POSC 130g Week 5 Lecture Notes
POSC 130g Week 5 Lecture Notes POSC 130
Popular in Law, Politics and Public Policy
Popular in Political Science
This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by Adrianna Robakowski on Monday September 26, 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 7 views. For similar materials see Law, Politics and Public Policy in Political Science at University of Southern California.
Reviews for POSC 130g Week 5 Lecture Notes
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: 09/26/16
Lecture 9/20 Changes in Juries Sizes Williams v. Florida (1970) 6 and 12 jurors is functionally equivalent Zeisel, Hans Noted that the collective wisdom of 6 jurors is less than that of 12 jurors May make things move more quickly Nemeth, Charlah No constitutional right to have jury size of 12 in state criminal trials Bellow v. Georgia (1978) unconstitutional to have fewer than 5 jurors Why is 6 enough but 5 too few? 6 jurors must be unanimous Unanimity Apodaca v. Oregon and Johnson v. Louisiana Centuries old rule of unanimity not necessary Issue of the tyranny of the majority! Jury Consultants (Trial Consultants) Corporate vs. Nonprofit National Jury Project Originated in Oakland, now has branches all over the US Associated with antiwar activists and feminists (social scientists helped) Professionals “Rig the jury” Basic Findings Younger jurors more likely to convict, as well as more educated people Liberals are less likely to convict Death Qualified Jurors Death penalty supporters are more likely to convict Lockhart v. McCree (1986) Death qualifying a jury is not unconstitutional “Because of my view I would not be able to convict (death penalty)” Debate Witherspoon Case Earlier death qualification case Questionable Techniques Fake phone calls (polling) Talking to neighbors On day of important evidence, bring spectators or rustle papers to distract jurors ABA Opinion 466: looking up info of jurors is OK, but can’t make contact (friend request on Facebook) TRIAL COURTS Efficiency versus Fairness Plea bargain (criminal cases) and settlements (civil cases) set NO PRECEDENT Rights consciousness Most conflicts do not end up in court (lump it) Transformation of disputes Someone so mad that is actually ends up in court Laura Nader, Professor at Berkeley, good thing we are a litigious nation (older sister of Ralph Nader) Mnookin and Kornhauser “Bargaining in the shadow of the law” People use the law to threaten but do not intend to ever go to court Common in family law Gender neutral divorce law (no tender years presumption that mother needs to have the kids) Stewart Macauley Famous study of contract law, why people mostly fulfill their obligations Because it is good for business, more than being afraid to get sued. Trust and Respect Showed fallacy in legal positivism of Austin [MIDTERM QUESTION ON SOCIAL SCIENCE ABOVE] OVERVIEW: Key Characteristics (court cases) Disputes must fit legal categories Reactive do not set an agenda for social change No published (written) opinions (few exceptions) Game comparison with chess game or battle between legal gladiators Is this good for justice? Dual Court System Reflects federalism Forum Shopping = pick to take a case to state or federal court Considered the most striking feature of the American judicial system Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 25 Empowers US Supreme Court to review state court decisions if claim is based on federal law (constitution, treaty, or federal law) Used to just be admiralty, copyright/intellectual property, diversity of citizenship (people or companies across States) and federal crimes Federal judges at EVERY level have life tenure (insulated from politics) so many people prefer federal trial courts Only 1 judge, not many like state courts State Courts Trial courts and state supreme court or trial court, intermediate appellate court and Supreme Court Federal Courts Trial courts are district courts (federal trial court habeas corpus cases) 94 total 89 districts in 50 states Alaska has 1 district District courts in the US territories Appeal from district court goes to circuit court (9th circuit in CA) Next level is US Supreme Court Can also appeal from State Supreme Court to US Supreme Court Trial Courts v. Appellate Courts Trial courts take what comes Courts of appeals do not always take all cases No published opinions in trial, opinions published in appellate Appellate courts only have the record, trial courts have all of the witnesses Appellate courts are not supposed to have new facts, only supposed to see how the law was applied DNA testing for evidence, should it be take into account in appellate courts? Consequences Supplies alternative tribunals Interpretation of legal doc varies Forumshopping Diverse types of judicial structures Merits of state courts v. merits of federal courts Motel 6 Factor, lawyers not wanting to go out of town Impossible to summarize “American Law” Political orientation of judges CASES WITH FEDERAL AND STATE CLAIMS Federal courts may decline to decide state claims Res Judicata a thing decided, a matter decided by judgement (matter closed) Collateral Estoppel being stopped from making a claim in one court proceeding that was already decided New Judicial Federalism (Independent State Grounds) Champions include: US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan (formerly New Jersey Supreme Court Justice), Justice Frank Newman (CA Supreme Court) and Justice Hans Linde (Oregon Supreme Court) US Constitution as the floor No state can provide fewer rights than those in the US Constitution State Constitution is the ceiling Can provide more rights than the US Constitution PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBBINS (1980) Issue was whether students could engage in free speech activities in a privately owned mall Based arguments on CA constitution If they win, the US Supreme Court cannot review it Free speech v. Compelled Speech 5th amendment right “takings clause” CA Constitution and CA Supreme Court beats the US Constitution, even if federal law was misinterpreted (as long as there is an independent state ground) Federal Case: Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974) No violation of constitutional rights Zoning laws California Case: Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) The California Supreme Court rejects the Belle Terre rule Federal constitution doesn’t protect people’s right to live together but the California state constitution does Not a conflict in the law Belle Terre uses federal Constitution and Adamson uses CA Constitution LECTURE 9/22 [Steven Lawrence case in the UK MIDTERM] Mcclesky v. Kemp = blacks 3 to 4 times more likely (Baldus study) to receive the death penalty for murder Especially if they kill rights Advantages to State Courts Independent State Grounds: doctrine used by state supreme courts to insulate their decisions from review (new judicial federalism) Importance of state constitutions Federal constitution as the floor and state constitutions as the ceiling [Pruneyard cas ESTABLISHED Independent State Grounds as a POLICY] Differing rights, more rights in state constitution, is NOT a conflict in the legal system EX: Gay Rights Federal: Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) upheld Georgia's antisodomy law State: Kentucky v. Wasson (1992) School Finance Federal: San Antonio Independent School DIstrict v. Rodriguez (1973) California Case: Serrano v. Priest (1972) Note: Rodriguez had no effect on Serran because it was based on independent sate grounds BACKLASH! California Proposition included “Victims Bill of Rights” Would have limited due process in California IMPLICATIONS Liberal vs. conservative State law NOT in conflict with federal law Distinction between independent state grounds and preemption (conflict between federal and state laws...federal law wins) Michigan v. Long Const. Conclusion Alan Tarr, Professor at Rutgers ACCESS RULES/JUSTICIABILITY (procedural obstacles to getting one’s day in court) Prohibition against advisory opinions Arguments for and against Can’t bring a lawsuit unless their is a live issue Not manufactured Court has to be able to deal with the problem you have presented No advisory opinions Good or bad thing ??? There must be a substantial likelihood a favorable court decision will have some effect ICJ International Court of Justice CAN give advisory opinions Attorney general's can write advisory opinions Standing You have to be the correct person to bring the lawsuit Plaintiff must allege he was injured or will imminently be injured Harms: violation of common law rights, statutory right, constitutional rights LESS CLEAR: psychic harm, aesthetic/environmental harms, show you were PERSONALLY impacted Enviro Harms: Sierra v. Morton (1972) SCRAP (1973) Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (1992) [even if you don’t have standing, you don’t know if they would agree with the merits] Lawyers view Political scientists think that the Supreme Court will find reason for standing if they really want to hear it [Standing questions for injunction and damages] City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983) Chokehold used (severely injured) Wanted them not to, wanted an injunction (the power the courts have to say that someone can’t do something) and damages Supreme Court said he didn’t have standing for an injunction because he couldn’t prove that he would ever be subject to a chokehold ever again Causation and redressability Linda R.S. v. Richard D. Texas only went after fathers who didn’t pay child support if they were married Said a decision in her favor wouldn’t be able to make the state force the father to give her the money (causation and redressability)
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
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'