New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

POSC 130 Lecture Notes Week 2 8/30-9/1

by: Adrianna Robakowski

POSC 130 Lecture Notes Week 2 8/30-9/1 POSC 130

Marketplace > University of Southern California > Political Science > POSC 130 > POSC 130 Lecture Notes Week 2 8 30 9 1
Adrianna Robakowski

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Week 2 Notes
Law, Politics and Public Policy
Alison Dundes Renteln
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Law, Politics and Public Policy

Popular in Political Science

This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by Adrianna Robakowski on Friday September 2, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POSC 130 at University of Southern California taught by Alison Dundes Renteln in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Law, Politics and Public Policy in Political Science at University of Southern California.

Similar to POSC 130 at USC

Popular in Political Science


Reviews for POSC 130 Lecture Notes Week 2 8/30-9/1


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 09/02/16
Lecture 8/30    3 Schools of Jurisprudence in Western Tradition  ­ Philosophical School/Natural Law  ­ Law and Morals overlap  ­ St. Thomas Aquinas (1225­1274) = divine inspiration  ­ Lon Fuller = inner core of morality  ­ Link between law and rational character of “man”  ­ Implications for fidelity to law/civil disobedience  ­ Analytical School/Legal Positivism  ­ Law tied to the state  ­ COMMAND THEORY (comparative theory)  ­ Law and morality are distinct from each other  ­ John Austin ­ the rule as backed by force  ­ H.L.A. Hart ­ The Concept of Law  ­ Tied to the state, must have a state to enforce  ­ Nomads, smaller societies, religious groups (NOT LAW)  ­ International law is not law  ­ “Law is the union of primary rules and secondary rules”  ­ Historical School  ­ “It’s not law on the books, it’s law in action”  ­ Karl von Savigny (1779­1861) ​“Volksgeist”  ­ Law as common consciousness of the people  ­ Sir Henry Maine = legal evolution (stage theory)  ­ Highest level is British Constitutional System  [Skeptical of stage theories] ­ what is the basis ???    ­ Sociological jurisprudence (Holistic approach)  ­ Law in contest  ­ Interests at stake  ­ Skelly Wright (example)  ­ Eugen Ehrlich's “living law”  ­ How law actually functions in society  ­ Legal realism = “gastronomic” jurisprudence  ­ Use economics, psychology and political science in order to understand  the law  ­ Jerome Frank = psychological approach, judges as father figures  ­ Karl Llewellyn = economics and anthropology  ­ Law and Society Movement  ­ Still a society with meeting and a journal  ­ Critical Legal Studies (CLS)  ­ Duncan Kennedy  ­ Harvard and Stanford Law  ­ Deconstruct legal categories  ­ “Trashing” law  ­ Feminist Jurisprudence, Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Critical Latino/a  Theory   ­ All splinter groups from CLS  ­ Concerned with over­generalizing    CRITICISMS OF NATURAL LAW  ­ Vague and nebulous  ­ What is morality ???  ­ Who defines morality  ­ Ethnocentric ???  ­ To what extent is civil disobedience acceptable?  ­ In what circumstances?  ­ Hard to get people to AGREE on norms    CRITICISMS OF LEGAL POSITIVISM (law and morality are separate)  ­ Too narrow in scope  ­ Potential for political manipulation  ­ Who defines what a state it ???  ­ Anyone who can enforce laws?  ­ Failed states?  ­ Fixation on ​rules  ­ What validates the rule of recognition?  ­ Dangerous to separate law from morality    HART (positivism) and FULLER (natural law) DEBATE  ­ Whether the Nazi legal system counts as a legal system  ­ Case of the Nazi Wife  ­ Reported her husband to the authorities for saying bad things about the Third  Reich  ­ Wasn’t legally bound to do so  ­ He was arrested and sentenced to death  ­ Not excused, but instead sent back to the front lines as his death penalty  ­ Five years later, the wife was prosecuted for illegally depriving a person of his  freedom  ­ Argued that she committed no crime under Nazi statutes  ­ Court says she did violate a law and that Nazi law “wasn’t valid”  ­ Problem of Retroactivity  ­ Can’t go back and change a law/punish retroactively   ­ Fuller says Nazi law was never a law  ­ Hart says that the courts need to acknowledge retroactivity   ­ Both agree on punishment  [US Constitution doesn’t allow retroactivity]  ­ Her offense = illegally depriving a person of his freedom ­ under German Criminal  Code 1871  ­ Berlin Test Case of Border Guards (1991)  ­ 20 year old crossed the British Wall to the West and was shot  ­ Shooting consistent with East German Law  ­ Soldiers versus Superiors  ­ Radbruch Formula  ­ To get around rule of retroactivity  ­ Also a principle of justice  ­ Sometimes justice is worth more than retroactivity  ­ Retroactivity was a big issue at the Nuremberg Trials  ­ Peter Quint’s concern about future prosecution by the ICC (International Criminal  Courts)  [European Court of Human Rights]    CRITICISMS OF HISTORICAL SCHOOL  ­ Parameters too broad and inclusive/all encompassing (USC and NCAA as legal  systems?)  ­ How to determine the “common consciousness”  ­ Difficult to distinguish between law and custom  [Micro, National and International Legal Systems]    PAUL BOHANNAN (Dean at USC)  ­ double­institutionalization  ­ Relationship between law and custom  ­ Norm that is initially important and custom  ­ Double­institutionalized, becomes LAW  ­ Problem of phase  ­ Sometimes custom is the problem and law needs to be used to change custom  (Brown v. Board of Education)    CONCLUSION  ­ Importance of theoretical approach to analysis  ­ Compare and contrast thinkers in each school    The Role of the Lawyer (Legal Ethics)  Bar association and Codes of Ethics  ­ Attorney client privilege  ­ Keeping confidences of client (few exceptions)  ­ Conflict between professional ethics and morality    [Adversarial (accusatorial) system = one party against another party (common law)]  ­ Different than civil law because judge screens people to see if they should be  prosecuted    Exceptions to Attorney Client Rule  ­ Self defense  ­ Client intending to commit a crime/bodily harm  ­ Client consents  ­ Judge orders it    LECTURE 9/1  The Role of the Lawyer [Legal Ethics]  ­ The conflict between professional ethics v. morality (personal)    Model Rule: put forth by American Bar Association  ­ Needs to be adapted by the state you are practicing in    Bar Associations and Codes of Ethics  1. American Bar Association (ABA)  ­ History of bias  ­ Reactionary stands on free speech/loyalty oaths  ­ Created to make rules for legal profession and boost image of lawyers  ­ Rules updated and delegates vote to change the rules  ­ Recommendations that can be adapted by states  ­ Not mandatory to be a practicing lawyer (being a member of your state's  bar association IS)  2. Regulation of the legal profession  ­ ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility  ­ State bar associations  ­ Self regulated industry  ­ Few disbarred (Rhode ­ Professor at Stanford/research)  ­ Lawyers judging lawyers  [Pro bono work = free work]  ­ For the public good  ­ Should it be required?    ETHICAL ISSUES  ­ Fees  ­ Morality ???  ­ Attorney Client Privilege  ­ Definition: The right and duty to withhold information because of some  special status or relationship of confidentiality  ­ What is covered by the privilege?  ­ It must be a communication  ­ It must be a particular sort of communication  ­ Purpose: To ensure people get the best representation possible, lawyers  get all the facts  ­ Protects the “presumption of innocence” = cornerstone of common law  ­ EXEMPTIONS  ­ 1. Consent​ ­ if client consents to disclosure  ­ 2. Court Order ​­ if required to be revealed  ­ 3. Future Acts  ­ Old Rule (more broad) ­ if clients intends to commit a crime  ­ New Rule ­ if client intends to commit serious or substantial bodily  harm (1.6B ­ rule)  ­ 4. Self­Defense ​­ if client sues the lawyer the malpractice    The Belge Case (New York) “The Lake Pleasant Bodies” Case  1. Facts: ​Robert Garrow charged with child molestation and subsequently murder  assigned attorneys Frank Armani (child molestation) and Francis Belge. Garrow  mentions he had killed 2 other people, lawyers went to where they said they were  and WERE there  a. Unsolved murders in the community  2. Lawyers ​did not​ tell authorities. Offered the prosecution info about other murders  if they would be lenient, but they were denied.    Belge Legal Proceedings  ­ Lawyers had a press conference and said they had know about the bodies but  couldn’t say anything  ­ Indictment for violating NY public health laws (notification; right of burial)  ­ Accomplices after the fact  ­ Obstructing right to justice  ­ Constitutional Rights  ­ 5th Amendment (Right against self­incrimination)  ­ 6th Amendment (Right to counsel)  ­ Balance individual rights against harm to family and society  ­ Indictment DROPPED  ­ Bar said “the state bar acknowledge that Belge needed to remain silent”    [​Attorney client privilege is PARAMOUNT]    Comparisons  1. Scott Peterson ­ rep by Mark Gangos (California Business and Profession  Code)  a. “It is the duty of an attorney to maintain inviolate the confidence, at every  peril to himself to preserve the secrets of his client”  2. Bernardo Case (Canada)  a. Lawyer, Kenneth Murray, withheld evidence  i. Advised by the bar to ask to be excused and then give up the tapes  ii. Was prosecuted for obstruction of justice etc.  iii. Eventually was acquitted 5 years later    Nix v. Whiteside (U.S. Supreme Court) (1986)  ­ Issue: Whether the 6th Amendment right of a criminal defendant to assistance of  counsel is violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with the defendant in  presenting perjured testimony at his trial  ­ Jury didn’t buy the self defense so was convicted instead of second  degree, but first degree murder  ­ Look at all state courts  ­ Filed Habeas Corpus  ­ Court of appeals ruled in this favor  ­ Supreme Court says that attorney client privilege is not upheld when there  is perjury involved  ­ The Court relied on Strickland v. Washington which requires showing serious  attorney error and prejudice [harmless error rule]  ­ The Court concluded that there is a specific exception from the attorney­client  privilege for the disclosure of perjury. The Court said this is required by legal  ethics.    CONCLUSION: A defendant's right to effective counsel was not violated when his  attorney used threats to dissuade him from committing perjury    US v. Dunnigan (1993)  “Defendant has no “right to lie”” (9­0)  ­ Issue: Whether a defendant can deny charges and if subsequently convicted be  given a longer sentence  ­ Facts: Sharon Dunnigan denied being part of a cocaine ring but was convicted  later  ­ The US Supreme court ruled no “right to lie”    The Freedman Trilemma (Professor Monroe Freedman)  The lawyer is required to:  ­ Know everything  ­ To keep it in confidence  ­ To reveal it to the court    [Other Contexts]  ­ Enron Scandal responses  ­ SEC Policy  ­ ABA policy saying lawyers may disclose wrongdoing  [Toyota Product Safety Code]  ­ In house lawyers  ­ Protecting consumers ?    Swidler & Berlin v. U.S. (1998)  ­ Effect of death on attorney­client privilege  ­ Supreme Court said death has no effect on attorney­client privilege       


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Jennifer McGill UCSF Med School

"Selling my MCAT study guides and notes has been a great source of side revenue while I'm in school. Some months I'm making over $500! Plus, it makes me happy knowing that I'm helping future med students with their MCAT."

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.