- but people think this kind of stuff is true.
videos, music, websites, articles, movies, and popular culture resources for use in the undergraduate law classroom
Showing posts with label due process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label due process. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
50th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia
There are too many resources available on this landmark case and precursor to Obergefell v. Hodges to list here. A YouTube search reveals any of a number of documentaries of varying lengths. here are some musical resources:
Monday, November 6, 2017
Parents to be Jailed for Child's Bullying?
Um . . . I'm thinking this is a due process violation. Let me know what you think.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Have You Committed an "Improper Photography" Offense?
The Texas Penal Code section 21.15 states, in part:
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means
records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that
is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of
any person;
What exactly does that mean? That is apparently the question that was on the minds of Texas Appeals Court judges who have declared the law unconstitutionally vague.
If the state is going to criminalize activity, substantive due process requires that there be sufficient description of the conduct being criminalized so that people don't inadvertently engage in criminal conduct. This statute clearly falls short.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Property Seized, But No Culpability Proven
Apparently it is legal for law enforcement officers to seize cash from suspected drug deals and then refuse to return it, even if no charges are brought against the parties. Apparently, it is also legal for law enforcement to execute a civil seizure of a parent's home if a kid has been involved in drug violations in the house. The parent's knowledge or culpability is irrelevant.
Aren't there Due Process issues here - substantive and procedural?
Aren't there Due Process issues here - substantive and procedural?
Friday, November 2, 2012
Law Music Video: The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia
Today's installment in the Law Music Video Series is The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia by Reba McEntire or Vickie Lawrence or Jennifer Nettles (take your pick). This is such a deliciously preposterous scenario. You could ask students to discuss the obvious due process issues. Or perhaps, consider it an allegory on injustices in the criminal system . Ask students to identify realistic areas of challenges for attainment of justice in the legal system.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Law Music Video: The Loving Kind
This week's law music video post is The Loving Kind by Nanci Griffith. See related posts here and here.
Nanci Griffith writes, "They changed the hearts of my nation, with their wedding vows." Would this have been true if the Supreme Court had upheld the Virginia Law? In other words, was it their wedding that fostered change or was it the court's willingness to embrace their wedding that changed the hearts (and minds) of the nation?
The award winning book, The Hollow Hope, argues that the Court's decision in Brown vs. Board of Education actually set back the cause of integration - that time and education would have brought quicker and more effective integration. Do you agree or disagree? What, if anything, is the value of a Supreme Court decision on changing the "hearts and minds" of Americans?
More than 50 years after the Loving decision, there is still a durable belief among some that interracial marriage should be illegal. (This poll ascribes that position to 29% of likely Republican voters in Mississippi) Is this the best consensus that we can hope for in a pluralist society? Do those who disagree with the Court's decision nevertheless acquiesce to it - or do they strive to change it?
Nanci Griffith writes, "They changed the hearts of my nation, with their wedding vows." Would this have been true if the Supreme Court had upheld the Virginia Law? In other words, was it their wedding that fostered change or was it the court's willingness to embrace their wedding that changed the hearts (and minds) of the nation?
The award winning book, The Hollow Hope, argues that the Court's decision in Brown vs. Board of Education actually set back the cause of integration - that time and education would have brought quicker and more effective integration. Do you agree or disagree? What, if anything, is the value of a Supreme Court decision on changing the "hearts and minds" of Americans?
More than 50 years after the Loving decision, there is still a durable belief among some that interracial marriage should be illegal. (This poll ascribes that position to 29% of likely Republican voters in Mississippi) Is this the best consensus that we can hope for in a pluralist society? Do those who disagree with the Court's decision nevertheless acquiesce to it - or do they strive to change it?
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Process Serving - It's Not for Everyone
In a prior post we considered the business of process serving. Below are a couple of videos that illustrate some of the difficulties that a process server may encounter. I can't recall the name of my first year Civil Procedure professor. But I do recall the story he told about a NY process server who, in order to complete "personal" service, practiced for weeks before successfully tossing a sheaf of legal papers across an alleyway and through the open window of an apartment into a bowl of potatoes being peeled by the defendant. I think that Byran (below) would consider that job easy money.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Service of Process - You Can't Get Civil Justice Unless the Papers are Served
Below are a couple of videos that I use in class to describe what I consider to be an often overlooked yet crucial element of the judicial system - serving process. Our concept of "due process" includes, at a minimum, notice of a pending claim and an opportunity to be heard in your own defense. That grand concept, a cornerstone of a just society, is entrusted to the folks who are in the business of serving legal papers. In some states and in certain instances service is conducted by government employees from a public safety agency or legal system. But in many states and in certain instances, process servers - much like lawyers, accountants, financial planners, etc. - are business people providing a service to a customer (plaintiff) for a fee. This link will take you to a site for the Process Server Institute, described as being "dedicated to the study and teaching of the art and business of process serving."
"We are 100% committed to the service of process business."
This is how it is done (in Seattle, WA):
"We are 100% committed to the service of process business."
This is how it is done (in Seattle, WA):
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Featured Case: Pennsylvania v. Noel: Is a Horse a "Vehicle?"
Here are the facts from the majority opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Noel:
On April 7, 2002, the Pennsylvania State Police stopped Appellees Richard Carroll Noel and Keith Douglas Travis while they were riding horses on a public highway in Springfield Township, Mercer County because they appeared to be intoxicated. Appellees were subsequently charged with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol ("DUI").
The relevant part of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code states as follows:
Every person riding an animal or driving any animal-drawn vehicle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this part, except those provisions of this part which by their very nature can have no application or where specifically provided otherwise.
The defense argued that "by their very nature" the DUI provisions did not apply to horseback riders. The trial court stated that it could not clearly determine what provisions "by their very nature" did not apply to horseback riders and, therefore, the statute is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clause.
I like this case for class for two reasons. First, it is a "two-fer." The case is a natural to illustrate two legal principles. I use it to explain the requirement under substantive due process that a criminal statute must give unambiguous "fair warning" of the conduct that has been criminalized. I also use it to explain the need for statutory interpretation by courts. As is often the case, a statute which seems reasonably clearly written when read in a vaccuum, becomes noticeably ambiguous when applied to a challenging set of facts. Therefore, the court's interpretation is necessary.
Second, there is an witty dissent in the case written by Mr. Justice Eakin. After opening his opinion by quoting the theme song to Mr. Ed, a 1960's sitcom about a talking horse, Justice Eakin summarizes his rationale by composing it to the Mr. Ed theme. (Here is another link to the dissent.)
Here is a short clip to illustrate to your students the premise of the show, Mr. Ed:
Here is the Mr. Ed theme song:
And here is the excerpt from Mr. Justice Eakin's dissent set to music:
On April 7, 2002, the Pennsylvania State Police stopped Appellees Richard Carroll Noel and Keith Douglas Travis while they were riding horses on a public highway in Springfield Township, Mercer County because they appeared to be intoxicated. Appellees were subsequently charged with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol ("DUI").
The relevant part of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code states as follows:
Every person riding an animal or driving any animal-drawn vehicle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this part, except those provisions of this part which by their very nature can have no application or where specifically provided otherwise.
The defense argued that "by their very nature" the DUI provisions did not apply to horseback riders. The trial court stated that it could not clearly determine what provisions "by their very nature" did not apply to horseback riders and, therefore, the statute is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clause.
I like this case for class for two reasons. First, it is a "two-fer." The case is a natural to illustrate two legal principles. I use it to explain the requirement under substantive due process that a criminal statute must give unambiguous "fair warning" of the conduct that has been criminalized. I also use it to explain the need for statutory interpretation by courts. As is often the case, a statute which seems reasonably clearly written when read in a vaccuum, becomes noticeably ambiguous when applied to a challenging set of facts. Therefore, the court's interpretation is necessary.
Second, there is an witty dissent in the case written by Mr. Justice Eakin. After opening his opinion by quoting the theme song to Mr. Ed, a 1960's sitcom about a talking horse, Justice Eakin summarizes his rationale by composing it to the Mr. Ed theme. (Here is another link to the dissent.)
Here is a short clip to illustrate to your students the premise of the show, Mr. Ed:
Here is the Mr. Ed theme song:
And here is the excerpt from Mr. Justice Eakin's dissent set to music:
Friday, March 4, 2011
Law Lessongs: Due Process and Equal Protection
These videos and songs from Power Point presentations can help students consider the elements and parameters of a Due Process or an Equal Protection claim (while having a bit of fun). Learn more about Law Lessongs from the post found here. More videos may be found at my youtube channel. Please feel free to use them in the classroom or as assignments or in any way that they work for you as an educational resource.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)