Defendant’s Rights

Political Science 344

Spring 2005

Requirements

I. Class Attendance and Participation (20 percent)

You should attend class, period! But, as you can see, you must do more than simply "show-up." Participation represents a critical part of this course. What do I mean by "class participation?" Simply, you must read and "brief" cases at least one day in advance of class. And, you must be prepared to discuss cases in class.

A. Reading Cases

As you can see, the reading for this course consists primarily of cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Reading these decisions may seem strange and, perhaps, difficult at first. But by the end of the semester you'll be a "pro."

A few suggestions:

1. Read the case before you try to "brief" it (see below). Underline salient points.

2. If you come across unfamiliar legal terms, look them up.

B. Briefing Cases

To assist in analyzing and remembering cases, it is imperative that you "brief" them immediately after you read them. In the coming days we'll talk about how you do this.

II. Examinations (80 percent)

You will take two non-cumulative examinations, a mid-term (35%) and a final (45%). The examinations consist of essay questions, some of which I frame as "hypotheticals" to which you will apply relevant case materials. We will discuss this format in greater depth in class (see below for examples). Unless you contact me at least one week before the exams, you must take them on the scheduled dates. Be forewarned: I will make exceptions under only the most unusual of circumstances.

A. Sample Midterm Questions

Assume that you are a trial court judge. Last week, the following case came before you. Consider carefully the facts as a whole and as distinct legal issues. Please use existing Supreme Court precedent to answer the questions.

On June 5, 1989, FBI agent Dick Hornburgh received a tip from a well-known Dallas "oil baron" that J.R. Ewing, another Dallas entrepreneur, was manufacturing illegal drugs (cocaine and heroine) in a laboratory located on his ranch, Southfork, and that he was growing marijuana on the property surrounding the ranch. Acting on this information, Hornburgh dispatched agents to Southfork. Over the course of the next week, these agents observed numerous "strange" cars and other vehicles going in and out of the ranch.

Based on the initial "tip" and on these observations, Hornburgh sought to obtain a warrant to search the Southfork residence. He first approached Magistrate Stone. He told her about the "tip" and the agents' observations. Stone, however, felt insufficient probable cause existed to issue the warrant. Rather than attempting to build a better case, Hornburgh went to a second magistrate, Barnes, who issued a warrant to search only the Ewing residence (i.e., the main building).

1. Should magistrate Barnes have issued the warrant?

Hornburgh, along with four other officers, sought to execute the warrant. They drove up to the Ewing residence, parking rather far from the house because a silver Mercedes Benz was blocking the driveway. They knocked on the door to the house. Sue Ellen Ewing (J.R.'s wife) opened it. After she told them that J.R. was not in the house (he was, according to her, riding a horse on Southfork property), Hornburgh explained that they had a warrant to search the home. She let them in and the five began a full search of the house.

They found nothing until they spotted a closed door at the side of the house. The asked Mrs. Ewing about this-- she told them that they rented out that part of the home to a boarder, one Mandy Winger.

Upon obtaining Mrs. Ewing's permission, the agents entered the Winger quarters. There, they not only found Ms. Winger, but a sophisticated laboratory they suspected was used for the manufacturing of drugs.

2. Was it reasonable for police to have entered Winger's quarters?

III. Grading Policies

A. Overall Distribution

B. To pass this course you must receive a grade of D or better on all components of the final grade (participation, midterm and final examinations).