{"id":17,"date":"2012-12-18T14:30:08","date_gmt":"2012-12-18T14:30:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/judpro\/?page_id=17"},"modified":"2025-04-23T17:26:27","modified_gmt":"2025-04-23T17:26:27","slug":"assignments-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/judpro\/assignments-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Assignments"},"content":{"rendered":"

Judicial Process<\/span>
Spring 2025<\/em><\/span><\/h1>\n

Mezes B\u00a0 0.306<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

<\/h2>\n
\n

All cases assigned should be briefed unless otherwise noted, If a case is not linked to the web, it appears in the course packet available at the Coop.\u00a0 On this page “cp” means the case or reading is in the course packet.The Course Syllabus\u00a0 page contains a link to instructions on briefing a case. Briefs need to be written and brought to class unless you can commit your brief to memory in a way that you can answers questions about it. There are relatively few cases assigned in this class and many\u00a0 are very short because they are state cases, not Supreme Court cases, \u00a0or they are cases about procedural issues. \u00a0 We will be covering them in more detail than the cases in my con law survey courses.<\/p>\n

General reading assignments should be summarized in writing and also brought to class. Usually, for the assignments in Courts, Judges and Politics, called CJP <\/strong>on this Assignments page, three or four sentences summarizing the main points will be sufficient. Also do this for D’Amato chapters that appear in\u00a0 cp.\u00a0 They may take 1\/2 page or more. Pay particular attention to the way D’Amato uses hypothetical fact situations to illustrate his points. He is a master at this kind of argument which is\u00a0 fundamental to the understanding of how judges and lawyers think and behave.<\/p>\n

NOTE: As we move through the semester, assignments are subject to change. Check this page on a regular basis. Some links may not be updated until 2 weeks before the relevant class.<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a videopage<\/a> for this course which will be kept updated, mainly with relevant videos from Youtube. (click here)<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

How do we predict the behavior of actors in the legal\/judicial system, \u00a0\u00a0 We make predictions consciously and unconsciously in our life all the time, \u00a0For some students if we know how hard a course is we can predict whether they will enroll. \u00a0No social prediction has a perfect correlation. If you can get predictions right maybe 75% of the time you are doing well. \u00a0 Social life is multivariate. \u00a0This will be illuminated in more detail in the famous Supreme Court death penalty case. McCleskey v Kemp<\/strong><\/em>. \u00a0By actors I mean not only judges but also juries, lawyers, prosecutors and others who affect the system. \u00a0As a citizen and\/or a lawyer, you need to know this as you navigate life. \u00a0For instance, at times when\u00a0 one is\u00a0 making a difficult business decision, as I know only too well, one must\u00a0 be cognizant of the law and how judges, juries and lawyers might react. In\u00a0 law school, one mainly studies the black letter law, written law and precedent.\u00a0 In many contexts these\u00a0 may not fully shape the outcome of the case or conflict. Many\u00a0 other factors may\u00a0 do so either individually or jointly. \u00a0I have been in cases where I had to make these calculations.\u00a0 At times, I have been wrong.<\/p>\n

This is not a normal Judicial Process course. We cover the material in a number of ways \u00a0<\/p>\n

First, we use cases to illustrate various parts of the process. \u00a0If we are going to talk about how juries operate and impact the process, we will be looking at some famous cases on \u00a0juries. \u00a0If we want to know how judges operate in interpreting common law we will be reading some of the most famous common law cases one might encounter in law school, Palsgraph<\/strong><\/em>, Hawkins, <\/strong><\/em>mentioned in the movie about Harvard Law School,\u00a0 The Paper Chase<\/strong>,\u00a0<\/strong><\/em> and others. If we want to know what options a judge might see in deciding a case we will be looking at “The Case of the Speluncen Explorers”,<\/strong> <\/em>a famous hypothetical developed by Harvard \u00a0Law Professor Lon Fuller, written in the 1940\u2019sd complete with 5 judges using different philosophical approaches to making\u00a0 a decision in this case. As an add on,\u00a0 my late dear friend and Fuller student, Professor Anthony D\u2019Damato(perhaps the smartest person I have ever met), added 3 more possible opinions in his book \u00a0A Introduction To Law and Legal Thinking.\u00a0 This is one of the best books ever written for law students and undergraduates about this topic. \u00a0<\/strong><\/em> Most of the book is in the course packet. (cp). And of course, some other legal scholars came along and added a number of other possible opinionto\u00a0 this famous hypothetical. So we will be more than 10 different opinions. There are not different outcomes.\u00a0 Just 10 or different justifications for either guilty or not guilty as charged.\u00a0 And as we will\u00a0 see when we read the\u00a0 case of Queen v. Dudley and Stephens,\u00a0<\/strong> the original article by Professor Fuller is a variation of this famous 1890’s English case. We don’t get the Speluceans until\u00a0 near the end of the course. Bu then many of you could write a number of different opinions in the case too!<\/p>\n

Second,\u00a0 as we learn about the legal\/judicial process we also want to look at predictive models of outcomes, a major pastime for us quantitative social scientists. \u00a0We will be looking at such models to help us understand patterns in judicial decision making. This was originally Dr. Sager’s specialty.\u00a0 His\u00a0 dissertation was \u201cA Computer Simulation of the 1962 Term of the Supreme Court.\u201d \u00a0These models will help us see how various parts of the process impact the final part, the actual judicial decision.\u00a0 Also he is not sure\u00a0 anyone else has attempted to build a full computer simulation of a court at any leel.<\/p>\n

Third, we will be reading commentaries on various part of the judicial process by academics and actors, mainly judges. In reading these, we want to keep in mind what the writer is saying about predicting \u00a0decisions and outcomes.<\/p>\n

Fourth, we will be analyzing the bivariate and multivariate\u00a0 relationships at various levels of generality. A bi-variate relationship\u00a0 is between 2 variables.\u00a0 If we know one variable, we try to predict the other.\u00a0 If we know the political view of a judge can we predict the outcome a particular case.\u00a0 In some\u00a0 instances,\u00a0 it would be hard to take the notion of whether there is American style judicial review and predict the outcome of a particular case, But we could take that variable as a predictor of some broader concept such as a fair judicial system.\u00a0 Of course, we have to\u00a0 define “fair” first. This will be clearly\u00a0 explained as we read the\u00a0 two articles assigned during the semester from when I was on the student board of “The Law and Society Review” at Northwestern University., It was at a time when probably many of\u00a0 your parents were even born.\u00a0 Both are classics though we may have not realized they would be when we made the publishing decision. This is especially true of\u00a0 the one on witchcraft, assigned for the our first class. It flummoxed us for a while. Then we printed it. These above noted foci will be apparent as we go through the semester.\u00a0 We cover everything from from data suggesting when cases get into the judicial\u00a0 through the pre-trial phases to the trial, appeals and so on.<\/p>\n

If you want to venture into what the whole judicial process looks like go to this link: \u00a0 http:\/\/sites.la.utexas.edu\/judpro\/files\/2024\/01\/flow-chart-model-judicial-process.pdf\u00a0 (The name was to long to fit into a click here on this page) The cases we cover will involve\u00a0 parts of the process,\u00a0 The purpose for this model is for students to see the overall flow from the start Exampleof conflict to the steps it must follow through the judicial process.\u00a0 Our cases will be high court opinions about conflicts that have occurred at \u00a0 various parts of the the process such as evidence, judicial recusal, prosecutorial behavior.\u00a0 And , of course, we will be analyzing judicial behavior throughout the semester from constitutional interpretation to statutory interpretation to general predictors of judicial decision making.<\/p>\n

For many of the students in this class, I am using unfamiliar terms.\u00a0 By mid-semester they will be very familiar.<\/p>\n

REMINDER<\/strong><\/span>: Assignments from book, “Courts Judges and Politics” referred to as CJP are now in course packet,\u00a0 referred to as CP.<\/strong><\/span><\/em>\u00a0 Example: a reading is\u00a0 listed as 9.1 <\/strong>The Adversary Judge<\/span>. It can be found in Chapter 9 entitled Fact Finding in the Courts<\/span>. Read the introductory part of Chapter 9. It is followed by the assigned parts of Chapter 9.\u00a0 First one is article by a famous trial judge. Only a few\u00a0 parts of each chapter are assigned and they follow one another in order, e.g.,\u00a0 Reading 9.6 comes after Reading 9.1 or parts of\u00a0 Chapter 9 are assigned on other days.
<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Class 1 Monday\u00a0 January 13, 2025
<\/span><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Read and\u00a0 Digest article on Witchcraft, Elliot Currie, Crimes Without Victims<\/span>,<\/span> in course packet\u00a0 CP.\u00a0 Original article can be found\u00a0 (click here<\/a>)<\/h4>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2. Many\u00a0 students have\u00a0 probably read Franz Kafka’s book The Trial<\/strong> in high school.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0 Either review it for class, read it( it is quite short) or watch the old Anthony Perkins film of the same name.<\/strong> This is the 1962 film with an all star cast including Romy Schneider, Jeanne Moreau and\u00a0 the great Orson Wells who wrote the screenplay. Run time is 118\u00a0 minutes.\u00a0 I find the movie quite scary so you might want to watch it with someone.<\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3. Dr. Sager will recall the events in Kenosha, Wisconsin\u00a0 in the summer of 2020.\u00a0 Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with killing 3 people and eventually acquitted by a jury. \u00a0\u00a0 Did the prosecutors know he would not be convicted by a jury? Why was he arrested iu first place?<\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4. Consider the coverage and aftermath of the January 6th Events at the U.S.\u00a0 Capitol.\u00a0 What do you know about this and how do you know it? W\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Here are some questions we will consider in Classes 1 and 2.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. What is the judicial\/legal process in this country?\u00a0\u00a0 What are its main parts or essential elements? Is it followed everywhere, all the time, at all levels of government, by all actors in the process.\u00a0\u00a0 What are your thoughts as we begin this course<\/li>\n
    2. Who are the main “players” in the judicial\u00a0 and legal process? How were they represented in the Curie<\/span> article and Kafkas, The Trial.<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Does Kafka’s\u00a0 book<\/span> have any relevance to what goes on with our judicial\/legal\u00a0 process today?<\/li>\n
    4. Some conservative writers now say the “process is the punishment”<\/strong> What does that mean.\u00a0 Does the Currie article<\/strong><\/span> or the Kafka movie<\/strong><\/span> shed light on this comment. How about the January 6th events and their aftermath<\/li>\n
    5. Considee the Trunp Trial from charges to prosecution to judges behavior to verdict to appeal to final decision.\u00a0 What does that tell you about the judicial process and judicial behavior.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The entire civil and criminal process from the original conflict between two parties over a civil matter, contracts, torts, property etc or over a criminal matter, e.g. assault, is complex. \u00a0If you would like to see a relatively full model of the processes, \u00a0see the model linked at the beginning of the assignments for Class 7. Even that model only traces the progress through the trial court level. \u00a0Sometimes, the appeals process can get very complicated as well. \u00a0For the most part we will only rarely see complexities of appellate process. Usually it is \u00a0case appealed to an appellate court and one side wins and other loses on law. Loser then goes to \u00a0highest court in state or federal system. At times the \u00a0case is sent back to appellate court or a different court. \u00a0 I will discuss when relevant in class, I was in a business case \u00a0that went to 4 different courts in federal and states court systems. First before trial it went from \u00a0state district court to federal district court to federal appellate court, \u00a0back to \u00a0state district court, then to state appellate court, then \u00a0back to state \u00a0district court and then back to state appellate court and then settled after appellate opinion. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

      \n

      Class #2 – Wednesday January 15, 2025
      <\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

      We will finish up the material and discussions from Class #1.<\/p>\n

      Why are judges important and How should judges behave?<\/strong><\/p>\n

      1. Importance of judges<\/p>\n

      Reacquaint \u00a0yourself with Marbury v. Madison<\/span>. \u00a0<\/strong><\/em>If you have never read it you can find the case on Findlaw or Scotusblog. \u00a0Dr. Sager will discuss it. Get\u00a0 a sense of how it is put together \u00a0with regard to arguments and focus.<\/p>\n

      2. How Should judges behave? \u00a0How should they make decisions. \u00a0<\/p>\n

      To begin thinking about judges and judging we will \u00a0start \u00a0with a well know Supreme Court case, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White<\/span>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Brief\u00a0 Republican Party\u00a0 of Minnesota v. White.<\/span> It is a rather short Supreme Court opinion<\/h4>\n
      Go\u00a0 to the full Supreme Court opinion:
      Republican Party of Minnesota v. White<\/a><\/strong>(Online findlaw) \u00a0 After doing your brief \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (<\/a>click here<\/a> for Dr. Sager’s very brief brief of this case)(you can find\u00a0 more about the case and judges who decided it by going to the Oyez Oyez website on our resources page and search for the case by name.\u00a0 Also, you can find on Oyez the oral argument in downloadable mp3 format and a transcript of the oral argument.Most oral arguments are exactly an hour long and they provide great insights you may not get from reading an opinion)<\/h5>\n

      On the surface this is a case about free speech during a judicial election. But this is not a course in civil liberties. So you need to look below the surface to see how this case applies to this course. Study this case very carefully.<\/em><\/p>\n