|
LS:
Pre-Law:
Course
Syllabus
POS/PLA 440
Special Topics in Law
Ethical Issues in the Judiciary
SUMMER
TERM,
MTWTF
@
11:00-12:20
P.M.
ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR
RICHARD C. POLAND
OFFICE HOURS: M-F
7:30-8:00 or by appt
K-309
W - 819-6338;
e-mail polandrc@flagler.edu
Required Texts:
Ethical Issues
in the Courts;
Van Camp, Julie; 2nd Ed., Wadsworth,
2006.
Any daily newspaper
with which to discuss
current ethical issues
in the courts.
Course Objectives:
The primary objective of this course is for each student to further develop
his or her critical thinking skills in the context of the ethical issues within
the legal processes of the courts. Class discussions will occur each
class period, which will require analysis and synthesis of ethical issues in
the judiciary.
Course Requirements:
Students will be required to read the assigned portions of the text before
entering the classroom. Students who do not follow this requirement will
be asked to drop the course. Students will also be required to participate
in class debates, present case briefs as assigned, and successfully pass the
final exam. Students will also be required to use Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, or
the Internet (eg. findlaw.com) to research certain cases in full text. Cell
phones must be turned off during class, unless an emergency situation exists
and prior approval has been granted.
Course Outline:
I. The
Beginnings and Endings
of Human Life
II. The
Constitutional Right
to Privacy
III. War, Peace,
and Pacifism
IV. Environmental
Issues
V. Freedom
of Expression and Religion
VI. Racial
and Sexual Discrimination
VII. Capital
Punishment
Grading:
Students will receive
credit as follows:
50% for briefs and
presentations and 50
% for the final exam.
A=90-100, B=80-89, C=70-79, D=60-69, F=0-59.
Learning
Outcomes:
Students will understand
certain political and
legal issues, as outlined
above, from a critical
thinking perspective. Also,
students will be able
to research cases online.
Attendance:
Attendance is essential. As
that noted philosopher
Woody Allen once said, “eighty
percent of life is
just showing up.” Every
two tardies will equal
one absence. Five
absences will result
in assigning a “WF” or
a “WP,” whichever
is appropriate. (See
Catalog)
Cheating:
Anyone who is bold
(and foolish) enough
to cheat will receive
an “F” for
the course.
Methods of Instruction:
Class discussion, student
presentations, and
the Socratic Method
will be the primary
means employed by the
professor. Lecturing
will be minimal, but
it will be on point.
Statement on Disabilities:
Special services and
reasonable accommodations
are available to those
students who are registered
with the Office of
Services for Students
with Disabilities and
who have documented
their needs. The
specific assistance
needed should be made
known to the professor
during the first week
of class. I will do
my best to reasonably
accommodate you.
COURSE SCHEDULE: Remember
that this may change
slightly from time
to time.
WEEK 1: Discuss:
Syllabus, Presentations of Briefs, and Overview of Courts.
Review:
Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis,
and findlaw.com at Proctor
Library.
View: Ethical
Dilemmas – “I
Never Said I Was A Lawyer”
Human
Life: Beginnings and
Endings. Van Camp
text pp. 1-20.
WEEK 2: Private
Lives: Van Camp text
pp. 21-51.
War,
Peace, & Pacifism:
Van Camp text pp. 52-63.
WEEK 3: The
Environment: Van
Camp text pp. 64-71.
Freedom
of Expression: Van Camp
text pp. 72-102.
WEEK 4: Religious
Freedom: Van Camp text
pp. 103-112.
Racial
Discrimination Van Camp
text pp. 113-118.
WEEK 5: Affirmative
Action: Van Camp
text pp. 118-127.
Sex
Discrimination: Van
Camp text pp. 128-135.
WEEK 6: Sexual
Harassment: Van
Camp text pp. 136-142.
Capital
Punishment: Van Camp
text pp. 143-150.
WEEK 7: Review & Final.
BRIEFING
COURT CASES
By Judge Rick Poland
@ Flagler College
BRIEF: A clear
and concise written
summary detailing the
facts, procedural history,
issue(s), holding(s),
and rationale of the
court in a particular
case. For my
classes, the brief
should also contain
an evaluation of the
court's rationale and
a synthesis, when appropriate. The
purpose of doing a
brief is to aid in
the comprehension of
the case and to have
a summary for review
purposes prior to an
examination.
ELEMENTS
OF A BRIEF
1. Identification
of the Case. Put
the name of the case and the
legal citation at the top of
the page: For example, Tarasoff
v. Regents. (551
P.2d 334.)
2. Facts.
Summarize what happened
in the case. Do
not repeat all the
facts as given in the
case; rather, write
about the legally significant
facts. Identify
the parties, their
status, and the nature
of the dispute between
the parties.
3. Procedural
History. State
what happened in the
court(s) below. This
usually involves the
trial court and an
intermediate appellate
court. What was
the disposition of
each court? What
important motions or
procedural matters
were argued and how
did the court dispose
of them.
4. Issue(s). What
is the legal question(s)
before the court? Generally,
what question is on
appeal from the court
below? Always
put the issue in the
form of a question
and frame it narrowly.
5. Holding. Quite
simply, answer the
issue(s) raised in
the opinion affirmatively
or negatively. Then
restate the issue in
declarative sentence
form so you have
a Rule of the Case.
6. Rationale. This
is the heart of the
brief. Explain
the court's reasoning
for deciding the case
in the manner by which
it did. Did
the court rely upon
precedent, general
legal principles, public
policy, or something
else? Look at
the majority opinion
for the court's rationale. Discuss
dissenting or concurring
opinions only when
enlightening.
7. Evaluation. Do
you agree with the
court's reasoning? Why
or why not?
8. Synthesis. This
is a "putting
together" of the
cases you have read
that deal with the
same issue(s). Integrate
this case with the
others which you have
read and briefed. Put
the body of law in
this area together
so that it makes sense
(if possible) and so
that you demonstrate
your knowledge of the
law in this area. How
has the law changed? What
is problematic? What
is not?
If you need to examine
a sample brief, ask
me for one.
ETHICAL
ISSUES: WEEKLY
CASE SCHEDULE
Week One: The
Beginnings and Endings
of Life
Roe
v. Wade –
Planned
Parenthood –
Steinberg v. Carhart -
In
Re Quinlan –
Cruzan
v. Director –
Bush v. Schiavo–
Bouvia
v. Glenchur –
Washington
v. Glucksberg –
Vacco
v. Quill –
Week Two: The
Right to Privacy
Wisconsin
v. Yoder –
Plyler
v. Doe –
Veronia
School v. Acton –
Owasso v. Falvo–
Griswold
v. Connecticut –
Carey
v. Population Services –
Loving
v. Virginia –
In
the Matter of Baby M –
Lawrence
v. Texas –
Week Three: Social/Environmental
Issues
U.S.
v. O’Brien –
Welsh
v. U.S. –
Rostker
v. Goldberg –
Fedorenko
v. U.S. –
Rasul v. Bush –
Tennessee
Valley v. Hill –
Sierra
Club v. Morton –
Church
v. Hialeah –
Week Four: Freedom
of Expression
Cohen
v. California –
Matter of George T–
Texas v.
Johnson –
R.A.V.
v. City of St. Paul –
Colin v. Smith–
Roth
v. U.S. –
Stanley
v. Georgia –
Miller
v. California –
Southeastern
Promotions v. Conrad
-
National
Endowment v. Finley –
American
Booksellers v. Hudnut –
Week Five: Freedom
of Religion/Affirmative
Action
Employment
Div. v. Smith –
Wallace
v. Jaffree –
Edwards
v. Aguillard –
Elk Grove v. Newdow –
Korematsu v. U.S.–
Brown
v. Board of Edc. –
Regents
v. Bakke –
Grutter v. Bollinger –
Week Six: Sexual
Discrimination and
Harassment
California
v. Guerra –
UAW
v. Johnson Controls –
Michael
M. v. Superior Ct. –
U.S.
v. Virginia –
Meritor
Savings v. Vinson –
Harris
v. Forklift –
Gebser
v. Lago Vista –
Oncale
v. Sundowner –
Week Seven: Ethics of Capital
Punishment
Furman
v. Georgia –
Gregg
v. Georgia –
Coker
v. Georgia –
McClesky
v. Kemp –
Herrera
v. Collins –
Atkins v. Virginia–
Grimshaw
v. Ford –
U.S.
v. Morris –
U.S.
v. Alkhabaz –
A&M Records v. Napster–
Back
to the Pre-Law main page
|
