 |
TVR 312 Stevens' Attorneys |
 |
Facts of the Case (from Oyez):
Robert Stevens was convicted under 18 U.S.C. Section 48 in a Pennsylvania federal district court for "knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain." His conviction stems from an investigation into the selling of videos related to illegal dog fighting.
Mr. Stevens appealed his conviction arguing that 18 U.S.C. Section 48, on its face, was unconstitutional because it violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with Mr. Stevens and reversed his conviction, holding unconstitutional 18 U.S.C. Section 48. The court reasoned that the dog fighting videos he sold were protected speech and that 18 U.S.C. Section 48 did not serve a compelling governmental interest.
Question before this Court: Is 18 U.S.C. Section 48, on its face, unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
So for this case, you have a bit of information about and now you have to find the 3rd Circuit appellate decision which will give you background on the trial and the appeal. This decision also has some dissents so you can get as sense of the reasons why the majority decision was not unanimous.
Be careful in your research. Document all your sources very carefully. Read the appellate decision extremely carefully, there lots of cases to support arguments in there.
It is critical that you be prepared and polished in the oral presentation. I strongly recommend you spread the arguments you want to make across several members of your team so they can develop an expertise on specific points and not stumble if asked tough questions. Consider having a second person handle the rebuttal. It is up to each team member to ensure that their topic of research is essential to the brief and of sufficient quality, so that it is included in the written document and covered in the oral arguments. It is also the responsibility of each team member to activity participate in the oral arguments.
Each member of your team will have to prepare their own 2-3 pg. brief (or working in pairs is acceptable if the content is 4-6 pp., and substantial in topic). I will vigorously recommend that the compilation of the brief's rouch draft be a group affair so that contributions are accurately reflected and each member has a sense of the written brief as this is a group grade.
I also vigorously recommend that members of the group help the presenter prepare the oral argument by practicing! Rehearse! The presenter may not simply read a presentation. This is a speech, in a sense. You may have your notes, but you need to TALK to the justices. When fielding a question by the Justices, you may defer to the relevant "expert" on your team at any time to give an answer.
It is critical that you be prepared and polished in the oral presentation. You have seen one round of oral arguments, so you have a sense of the different methods your team might want to use to make your case. I strongly recommend you spread the arguments you want to make across several members of your team so they can develop an expertise on specific points and not stumble if asked tough questions.
Each member of your team will have to prepare their own specialized portion of the brief for the case. This should run 2-3 pages minimum and, I recommend, focus on the aspect of the argument where the team member intends to be an expert. Then as a group, on your own time, meet and combine the best elements of your individual work into a group court brief. Determine who among you will present the oral argument. Another team member can do the rebuttal if desired. Rehearse. Have members of the team listen to the oral agument, pretend to be members of the Court and interject with questions. It won't reflect well on Playgirl, if you simple read a presentation. This is a speech, in a sense. You may have your notes, but you need to TALK to the justices. When fielding a question by the Justices, you may defer to the relevant "expert" on your team at any time to give an answer.
Each member of the group will fill out a group evaluation form, assessing the level of each person's contribution to to collaborative effort, quality of contribution to the brief, presence at meetings and whether team deadlines were met and participation in the oral argument.
However, each person will be graded individually. The grade will be based on the overall quality of the group's formal brief, individual contribution to the brief, active involvement in the oral argument, evidence of individual preparation for the oral argument, and the feedback from the group about the level of participation. Lack of involvement in the group work, will adversely impact an individual's grade.
The full court brief, along with each of your individual briefs, are due on the date of oral arguments noted in the course schedule. Bring copies of the court brief to distribute to the justices and a copy for the court clerk. Email a copy to me so I can post it on the course website. Group feedback forms are due at the following class.
The total points available for this assignment is 150 points. These points are split in the following manner with 50 of the 150 points assigned as a group grade:
Grading Rubric for legal team members:
Individual research and subsequent contribution to the team's court brief: 50 points
This grade is assessed in several ways: The evidence that an individual fully research the portion of the argument assigned, met group assigned deadlines, attended group meetings, contributed in an equitable manner to the group's effort, submitted a well-written, properly formatted and footnoted portion of the team's brief.
Active participation during the oral arguments: 50 points
This portion can be a challenge and needs substantial effort and coordination. It is expected that team members will answer questions in their area of expertise during the oral argument. If, such an opportunity does not arise, then it will be important for the individual to provide evidence of active involvement during the oral arguments in other manners, e.g. supplying presenters with notes to assist during the oral arguments, actively helping to strategize the rebuttal, or presenting the rebuttal. This is one of those instances where just sitting there, unengaged can cost you 1/3 of the points for the assignment.
Team's court brief: 50 points
This is a group grade assigned to all members. The grade will be based on the quality, substance, formatting, footnoting of the team brief. It must follow the format of a case brief. It must have sufficient footnoting that uses a consistent format. The arguments must be clear and concise. There must be appropriate transitional narrative between elements that were contributed by team members. No grammar and spelling errors. The brief must read with a single voice and not appear to be patched together.
Grading Rubric for the main presenter:
Outline of oral presentation: 50 points
The presenter will turn in the OUTLINE used for the oral argument. Reading the team brief is not acceptable. The outline must be in outline form, showing the heirachy of the presentation and arguments. It should note who is the expert to defer to for each sections in case the Court asks questions. It must be typed. There may be some last minute notes written in the margins if need be.
Quality of oral presentation: 50 points
The presenter should be polished and professional, talking to the Justices, not reading a presentation. Presentations should be timed to about 15 minutes as the Court will most certainly interrupt. The presenter must be ready to skip details, jump around the presentation and prioritize the most inportant elements on the fly as the Court may sidetrack things. This will require practice and the legal team should schedule a practice session before the day of oral arguments so that the presenter can get feedback. Understanding the balance between getting through as much of the argument as you can recognizing that the Court is in control can really help the oral presentation be successful.
Team's court brief: 50 points
See details above, but understand that it is the presenter's primary responsibility to compile the pieces into the team's court brief. Therefore the presenter does not submit an individual contribution, but instead pulls it all together in a narrative that meets the formatting, footnoting, and organizational requirements and that speaks with a single voice. The presenter might find that he/she writes the introduction and conclusion to the brief as well as some transitional language between the arguments each member contributes.
Contact:Dr.
C.
URL- http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/ncornwell/312/312CrueltyStevens.html
Revised-Nov. 7, 2009