PHI 370/LEH 355 – Fall 2019
This course—syllabus here—comprises four parts. You will examine
(1) how judges and lawyers interpret the law;
(2) how “matters of fact” differ from “matters of law”;
(3) how past court decisions (i.e. precedents) influence current decisions.
Finally, having mastered these foundational topics, you will participate in a
(4) mock trial on a topic of your choice, such as Trump’s travel ban, Obama care, same-sex marriage, abortion.
For more information about each part, please scroll down.
week 1: Aug 27
Viewing laws as rules that are applied to individual cases is the most common picture of legal reasoning (see e.g. here, although see also here). Is this picture accurate? How are rules applied to individual cases?
reading – Schauer, Rules—in law and elsewhere [PDF]
week 2: Sept 3
We will read a case in which a legal rule about inheritance was interpreted and applied according to its purpose and not its letter.
reading – Riggs v. Palmer (1889) [PDF]
NB: Assignment #1 [PDF] – due Sept 3
week 3: Sept 10
Same topic as last week.
week 4: Sept 17
Some judges believe judicial decisions should be guided primarily by the text of the law; others believe the purpose of the law should play a pivotal role. We will examine their arguments.
watching – Scalia and Breyer Debate the Constitution [video]
watching – Sotomayor’s Senate hearing [video]
week 5: Sept 24
We will continue the discussion “text versus purpose” by looking at a divorce case decided by a court in Yemen.
reading – Messick, Interpreting tears [PDF]
week 6: Oct 1 – No class
NB: Assignment #2 [PDF] – due Oct 1 – model assignment #2 [PDF]
week 7: Oct 8 – No class
week 8: Oct 15
Legal reasoning is not only about rules and their interpretation, but also about “facts”. In this context, we will examine the distinction between “matters of fact” and “matters of law.”
reading – Schauer, Law and Fact [PDF]
watching – Twelve Angry Men (1957) [video]
NB: Assignment #3 [PDF] – due Oct 15 -model assignment #3 [PDF]
week 9: Oct 22
The standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. What does that mean, exactly?
reading – in re Winship (1970) [PDF]
week 10: Oct 29
We will see how the law/fact distinction is apparent in decisions by appellate courts.
reading – People v. Goetz (NY 1986) [PDF]
NY State court structure [link]
NB: Assignment #4 [PDF] – due Oct 29 – model assignment [PDF]
week 11: Nov 5
A past case applies to a new case when the two are sufficiently similar, but how to decide when the similarity is “sufficient”?
reading – Schauer, Practice and Problem of Precedent [PDF]
week 12: Nov 12
Legal precedents can be overruled. As an illustration, we will first read an old court decision in favor of racial segregation…
reading – Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) [PDF]
week 13: Nov 19
…and then, we will read a more recent decision banning racial segregation
reading/watching – Brown v. Board of Education (1954) [PDF] [video]
NB: Assignment #5 [PDF] – due Nov 19
Mock trial schedule [PDF]
week 14: Nov 26
Death penalty
Euthanasia
week 15: Dec 3
Same-sex marriage
Abortion
week 16: Dec 10
Review
NB: Final report [PDF] – due Dec 15
Mock trial topics (feel free to find your own!)
Euthanasia
reading – Myers v. Schneiderman (2017) [link]
Death penalty
reading – death penalty cases before US SUp. Ct [link]
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008)
Same-sex marriage
reading – Obergefell v. Hegdes (2015)
text of the opinion [PDF]
oral argument [link]
petitioner’s brief [PDF – PDF]
respondent’s brief [PDF – PDF]
more materials about the case [link]
Abortion
reading – Roe v. Wade (1973)
text of the opinion [link]
oral argument [link]
Obama care
reading – National Fed. of Ind. Business v. Sebelius (2012)
parsing the opinion [video]
text of opinion [PDF]
oral argument [link]
petitioner’s brief [PDF]
respondent’s brief [PDF]
more materials about the case [link]
Rights of suspects in police custody
reading – Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
text of the opinion [PDF]
oral argument [link]
case overview [link]
Boyfriend case – Michelle Carter
Grand jury proceedings
decision by Mass. Sup. Ct. on grand jury indictment [PDF]
brief by ACLU in favor of defendant [PDF]
prosecutor’s brief in response to defendant’s brief [PDF]
Trial proceedings
defendant’s motion for not-guilty verdict [PDF]
judge first-degree conviction [video] [link]
legal analysis of conviction judgment [link]
newspaper analysis [link]
Sentencing proceedings
