INTRO TO U.S. LEGAL SYSTEM PDF

✯ INTRO TO U.S. LEGAL SYSTEM ✯ Reading: 1-1b, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4; Ch. 4; 5-2 Jurisprudence TEXTBOO...

✯ INTRO TO U.S. LEGAL SYSTEM ✯ Reading: 1-1b, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4; Ch. 4; 5-2 Jurisprudence TEXTBOO K – Jurisprudence = philosophical interpretation 1-3b, SECTION(S): of the nature and purpose of law 1-4 MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW (What is law? Why do we have laws?) – Law & morality Different concepts, but linked – Some laws reflect what everyone would generally agree is moral (e.g., limiting harm to others; following through on promises) – Some laws viewed as immoral (by society in general or certain groups) May be due to differences in values or societal changes – Some legal questions have no clear moral answer (e.g., Good Samaritan laws) – Three theories of jurisprudence: Legal positivism à law is what the sovereign says it is (whether right or wrong) | – Sovereign = recognized political power that citizens obey – Criticism à no room for morality BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Natural law à an unjust law is no law at all (and need not be obeyed) – Laws must have a moral basis St. Thomas Aquinas (1200s): “Good is to be promoted and evil is to be avoided” – Criticism à vague (What counts as “good”? Good for whom?) Legal realism à Enforcer of law matters more than what law actually says (unequal enforcement inevitable due to inherent personal biases – Law used by the powerful to perpetuate control – Criticism à denies possibility of overcoming bias Origins of U.S. law TEXTBOO K SECTIO 1-1b N(S): – “The law” = complex system w/many parts Principles & rules of law come from many different sources Every society on historical record has had a system of laws – England = primary model for U.S. law Complex structure Common-law system – Common law = accumulation of precedent 3  Precedent = judges must decide cases based on previous rulings Judge-made law Predictability – Colonists adopted some English laws & rejected others – League of Iroquois à separation of powers / federalism Federalism = two levels of government w/divided powers MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Revolution Emphasis on protecting rights from government interference – Exclusive state control over many issues – Individual rights guaranteed to the people – Evolution Changing conditions à new legal issues – Industrialization; technological advancement; social changes Key sources of contemporary U.S. law Constitution(s) Administrative Law Statutes Treaties Case Law / Common Law [Trial] Court Orders | – Constitution(s) TEXTBOO BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Federal K 1-2a, SECTION(S): 5-2a, 5-2 – Establishes limited federal government b – Protects states’ power – Guarantees liberty of citizens State – Establishes state government – Guarantees rights of state residents U.S. Constitution – Supreme law of the land (all conflicting laws = void) – Establishes national government Separation of powers – Executive branch (President) à enforces laws [Art. II] – Judicial branch (Supreme Court) à interprets laws & determines validity [Art. III] – Legislative branch (Congress) à creates new laws [Art. I] House of Representatives (435 voting members; votes per state based on population) Senate (100 voting members; two per state) 4  – Checks and balances System designed to favor inaction unless broad agreement Prevents individual rights from being violated MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Fundamental rights – Bill of Rights protects against government interference – Statutes (legislation) TEXTBOO K 1-2b, SECTION(S): Enacted by legislature 4-2 Can cover any topic (as long as no constitutional violations) More laws created by statutes than by courts Legislative Process LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: – Bill proposed Bill proposed Passed by both houses Reasons for new bills: of Congress (simple – New issue majority) Signed/vetoed by – Unpopular judicial ruling President (except constitutional issues) Congressional override – Criminal law (2/3) | – Starts in specialized House or Senate committee BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones – Committee sends to full House/Senate Debate and amendments Vote (simple majority) – Bill sent to other chamber (Senate/House) for debate/amendment/vote simple majority) – Both versions of passed bill sent to House-Senate Conference Committee Conference Committee creates compromise bill – Both chambers vote on compromise bill (simple majority) – President signs or vetoes – Congressional override (2/3 majority) Statutory interpretation – Three methods (used in this order): Plain-meaning rule à ordinary, commonsense definition of statute’s words Legislative intent à review of legislative history (hearings, reports, debates) to determine legislature’s intent Public policy à general public policies (ex: reducing crime; creating equal opportunity; etc.) 5  Example: Employment Discrimination MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Civil Rights Movement (1950s/60s) – 1964 Civil Rights Act Equal rights bill proposed by President Kennedy (1963) House Judiciary Committee heard voluminous testimony Committee approved bill and sent to full House Title VII à employment Bill passed by House after considerable debate + amendment; sent to Senate Bill passed by Senate after debate + amendment Amended bills sent to Conference Committee Compromise bill sent back to each chamber for more debate + vote | Compromise bill (eventually) passed by both chambers BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Signed by President Johnson à 1964 Civil Rights Act becomes law – Indirect discrimination Some employers begin implementing job requirements that APPEAR neutral but have a discriminatory impact – Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (U.S. 1971) Facts: – Employer required applicants for higher-paid jobs to: (1) have HS diploma (2) pass standardized written test – No relationship b/w requirements + successful job performance – Lower percentage of black applicants than white applicants met requirements à white applicants received disproportionate share of jobs Issue: – Does Title VII require employment tests to be job-related? Analysis: – Plain meaning rule? 6  – Legislative intent à objective = equality of employment opportunities; remove barriers favoring white employees Holding: – Job requirement w/discriminatory impact must be essential for important business goal (“business necessity” standard) Employer intent irrelevant MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW If any other way to accomplish outcome w/o discriminatory effect, employer must use that instead – Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (U.S. 1989) Facts: – Skilled positions at Alaska salmon canneries held almost entirely by out-of-state white employees – Locals/natives hired as unskilled (low-paid) workers No overt discrimination Challenged hiring practices included: – Not promoting from within – Hiring through separate channels – Nepotism – English-language requirement | Issue: – Were these employment practices prohibited under Title BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones VII? Holding: – Job requirement w/discriminatory impact acceptable if it serves “legitimate employment goals” No longer required to be “essential” / “necessary” – Legislative Response: 1990 Civil Rights Bill – Both houses passed bills to restore “business necessity” standard – Compromise bill passed in Oct. 1990 – President immediately vetoed – Attempted Congressional override Fell short by ONE VOTE in Senate 1991 Civil Rights Act – Employer must “demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity” – President signed into law 7  – Common law TEXTBOO K SECTIO 1-2c, N(S): Made by judges/courts 4-1 – Sum total of all cases decided by appellate courts in a particular jurisdiction Stare decisis = “let the decision stand” (precedent) – once a court has decided a particular issue, will generally apply same rule in similar cases in the future MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Advantages: consistent, predictable, efficient – Disadvantages: lack of flexibility - society’s values may change (e.g., civil rights, etc.); may be difficult/slow to change the law on moral/ethical grounds Gradual change – Example: bystander cases | English common-law rule: – Bystander owes no duty to assist unless s/he created the BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones danger Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Cappier (Kan. 1903) – Facts: Man hit by train (not railroad’s fault) Railroad employees witnessed incident + did nothing Man died before assistance arrived – Issue: Did railroad (through its employees) have a duty to help the victim? – Analysis: “With the humane side of the question courts are not concerned." – These “penalties are found not in the laws of men but in [the laws of God].” – Holding: Railroad had no duty to assist (followed common-law rule) 8  Carey v. Davis (Iowa 1921) – Facts: Farm worker (Carey) suffers sunstroke + passes out in fields Employer (Davis) drags unconscious worker to wagon (still in the sun); leaves him there for 4 more hours Worker sustains serious permanent injury MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Issue: Did Davis have a duty to help Carey? – Analysis: “[T]he well-settled rule … if carried unflinchingly and without exception to its logical extreme, is sometimes productive of shocking results.” – Holding: Bystander has duty to take “such reasonable measures as may be practicable (even if not at fault), IF: – Bystander = employer, AND – Worker = suddenly stricken, AND – Emergency situation, AND – Employer is present | Osterlind v. Hill (Mass. 1928) BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones – Facts: Osterlind rented canoe from Hill; fell out into water For 30 minutes, Osterlind held onto canoe + yelled for help Hill heard Osterlind but did nothing Osterlind drowned – Issue: Did Hill have a duty to help Osterlind? – Holding: No bystander liability (followed common-law rule) Tarasoff v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif. (Cal. 1976) – Facts: College student (Poddar) told university psychiatrist he was going to kill another student (Tarasoff) Two months later, Poddar killed Tarasoff – Procedural History: Tarasoff’s parents sued university, claiming psychiatrist should have acted on Poddar’s statement 9  – Issue: Did psychiatrist owe a duty to Tarasoff? – Rule: Common-law rule: No duty to control another’s violent conduct or warn those endangered by it Exception: “Special relationship” to violent actor or foreseeable victim à duty of reasonable care MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Required to “exercise that reasonable degree of skill, knowledge, and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of [the field] under similar circumstances” – Holding: Psychiatrist owed duty of reasonable care to protect foreseeable victim – Administrative law TEXTBOO K 1-2e, SECTION(S): Regulations by governmental agencies 4-3 – Advantages: expertise, flexibility – Disadvantages: powerful, unchecked by voters Origins: Interstate Commerce Act à Interstate Commerce Commission Agency classifications – Federal, state, local | – Executive agencies vs. independent agencies BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Executive – part of executive branch; president has much greater control; generally follow president’s preferred policies Independent – president has much less influence Agency creation – Enabling legislation (describes issue, establishes agency, defines powers) Agency powers – Rule promulgation Two types of rules: – Legislative rules – agency-created law Most important agency rules Generally have effect of statutes – Interpretive rules – agency interprets what law already requires Law itself does not change Rulemaking methods – Informal – “notice and comment” – Formal – public hearing(s) – Primary distinction = degree of public participation 10  – before agency issues rule – Investigation Subpoena = order to appear at a particular time and place to provide evidence – Information sought must be: Relevant Not unreasonably burdensome MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW Not privileged – Warrantless searches Comprehensively regulated industries – companies should be on notice that they are subject to periodic, unannounced inspections à warrantless search permitted – U.S. v. Biswell (U.S. 1972) Facts: – Biswell’s pawn shop had license to sell “sporting weapons” – Treasury agents demanded to inspect locked storeroom Claimed authority for warrantless search under 1968 Gun Control Act – Biswell opened storeroom; agents found two | sawed-off rifles (≠ “sporting weapons”) BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Procedural History: – Biswell convicted on firearms charges – Appellate court found search violated 4th Amendment; rifles inadmissible à conviction reversed – Government appealed to Supreme Court Issue: – Did warrantless search violate U.S. Constitution? Analysis: – Legality of (appropriately limited) regulatory inspection of business = based on statutory authority, not consent – Federal regulation of interstate traffic in firearms = high importance to federal crime prevention efforts (”urgent federal interest”) Inspection = key part of regulatory scheme Unannounced inspections essential – Comprehensively regulated industry à limited privacy expectations 11  Holding: – Warrantless search + seizure not unreasonable under 4th Amendment à ∴ not unconstitutional Disposition: – Reversed & remanded – Adjudication Adjudication = hold hearing(s) and render decision on an issue MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) – impartial agency employee No jury Parties represented by counsel Informal rules of evidence Appellate remedies: agency appellate board; federal court Limitations on Agency Powers – Statutory control Enabling legislation may provide some limits Administrative Procedure Act – imposes some additional controls – Political control President – greatest influence is on executive agencies | Congress – Can cut agency budgets BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones – Can amend enabling legislation – Must approve presidential nominees to head agencies – Informational control & the public Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – Applies to federal administrative agencies only – Written request (no particular form required) – Can request information about: Agency operations, finances, statistics You (all info agency has about you) Privacy Act – Prohibits agencies from giving information about individuals to others w/o written consent – Judicial review Federal court – Direct harm requirement – no theoretical or preemptive lawsuits – Exhaustion of administrative remedies – must first have taken all possible appeals within agency itself 12  – Deferential standards of review (court generally sides with agency) Facts – agency’s finding upheld if supported by substantial evidence Law – agency’s interpretation is binding as long as it was reasonable (even if court would have decided the issue differently) MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (U.S. 2012) – Facts: Per U.S. law: Longtime FCC policy: “fleeting” (single + unscripted) expletives NOT “indecent” Fleeting expletives broadcast @ Fox’s Billboard Music Awards in 2002 (Cher) & 2003 (Nicole Richie) FCC changed policy to count fleeting expletives as violations FCC retroactively applied new policy to prior incidents; Fox fined for violations – Procedural History: | Fox sued FCC; claimed lack of fair notice re forbidden conduct BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones 2nd Circuit: Policy = vague + unconstitutional – FCC failed to give sufficient notice re what counted as “indecent” – FCC acted inconsistently FCC appealed to Supreme Court; certiorari granted – Issue: Did FCC give broadcasters fair notice of indecency policy? – Rule: Laws must give fair notice of conduct forbidden or required – Essential to 5th Am. due process protections – Impermissibly vague laws must be invalidated Enforcers of laws must not act arbitrarily or discriminatorily – Requires precision + guidance – Analysis: FCC policy in place at time of broadcasts did not provide notice that fleeting expletives could be 13  actionably indecent FCC standards were vague – Holding: Lack of notice + vague standards à policy unconstitutional – Disposition: FCC’s orders set aside MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Treaties = agreements between sovereigns TEXTBOO K SECTIO 1-2f N(S): Entered by president; ratified by Senate (2/3 vote) Ratified treaties à binding; force of federal law – [Trial] court orders TEXTBOO K SECTIO Binding obligations on people/businesses 1-2d N(S): Specific to parties in that particular case Ex: injunctions Civil vs. criminal law TEXTBOO K SECTIO – Civil 1-3b N(S): One party (plaintiff) sues another (defendant) Concern = rights + duties b/w parties Money damages (or injunctive relief – e.g. restraining order) | – Criminal BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Concern: crimes (against society) Cases brought by state (prosecutor/district attorney) against defendant Punitive (jail time/fines) Mostly statutory 14  ✯ COURT SYSTEMS & LITIGATION ✯ Reading: Ch. 6 (skip 6-4 for now) Court systems TEXTBOO K SECTIO – General structure: 6-1 N(S): Trial courts MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Determine facts; apply law to facts – One judge – Jury (sometimes) – Evidence + testimony Appellate courts: Appellate courts Intermediate courts of appeal High court/court of last resort – Functions: Review record for errors of law Defer to trial court’s findings of fact unless NO evidence to support – Characteristics: 3+ judges | No jury BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones No new evidence – Appellate court outcomes: Affirm à decision below stands Modify à affirm in part w/specific changes Reverse à decision below nullified Remand à case sent back to lower court for new trial Render à appellate court enters judgment (no new trial) Intermediate courts of appeal: – Appeal as of right – Appellant v. appellee – Written briefing – Oral arguments High court(s): – Final word on law in jdx – Discretionary review – Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction = a court’s power to hear a case – Subject-matter jurisdiction à based on type of case 15  Limited jdx à only certain types of cases – Ex: probate; small claims; juvenile General jdx à broad range of cases – Personal jurisdiction à court’s legal authority over defendant Can be established by: – Residence MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW Individual à domiciled in state Company à doing business w/in state – Summons Summons = written notice from court to defendant that lawsuit has been filed against them Individual à served when physically w/in state Company à served upon registered agent in state – Appearance Special appearance à challenge to personal jdx – Long-arm statute “Minimum contacts” à committed tort, signed contract, or “regular business activities” in state – Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (U.S. 1945) | Facts: – Shoe company manufactured only in Missouri but sold all BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones over U.S. – Sent salespeople to WA Rented space in hotels/businesses – No company offices/warehouses in WA Displayed sample products + took orders No payment collection – WA sought unemployment fund $; company refused to pay Procedural History: – State sued in WA state court Company: not engaged in business in WA à no personal jdx in WA courts – State supreme court: company had sufficient contacts w/state to justify jdx – Company appealed to SCOTUS Issue: – Did company have sufficient contacts in WA to permit jdx? Rule: – “Casual” presence vs. “continuous, systematic” presence 16  – “[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state. The exercise of that privilege may give rise to obligations.” Holding: – Affirmed Company engaged in “systematic and continuous” MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW activities in WA – U.S. court systems Federal courts: TEXTBOO K SECTIO 6-1b N(S): – Established by U.S. Constitution – Judges Nominated by president; confirmed by Senate Serve for “life in good behavior” – Limited jdx: Federal question cases – Federal question case à claim based on U.S. Constitution, federal statute, or federal treaty Diversity cases – Diversity jurisdiction: | Plaintiff & defendant = citizens of different states, AND Amount in dispute > $75K BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones – (amount in dispute ≠ amount sued for) – Structure of federal court system U.S. Supreme Court Federal courts of appeal Federal trial courts – Federal trial courts U.S. District Courts – Primary trial court in federal system – 94 judicial districts (at least 1 per state) – 1 court per district – Number of districts per state based on population size – 4 U.S. District Courts in Texas – Specialized trial courts U.S. Bankruptcy courts – 1 per federal judicial district – Exclusive jdx over cases involving personal, business, or farm bankruptcy 17  Article I courts – Legislative courts (lack full judicial power) – U.S. Tax Court – U.S. Ct. App. for Veterans Claims – U.S. Ct. App. for Armed Forces U.S. Court of International Trade MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Cases involving international trade & customs laws U.S. Court of Federal Claims – Claims for money damages against U.S. government – Federal appellate courts U.S. Courts of Appeals – 13 circuit courts 12 regional courts of appeals – Appeals from district courts w/in circuit – Up to ~50 judges per circuit Federal Circuit = 13th Circuit Court of Appeals – Nationwide jdx to hear appeals in specialized cases | – U.S. Supreme Court Highest court in country BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Discretionary review à writ of certiorari Power to hear appeals in: – Any federal case – Certain cases from state courts 9 justices TEXTBOO State courts: K SECTIO N(S): 6-1a – State trial courts: Original jurisdiction = court where all evidence presented + General structure of state all testimony heard court systems: – State intermediate courts of appeals – State supreme court: Highest court in state à final word on state law Multiple (usually 7) justices No jury No new evidence 18  Texas courts: – Resources: https://www.txcourts.gov/about-texas-courts/ http://howtexascourtswork.tyla.org/ – Texas judges: Structure of Texas Elected court system: Qualifications established by MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW Texas Constitution (or relevant statute) Terms range from 2 to 6 years – Texas trial courts: District courts (503) – Created by Texas Constitution – General subject-matter jdx or special jdx County courts – Constitutional County Courts (254) Created by Texas Constitution One per county, each w/one judge Limited subject-matter jdx | – Statutory County Courts (“County Courts at Law”) (260) BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Created by Legislature to assist Constitutional County Courts Not in every county – Statutory Probate Courts (24) Created by Legislature Not in every county Jdx limited to probate matters Justice Courts (796) – Created by Texas Constitution – Local trial courts of limited jdx – Each county has 1-8 precincts; each precinct has at least 1 justice court – Jdx: small claims, evictions, fine-only misdemeanors Municipal Courts (954) – Local trial courts of limited jdx City ordinance violations Fine-only misdemeanors (mostly traffic tickets) MIP Limited civil jdx 19  Specialty Courts (202) – Authorized by Legislature; created by other courts – Drug, alcohol, mental health programs Texas Business Courts – Created by Texas Legislature (HB 19) Effective as of Sept. 1, 2024 MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Statewide specialized trial court Jdx: certain complex business disputes 11 geographical divisions – 5 operational as of Sept. 1 2 appointed judges each – https://www.txcourts.gov/businesscourt/ – Texas intermediate courts of appeals: Created by Texas Constitution 14 regional district courts – Appeals as of right from trial courts in district 15th Court of Appeals (created by HB 19) – Statewide jdx – Exclusive jdx over: | Appeals in cases involving State BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Appeals from Texas Business Court – Texas high courts: Supreme Court of Texas à civil – 9 justices – Final appellate jdx in civil + juvenile cases Texas Court of Criminal Appeals à criminal – 9 justices – Direct appeals in death penalty cases – Final appellate jdx in criminal cases Litigation Process TEXTBOO K 6-2, 6 SECTION(S): – Pre-lit à lawsuit filed à pretrial à trial à appeal(s) -3 – Pleadings = documents that start a lawsuit Complaint (filed by plaintiff) 20  – Purpose = inform defendant of general nature of claims – Short, plain statement of facts alleged + legal claims – “Petition” in Texas state court Service of Complaint & Summons (served on defendant) – Summons: Notifies defendant of lawsuit MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW Orders defendant to answer by deadline Answer (filed by defendant) – Brief reply to allegations in complaint – Identifies disputed issues – Default judgment (motion filed by plaintiff) Defendant fails to file timely answer Court accepts all allegations as true Plaintiff wins w/o trial Disfavored by courts; often (but not always) overturned if defendant appears + challenges – Counterclaim (filed by defendant) Defendant makes affirmative claims against plaintiff Technically a second lawsuit | Generally filed with/part of Answer – Reply (filed by plaintiff) BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Plaintiff’s answer to counterclaim (if applicable) – Class actions Must ask court to certify Lead plaintiff represents entire group (even those unaware of lawsuit/harm) Increased potential liability à increased leverage for plaintiff Efficiency – Overcomes expense of individual lawsuits for relatively small claims – One lawyer/firm represents entire class – Class actions vs. mass torts 21  – Pretrial Motion Practice – Motion = formal request to court Seeks specific action/order from court – Judgment on the pleadings Motion to dismissà asks court to terminate case (filed by defendant) MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Taking alleged facts as true, no legal remedy available – Intended to weed out meritless lawsuits – Often filed; granted relatively infrequently Ashcroft v. Iqbal (U.S. 2009) – Facts: Post-9/11 questioning/detention of individuals w/suspected terrorist links (mostly Arab Muslim men) Iqbal arrested + charged w/ID fraud; suffered harsh treatment during pre-trial detention Pled guilty to fraud charge; served prison term; deported – Procedural History: | Iqbal filed discrimination lawsuit against USAG in charge of antiterrorism investigation BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones AG filed motion to dismiss AG: complaint contained insufficient information to indicate discrimination as plausible reason for detainment TC denied MTD Appellate court affirmed AG appealed to U.S. Supreme Court – Issue: Did pleadings contain sufficient information to survive MTD? – Rule: Complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to state plausible claim for relief – Plausibility standard = allegations permit court to draw reasonable inference that defendant is liable for alleged misconduct – More than mere possibility – Context-specific review 22  – Holding: Reversed – Complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to state claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination – Did not show/suggest that AG purposefully housed detainees based on race, religion, or national origin MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW Discovery – Permits parties to access/evaluate other side’s evidence – Scope: anything that could reasonably lead to valid evidence – Types of discovery: Oral deposition Written discovery Physical/mental examination – Oral deposition Opportunity to question other party or potential witness under oath Deponent = person being questioned – Written discovery Interrogatories à written questions | – Must answer under oath BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Requests for Production – Relevant documents + materials Requests for Admissions Deposition on Written Questions – Physical/mental examination If relevant to case (ex: personal injury) – Discovery disputes Objections / privilege claims Motion to compel – Asks court to order responding party to provide more complete responses / appear for deposition / etc. – In camera inspection à judge reviews requested documents to determine whether production is necessary Motion for protective order à asks court to place reasonable limits on discovery requested by other side E-discovery – Emails; texts; social media postings; etc. – Can be extremely voluminous 23  Time-consuming + expensive to locate, collect, sort, produce, review, analyze – Specialized support companies – Public vs. private account settings Summary judgment – Motions generally filed after discovery completed; can be filed by either side MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Request for court to rule that no trial is necessary b/c essential facts not in dispute – Can be for individual issue(s) or entire case – Jones v. Clinton (E.D. Ark. 1998) Facts: – State agency employee sued Clinton for sexual harassment, alleging then-governor propositioned her in a hotel room – Procedural History: – Clinton filed MSJ, claiming facts alleged did not justify trial Issue: – Was Jones entitled to trial, or was Clinton entitled to summary judgment? | Holding: SJ granted – Elements of claim include proving that refusal to submit to BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones unwelcome sexual advances resulted in tangible job detriment (specific loss) – Jones’s claims of denied promotions, fewer responsibilities, physical isolation, perceptions of hostility à insufficient to constitute adverse employment action Even if all allegations sufficiently proven, plaintiff still would not have established valid sexual harassment claim Subsequent History: – Jones appealed – With appeal pending, parties settled for $850K Trial prep – Witness lists – Trial exhibits – Witness prep – >90% of lawsuits settle before trial Trial – Adversary system à bring out truth by two contesting sides each presenting strongest possible case to neutral fact-finder 24  – Right to jury trial 7th Amendment In claim for money damages à both sides can demand jury Can also choose to waive jury in favor of bench trial In claim for equitable remedy à no right to jury trial – Burden of proof MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW Civil cases: – Plaintiff has burden of proof (must prove all elements of claim) – Preponderance of the evidence standard à more likely true than not Criminal standard à beyond reasonable doubt (higher burden) – Witness testimony Fact witnesses à have direct, personal knowledge of facts relevant to dispute Expert witnesses à paid to testify in area of expertise Direct examination à asking questions of party’s own witness Cross examination à asking questions of opposing witness – Rules of Evidence | Determine what questions may be asked; what answers may be given; what documents may be introduced; etc. BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones – Generally, witnesses can only testify about things they actually saw or heard Goal = get best possible evidence before jurors – Jury selection Voir dire (“to speak the truth”) Goal: – Court à impartial jury – Parties à favorable jury Panel of potential jurors (“venire”) asked questions intended to reveal potential bias Strikes – For cause à probable bias Unlimited – Peremptory à no reason required Limited Process continues until full panel + alternates are seated – Opening statements Plaintiff first, then defendant 25  Not argumentative Summarizes party’s expectations of what evidence will show – Provides factual context for case – Plaintiff’s case-in-chief Must present evidence sufficient to prove (more likely than not) all elements of each claim – Witness testimony MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW – Documents/things After presenting all evidence, plaintiff rests Motion for directed verdict – a/k/a “judgment as a matter of law” – Asks court to rule that other party failed to prove one or more essential elements – Only granted if evidence so clearly favors moving party that reasonable minds could not disagree – Defendant’s case-in-chief Attempts to disprove essential element(s) of plaintiff’s claim and/or prove valid affirmative defense After presenting all evidence, defendant rests – Closing arguments | Plaintiff first, then defendant, then plaintiff’s final closing BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Lawyer sums up party’s case to jury; attempts to persuade re how to interpret evidence – Jury instructions Judge instructs jury as to its duty – Explanation of law + burden of proof – Must evaluate case based only on evidence presented at trial – Jury deliberation Informal Conducted in secret Voting thresholds vary by jdx + type of case (unanimous; 10-2; etc.) – Verdict Parties called back into court Jury foreman reads verdict – Post-verdict motions Motion for judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) (“judgment notwithstanding jury’s verdict”) – Asks judge to overturn jury’s verdict 26  – Decision against all evidence – Instruction error Motion for new trial – Asks court to set verdict aside and order new trial Appeal to intermediate COA – Written briefing MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW Precedentà earlier decisions by appellate courts in same jdx on similar or identical issues – Oral argument Only granted in certain cases – Case generally taken under advisement Court will render decision at some future time – Factual issues à generally defer to fact-finder as long as reasonable people could disagree – Errors of law If error caused trial + verdict to be unfair à remand for new trial If verdict fair despite mistake à harmless error Appeal to high court – Petition for review | Asks high court to agree to hear case BLAW 3301 - Spring 2025 - R. Jones Very small fraction granted – If case accepted by court: Merits briefing Oral argument – Parties retain right to settle case until final appeal decided 27