 |
TVR 312 U.S. 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.
Be careful in your research. Document all your sources very carefully.
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.
Each member of the group will fill out a group evaluation form, assessing the level of each person's contribution to to collaborative effort preparing the brief AND to the oral argument.
However, each person will be graded individually. The grade will be based 1/3 on the overall quality of the group's formal brief, 1/3 on individual contribution to the brief, and 1/3 active involvement in the oral argument, Evidence of individual preparation for the oral argument and feedback from the group about the level of participation can impact an individual grade positively or negatively.
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 briefs to distribute to the justices and one copy to the court clerk. Email the GROUP'S brief in addition to bringing copies to class so I can post it on the course website. Group feedback forms are due at the following class.
Contact:Dr.
C.
URL- http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/ncornwell/312/312CrueltyUS.html
Revised-Nov. 10, 2009