Please, read the following documents:
Connick, D A et al v. Thompson
dimanche 14 décembre 2014
Presentation topics for Week 12: L3
L3 G 43
Presentation 1
Lamorlette / Duchatelet
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/05/gun-laws
Presentation 2:
Frandeboeuf
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/31/why-the-death-penalty-needs-to-die.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article
|
L3 G 44
Presentation 1:
De Rodorel / Leroy
The Economist:
Gun Laws: Not so smart
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/05/gun-laws
Presentation 2:
Dumont / Blanchard:
Isabelle Michel:
See booklet p. 112: Miller v. Alabama (2012).
Belacem / Blin
|
Presentation topics for Week 12: L2
|
L2 G7
Presentation 1
Denisse /
Mallet-Bitton
Presentation 2
Ines Leroy/ Lemarié
Arielle
|
lundi 8 décembre 2014
M1 HOMEWORK FOR WEEK 12
PRESENTATION TOPICS
GROUP 1:
GROUP 1:
Grand Jury System, With Exceptions, Favors the Police in
Fatalities
What happened in Ferguson?
GROUP 2:
McIntyre Machinety Ltd v. Nicastro (booklet, p. 35)
Connick, D A et al v. Thompson
M1 Homework for week 11
Prepare the following cases : Roe v Wade (see booklet p. 23-24), and Walden v Fiore (see booklet p. 26-27).
mardi 25 novembre 2014
L2 HOMEWORK for week 10: Article VI
Homework for week
10: Article VI
Study all the vocabulary related to the chapters
covered thus far (see the “what you need to know sections”. Prepare a ten-word
quiz.
Study the introduction on Article 6. Prepare at least
5 questions on this introduction.
Exercise 2 Comprehension of the facts p. 113.
Grammar exercise If / tenses p. 123.
Study text p. 114
L3 HOMEWORK / The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Homework for week 10:
· Study
introduction to the Sixth Amendment p. 89-91.
· Study
glossary p. 95.
· Exercise
1 and 2 p. 91
· Grammar
exercise on modal verbs: p. 94.
Group 51: One student will be asked to
present (without notes!) a summary of the main protections offered by the Sixth
Amendment before the rest of class.
Presentation for week 10: See Blog (L3
Homework)
For G 8, G 9, G 42, G 43, G 44, G 51
Justices
Strengthen Right to Confront Witnesses
March 8, 2004 The New York Times
By DAVID STOUT
samedi 22 novembre 2014
L3 Blueford v. Arkansas: Summary
Blueford v. Arkansas (2012)
(See booklet, p. 84-85)
Summary
Blueford, the defendant in this
case, had been left in charge of his girlfriend’s one-year-old child. After a
short while, the child had to be taken to hospital / Blueford’s friend, present
at the scene, had to call emergency services to take the child to hospital
because the latter was breathing with difficulty.
Having established that the death of
child had been caused by close head injury, the police charged Blueford with capital
murder, first-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide.
Following protracted deliberation, the jury still deadlocked on some of the
charges and proved unable either to find Blueford guilty of at least one the
charges, or to acquit him of all charges. The judge therefore declared a
mistrial.
When the State of Arkansas re-indicted
Blueford (tried to retry Blueford on all charges), the latter moved to dismiss
the capital murder and first-degree murder counts (the two most serious
charges) arguing that such charges infringed on his Fifth Amendment protection
against double-jeopardy.
In its majority opinion, however,
the Supreme Court first contended that the jury had not formally acquitted the
defendant so that his second trial did not violate Blueford’s constitutional
rights. (“Unlike cases where acquittal on lesser charges precluded retrial on
greater charges, the jury’s decision here was not final”: Distinction report /
verdict). Indeed, Justice Roberts further argued, Arkansas law requires either
a conviction or a complete acquittal on
all charges, which was not the case in Blueford’s trial.
Sotomayor’s vigorous dissent (/ The
main argument of Sotomayor’s vigorous dissent) rests on a different
interpretation of Arkansas law. Arkansas, she claims, is what is called an
“acquittal-first jurisdiction” in which a jury may not consider a
lesser-included offense unless and until it rejects a more serious offense.
Although Blueford had not formally been acquitted, the fact that the jury
deadlocked when considering manslaughter proves / necessarily implies that they
had implicitly rejected the counts of capital murder and first-degree
murder.
Closed-head injuries are a type of traumatic brain injury in which the skull and dura mater remain
intact.
Arkansas is an "acquittal-first"
jurisdiction, in which a jury may not consider a lesser-included offense unless and
until it rejects a more serious offense. In other words, Blueford's jury could
not consider the first-degree murder charge unless and until it rejected the
capital murder charge, and it could not consider manslaughter unless and until
it rejected first-degree murder. When Blueford's jury told the court it could
not reach agreement, the forewoman told the judge that it was "unanimous
against" capital and first-degree murder, but could not agree on
manslaughter or negligent homicide. The judge sent the jury to deliberate
further, refusing Blueford's request that the jury be allowed to enter a
partial acquittal on the two charges.
vendredi 14 novembre 2014
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)
Case summary
Facts of the case and trial proceedings:
In the case at hand, the petitioner, Kennedy, was accused of having raped his eight-year-old daughter.
or
In the case at
hand, the petitioner, Kennedy, was charged with the rape of his eight-year-old
daughter
or
Charged with the
rape of his eight-year-old daughter,
the petitioner, Kennedy, was convicted by the Louisiana trial court and
sentenced to the death penalty, pursuant
to a state statute / a state law
allowing capital punishment for such an offence
/ for the rape of a child under 12
years of age.
Arguing that the death
penalty was a disproportionate
punishment for an offence that did not involve the taking of another human
life, Kennedy appealed the sentence.
Indeed, in Coker v. Georgia (1977), the USSC had ruled that the death penalty as a sentence for the rape of an
adult woman was a “cruel and unusual punishment” that contravened / that went
against the 8th amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
However, rejecting the appellant’s (i.e. Kennedy’s) reliance on Coker v.
Georgia, on the basis that while Coker precludes
/ bars the use of the death penalty as punishment for the rape of an adult
woman it does not specifically exclude capital punishment for other types of “nonhomicide”
offences, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the Trial Court’s sentence.
Why (and how) the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court:
Basing his claim on the potential violation of his constitutional right
/ Contending that the death penalty
for a “nonhomicide” offence infringes the protection against cruel and unusual
punishment provided by the Eighth
Amendment to the U.S. constitution, Kennedy filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
to the USSC.
(In your commentary, explain what a writ of certiorari is.)
In a 6-3 decision, the USSC reversed
the Louisiana Supreme Court’s ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
(At this stage, also explain: “reverse” and “remand”)
In its majority opinion, delivered
by / penned by Justice Kennedy, the
Court remarked upon / observed /
emphasized / insisted on / underlined / stressed the general consensus stateside against the imposition of the
death penalty for an offence other than murder / for a “nonhomicide” offense.
It further argued that general
support for capital punishment for the rape of a child under 12 might
offset / might outweigh the general consensus, but that no such support may be observed at present.
Note that there is no article before “support”
Contend (v.): argue
Proportionality: the punishment must be proportionate to the crime
Offence (UK Spelling) / Offense (US Spelling)
Defence (UK Spelling) / Defense (US Spelling)
Human (adj.) ≠ humane (adj.)
Tabulated report of the points and cases studied between week 1 and week 7
Case study
|
||
Week 1
|
Federal and State judicial systems
|
|
Week 2
|
The U.S. Supreme Court power of Judicial Review
Diagrams: How Cases Reach the Supreme Court Reaching the Supreme Court: - Writ of Appeal - Writ of Certiorari - Writ of Habeas Corpus |
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
|
Week 3
|
Criminal Procedure
The Fourteenth Amendment (1868)
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The due process clause
Selective incorporation (Palko v. Connecticut (1937))
The Fourth Amendment:
The Exclusionary Rule (The Fruit of the Poisonous
Tree Doctrine) and the exceptions to the exclusionary rule:
Plain View / Search incident to a lawful arrest /
Exigent Circumstances / Stop and Frisk Searches / Consent
|
Georgia v. Randolph (2006) (to be distinguished from
U.S. v. Matlock (1974))
|
Week 4
|
Warrantless seizure of a passenger in a car
The Fourth Amendment: Protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures
Definition of a
“search”
Probable cause
/ reasonable suspicion
|
Brendlin v. California (2007)
|
Week 5
|
The Miranda Rights ê Amendments 5 and 6
The Fifth Amendment:
(Indictment by a grand jury in cases of ‘infamous
crimes’)
Protection
against Double-Jeopardy
Protection
against Self-Incrimination
(Right to due process of law)
(The Just Compensation Clause)
The Sixth Amendment:
Right to a speedy and public trial
Right to trial by an impartial jury
Right to be informed of the nature of the charges
The Confrontation clause: the right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses and to subpoena his / her own witnesses. Assistance of Counsel |
Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)
|
Week 6
|
Pre-trial procedure:
Distinction between misdemeanors and felonies
Distinction between an indictment and an information
The Role of the Prosecutor
The Role of the Grand Jury
The Initial Appearance (arraignment)
The Preliminary Hearing:
Probable Cause / The Rule of Evidence
Plea Bargaining
The Pre-trial motions:
Motion to dismiss / Motion to suppress / Motion for
discovery
|
Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982)
|
Week 7
|
Trial Stages:
Reading of the Indictment / of the Information
Opening Statements
Witnesses for the Prosecution
Motion for a judgment of acquittal
Questioning of the Accused (and the Fifth Amendment)
Witnesses for the Defence
Rebuttal
Motion for a redirect verdict
Instructions
Closing arguments of the parties
Amendment 8: Focus on the “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” Clause.
|
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)
|
Week 8
|
In-Class Exam
|
L3 Homework for week 8 (Nov. 17th - Nov. 19th)
The 5th Amendment
Homework for week
8:
·
Study the introduction
to the Fifth Amendment: p. 78-82, focusing on:
- Protection against double jeopardy
- Protection against forced self-incrimination
A student chosen at random will have to summarize the
introduction in front of the whole class...
·
Prepare exercise
1 (Comprehension) p. 82-83.
·
Learn by rote the
glossary p. 88, as well as the
lists of vocabulary related to Amendments 1, 2 and 4.
·
Prepare a quiz on all the vocabulary of the booklet covered so far.
(See the “what you need to know” section at the end of each chapter.
Presentation for week 8:
G 42, 43, 44, 51: A Debate over delaying suspects' miranda rights (see blog)
G 8, 9: Blueford v. Arkansas (see booklet p. 84-85)
Presentation for week 8:
G 42, 43, 44, 51: A Debate over delaying suspects' miranda rights (see blog)
G 8, 9: Blueford v. Arkansas (see booklet p. 84-85)
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)