of the dethroned tyrants Nixon and Reagan (and their lackey Bush). Nixon, Reagan, and George I may be long gone, but their boys and girl have dismantled the great good worked by the Warren Court. On every criminal process question, this reactionary Court has curtailed the rights so carefully articulated and protected by its predecessors. If George II gets a few opponents, everything the Warren Court ever did will be long gone.

With a whimper, a burp, and an audible gurgling in her stomach, she halted her tirade, sat down in a corner booth, and began mumbling into her beer. At one point, she looked up, said she had to go to monthly meeting of the local ACLU chapter, and asked to comment, in writing, on her wisdom. I, busy with the Blackmun manuscript and evaluating the wisdom of my PLSC 3330 students, turn to you for help. Use specific case lines and signal cases to support your broad-ranging discussion.

So... don't burn those notes. You will get a chance to write about what one of you told me was "seventy-five percent of the cases we've read so far this semester" (I can't vouch for the accuracy of the percentage, since I didn't do a spreadsheet of all the cases, but I know that all will be examined before the sour turns to sweet. (Genesis, From Genesis to Revelations)

Oh²: For Wednesday, be through all 3 "Decision to Prosecute" cases, and Costello v. U.S. (1956). We'll do the other 2 "screening" cases on Friday. I hope to have the exams back to you on Friday, as well.

*****************

21 February: For Wednesday's class, be through Chavez v. Martinez. No class on Friday, 25 February (worry not... that's why god invented Saturday, 16 April), but for Monday 28 February (what we in the 'hood call DoubleVDay), be through ALL of the cases in the "confessions" section of the text. We will do "Line Ups" on the Wednesday before the examination.

*****************

20 February: I'm working on getting all your prospecti evaluated. If I get them done today, I'll hand them back and discuss them in class tomorrow. As far as case reading goes, be through Perkins and Minnick for Monday's class.

*****************

16 February: Well, Miranda and its progeny are before us. Be through Moran v. Burbine for class on Friday. Also, my quickly edited version of Elstad is on line at Blackboard. It's in the mix for Friday, as well.

*****************

14 February: Okay... for Wednesday, read through Miranda. For the other cases in the "interrogation and confessions" section, read all of those in sections 4-6 (up to page 438) chronologically, as this is the way we will take them up. We will finish this section of the course by examining "Massiah revisited" (section 7 in chapter 6). Also, it was pointed out to me today that, in my haste to move us along, I inadvertently didn't discuss entrapment. Do you want to discuss these cases at some point? Lemme know in class on Wednesday.

*****************

12 February: As the train catches up and readies to pull into the station for an on-time arrival at the mid-semester gate, please be through the "counsel" reading for Monday's class. Note that the "equality principle" cases are not assigned.

*****************

9 February: For Friday's (11 Feb.) class, make sure that you have read through the Gideon v. Wainwright(1962) decision. We will start Friday's class with a brief review of Thornton (2004) ... which I neglected to treat when we finished vehicular searches (sorry, my bad). Monday (14 Feb.) we will finish the counsel right, and move on to confessions. For that class, read the cases up to and including Escobedo v. Illinois (1964).

*****************

4 February: Lickity-Split will be the them of Monday and Wednesday's classes, as we finish off the 4th Amendment. Be though the "Lesser Intrusions: Stop and Frisk" cases for Monday. We will finish them and move on to "Inspections and Regulatory Searches" and "Consent Searches" on Wednesday.

*****************

2 February: First, I meant what I said today. You are to be in your seat and ready for class at precisely 9 AM on class days. Not only is this common sense and courtesy, but you formally committed yourself to this when you signed the student contract. (See item #1.) I will now start deducting points for those who enter after 9 AM. This is going to stop... it's a function of sloppiness and personal irresponsibility, shows enormous disrespect to me and your classmates, and it will not be tolerated. It's absurd, in fact, that I should even have to post this. However, if you insist on behaving like selfish children, I will treat you accordingly.

Second, be through "Warrantless Seizure and Search of Vehicles and Effects" for Friday's class. My goal is to be finished with the search and seizure cases by Wednesday, and move on, then, to "Securing Counsel." That will be the pause that refreshes before we dig into "Interrogations and Confessions." We will catch up with the schedule. At present, we are 2 days behind it.

*****************

31 January: As noted at the end of today's class, be through "Warrantless Seizure and Search of Premises" cases for Wednesday. Also... Acton should be read with the BoEd of Pottawatomie County case.

*****************

28 January: Did you notice how our pace picked up today? It's gonna keep picking up. Snooze and lose, so stay on top of the cases. As noted in class today, be through "Warrantless Arest and Search of Persons" for Monday's class.
Also, check out the link on Blackboard to "Thoughts from Former SMU Undergraduates on How to Best Prepare to Succeed in Law School." It is sobering (and very very useful).

*****************

24 January: One of you noted today, after my telling you to be through the "protected areas and interests" cases for Wednesday, that I had said this for today's class. This kind of upstaging -- even when correct, as it turns out here to be -- is most irritating. Please be kind to one who's closer to the end then the beginning. (If you do, I'll tell you the one joke I know... well the one that isn't about Ms. Jordan.)

For Wednesday, 26 January, being realistic, we will aim at picking up the pace and getting through areas and interests. Friday will be a blur of probable cause and warrants, and we will move into warrantless arrests and searches, with more detailed instructions to follow on Wednesday.

*****************

21 January: As suggested at the end of class today, make sure you are, at a minimum, through the "protected areas and interests" section of Chapter 3 ("Arrest, Search, and Seizure"). If you can get through "probable cause," it would be dandy, as our pace will be picking up now that you are getting the hang of case analysis.

*****************

15 Janurary: Okay, kiddos, the bulk of the Blackboard site is up and running. You will find the presentations list/sked finalized, and the term paper assignment and directions are posted as well. Get to work on both of these, following the instructions provided. If you have any questions about either -- or any other aspect of the course -- just email me.

As for class on Wednesday, 19 January... be through the first two chapters of IKL. We will start class with a bit more discussion of the majority faction and individual rights logic of Federalist #10, then talk abit about the "role" of the Supreme Court as envisioned in Federalist #78. From there we will turn to the relationship between the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the limitations imposed on state action ("no state shall....") by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Court's role in interpreting and applying the Constitution. A brief for the Adamson case is posted on the Blackboard page. Not only can you use it for our discussion of this case, but use it as a model for briefing the cases we read. Remember: 1) read through the guide to briefing handout (under handout button) thoroughly and carefully; 2) note the relevant parts of the opinions you read (facts, issue[s], holding, reasoning [core strands of the argument justifying the holding], and then the core strands of the concurring or dissenting opinions); and 3) write your brief only after (not while) you read the case for the first time. You will find the briefing process is much faster, and your briefs shorter, if you've already got the gist and flow of a case before you commit it to paper.

Be sure, too, to use the "legal news" and discussion board (under the "we the class" button) frequently. Indeed, you should visit them every time you happen into Blackboard. The "class" exists outside the confines of 304 Florence Hall, from 9:00 - 9:50 AM on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

*****************

(return to class homepage)