 |
TVR 31200 Hit Man Hypo Paladin Legal Team |
 |
In spite of the shocking setback at the appellate court level, Paladin Enterprises has been granted cert. before the U.S Supreme Court. This is the final opportunity to convice the Court that the First Amendment protects Paladin Enterprises from any liability associated with the murder of Mildred Horn, Trevor Horn and Janice Saunders. Paladin is asking the Court to reverse the appellate court decision to remand for trial and let the summary judgment stand.
As attorneys for Paladin Enterprises, you will present a 20 minute oral argument explaining how the "Hit Man" book is protected by the First Amendment right of freedom of the press. Think carefully about the current legal tests we have discussed this semester for protecting speech from government punishment and how you can effectively argue one might apply in this particular situation.
You have already put a lot of time and money into this case. If you lose, Paladin will go broke and you won't get paid.
Please read as much background information as possible on the case history, including earlier decisions. It is critical that you come to the oral arguments well prepared, and able to anticipate and respond to the issues and arguments that will be raised by Rice as well as the questions that the Justices might ask. You will go first as the appellant in the case, but you will have 5 minutes to respond to Rice's arguments at the end. Be prepared to be interrupted by the Justices throughout your presentation and recognize that you might have to drops aspects of your argument on the fly. You will be held to 20 minutes regardless of the frequency and extent of interruption by the Court. You, also, will get 5 minutes after Rice's legal team makes their case in order to address any unfinished or additional arguments.
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.
Each member of your team will have to prepare part of the case brief. This should run a several pages minimum (typical brief is 12-15 pages) and, I recommend, focus on the substantive argument for your case so that team member can be the expert on that argument. Then as a group, meet and combine the elements of the individual argument write-ups into a single written brief. Determine who among you will present during the main oral argument and who will handle the 5 minutes rebuttal (will be part of the participation grade during oral arguments) at the end. Rehearse this presentation in front of your team. 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 Paladin Enterprises, if you simply read a presentation. This is a speech, in a sense. You may have an outline (which the main persenter will turn in), but you need to TALK to the justices. When fielding a question by the Justices, the main presenter may defer to the relevant "expert" on your team at any time to give an answer. It is expected that all lawyers will contribute at some point (makes sense if they prepared compelling arguments), so structure your presentation to facilitate this involvement. I recommend that a different member of the team take the responsibility of spearheading the 5 minute rebuttal so spread the presentation work around.
Each member of the group will fill out a group evaluation form, assessing the level of each person's contribution to to collaborative effort.
However, each person will be graded individually. The grade will be based on the overall quality of the group's work (both during the oral arguments and the final opinion of the Court), evidence of indiviual preparation for the oral argument, the individual opinion 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 complete brief along with each individual's typed contributions to the brief are due on the date of oral arguments noted in the course schedule. Bring copies of the final written brief to distribute to the justices and me. Additionally, email a copy to me before class (an MS Word document, please) so I can post it on the course website.
The group evaluation sheets are due at the beginning of the next class after the oral arguments.
If you are interested (and you should be), the text of the "Hitman" book can currently be found at http://ftp.die.net/mirror/hitman/
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 for the teams written brief:
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/312/312hitmanhypopaladin.html
Revised-Sept. 5, 2009