Difference between revisions of "Evidence 2007"

From CyberOne Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<big>'''Welcome to the Evidence 2007 Course Wiki'''</big>
+
[[Archive Evidence 2007]]<br>
*[[Introductory Information]]
+
[[Evidence 2008]]<br>
*[[Class Information]]
 
*[[Evidence-At-Large|At-Large Participation]] (Bragg v. Linden Labs Moot Court in Second Life in OpenCourseWare)
 
*[[Evidence Discussion and Feedback|Discussion and Feedback Aggregation page]]
 
*[[Discussion Groups]]
 
 
 
{| align="right" border="0" cellpadding="10"
 
|__toc__
 
|}
 
 
 
 
 
==Class Group Work==
 
 
 
[[SL meeting transcript]] for Jan. 16th
 
 
 
[[transcript for Jan. 17th]]
 
 
 
[[transcript for Jan. 18th]]
 
 
 
[[Snapshots from the trial]]
 
 
 
[[Image:DSC 0176.JPG|200px]]
 
 
 
'''Announcement:''' For Jan. 17th the following groups gave opening statements: "Menacer's Thrill on Vainness" (Bragg) and "Einsel Lesnie" (Linden). Assignments for the remainder of the trial are as follows: "Superlawyer" - Bragg's direct and Rosedale cross-examination; "Necker" - Rosedale direct and Bragg cross-examination;  "Sasy Drum" - Bragg Closing; "Nesson Redgrave" - Linden Labs Closing. Witness examinations began last night and will be concluded tonight (Jan. 18th), followed by closings. If you have any questions please email the Hearo Nakamura Group at EvidNesson1@gmail.com.
 
*[[Sasy Drum]]
 
*[[Necker]]
 
*[[SuperLawyer]]
 
*[[Section5Plus1]]
 
*[[Menacer's Thrill on Vainness]]
 
*[[Bob]]
 
*[[Nesson Redgrave]]
 
*[[Einsel Lesnie]]
 
*[[Hearo Nakamura]]
 
 
 
==Lecture Videos==
 
[http://subscribe.getdemocracy.com/?url1=http%3A//evidence.blip.tv/%3Fskin%3Drss Click here] for a one-click install/subscribe with [http://getdemocracy.com/ Democracy Player] (basically, you automatically get your Evidence videos delivered and ready to watch).
 
*January 2: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJv2ikT1G0c YouTube], [http://blip.tv/file/get/Evidence-Evidence010507890.mp4 QuickTime]
 
*January 5: [http://blip.tv/file/127987 YouTube], [http://blip.tv/file/get/Evidence-Evidence010207464.mp4 Quicktime]
 
*January 9: [http://blip.tv/file/129039 YouTube], [http://blip.tv/file/get/Evidence-Evidence010907505.mp4 Quicktime]
 
 
 
==Archived Audio Files (Evidence of Winter '06)==
 
*[[2006 Audio|Winter 2006 Evidence Audio Files]] - here you can find segments ranging from 1 minute 15 minutes on rules, problems, historical figures, evidence concepts, and more.  You can right click on the files to download them, or just listen to them streaming.
 
 
 
==Syllabus==
 
 
 
===January 2:===
 
 
 
Nesson: Introduction to Course
 
* Discussion of syllabus, class plan and requirements, group work, laptops in class, the [http://eecs.harvard.edu/~nesson/QT_final/list.php Question Tool]
 
* introduction to the law lord, jury process
 
* introduction of Martin Levin and Levin Lectures
 
 
 
Levin: Introduction to Trial Law and Pre-Trial Procedure
 
* Overview discussion of trial process, terminology and roles
 
* Initial Pleadings—Complaint, Answer, Reply
 
* Discovery—Generally, Interrogatories, Requests to Produce, Requests to Admit, Non-Party Production, Depositions, Electronic Discovery
 
* Pre-Trial Conference--Pre-Trial Memorandum, Motions in Limine, Witness & Exhibit List, Jury Instructions, Verdict Form, Trial Briefs
 
* Initial Trial Preparation--File Organization, Trial Subpoenas, Venire List, Jury Instructions, Verdict Form, Examination Preparation, Deposition Readings and Videos, Stipulated Facts, Interrogatory Publication, Request to Admit Publication, Demonstrative Aids and Exhibits, Order of Proof, Opening Statement, Closing Argument, Voir Dire, Directed Verdict
 
 
 
Assignment:
 
* Familiarize yourself with the pleadings in <i>[http://secondlife.typepad.com/ Bragg v. Linden Labs]</i>.
 
* Log In to Second Life, choose an avatar, orient yourself, come to Berkman Island.
 
 
 
A page for those who would like to engage in a [[Discussion of the Bragg. v. Linden Labs Pleadings]].
 
 
 
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/Reading--Pre-Trial_Procedures.pdf Levin's Reading on Pre-Trial Procedure]
 
 
 
Nesson: audio journal [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/3jan07.mp3 3jan07]
 
----
 
===January 3:===
 
 
 
Nesson: Reaction and feedback on day one,
 
 
 
Levin: Trial Presentation
 
* Theme of Case
 
* Stylistic Issues
 
* Exhibits and Demonstrative Aid Tools—Adobe Photoshop, Aerial Photography, Computer Animations, Diagnostic Scans, Medical Exhibits, Microsoft PowerPoint, Roxio Complete Media Creator, Scanners, Sympodium, Timelines, Trial Director, Vacuum Mounted Boards, Verdict Systems Sanction Software, Video Projectors, Visual Presenters
 
* Motions in Limine
 
 
 
Nesson: Division of Function between Judge and Jury
 
*[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheRim.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 The Rim]
 
*Procedure for handling issues of fact relating to proof of the complaint
 
*Procedure for handling issues of fact relating to issues of law
 
*Procedure for handling issues of law
 
 
 
Readings:
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu:80/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36966&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent91784&view=view.do&viewParam_name=nesson.html#a_icb_pagecontent91784 Nesson, "The Evidence or the Event? On Judicial Proof and the Acceptability of Verdicts" ]
 
;[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/American_Jury.rtf American Jury]
 
 
 
Levin's Reading on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/Reading--Trial_Presentation.rtf Trial Presentation]
 
 
 
[[Questions from the Question Tool 1/03/07]]
 
 
 
Thoughts Provoked:<br>
 
*[[The Machine]]<br>
 
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberone/wiki/Talk:The_Machine Response to The Machine]
 
----
 
===January 4:===
 
Nesson: The Rules
 
 
 
Levin:  Voir Dire
 
* Theory
 
* Focus Groups
 
* Electronic Juries
 
* Mock Trials
 
* Venire Lists
 
* Seating Charts
 
* Juror Questionnaires
 
* Venire Questioning
 
* Jury Selection Software
 
* Legal Doctrine
 
 
 
Levin's Reading on Voir Dire
 
 
 
Nesson: Burden of Proof
 
* Concepts - Persuasion, Reasonable Doubt, Proof to a Preponderance
 
* Constitutional grounding
 
* Inferential Proof and the problem of the [http://isites.harvard.edu:80/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=BlueBus.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Blue Bus]
 
* Statistical Proof and the problem of the [http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=PrisonYard.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Prison Yard]
 
 
 
Readings:
 
;[http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/1994Bill.pdf Amar, The Bill of Rights and our Posterity] (particularly "story eight")
 
;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana Duncan v.Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)]
 
;[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0397_0358_ZO.html In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)]
 
;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)]
 
;[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1239.ZS.html J.E.B. v.Alabama, 511 U.S. 127(1994)]
 
 
 
Media:
 
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy-Flg3mrsY 8 Mile Final Battle], YouTube link - Eminem portion only
 
 
 
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/ABA_Journal_Article.pdf ABA Journal Article: Breyer on Batson]
 
----
 
===January 5:===
 
Nesson: Character as Relevant/Prejudicial Evidence
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=PeoplevZackowitz.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 People v. Zackowitz], 254 N.Y. 192, 172 N.E. 466 (1930)
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=AReturntotheSceneoftheCrime.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Return to the Scene of the Crime]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=MoneyorDeath.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 "Money or Death"]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=HuddlestonvUnitedStates.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 Huddleston v U.S.], 485 U.S. 681 (1988)
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=UnitedStatesvBeechum.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 United States v. Beechum], 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978)
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=ProofoftheDefendantsGoodCharacter.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Proof of Defendant's Good Character]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=ProofoftheDefendantsViolentCharacter.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Proof of Defendant's Violent Character]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheMayor.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 The Mayor]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheCarelessSmoker.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Careless Smoker]
 
 
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36966&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent91784&view=view.do&viewParam_name=tanford.html#a_icb_pagecontent91784 Tanford & Bocchino, Rape Shield Laws and the Sixth Amendment]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=ProstitutionRapeorBoth.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Prostitution, Rape or Both?]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=ExplanationforPregnancy.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Explanation for Pregnancy]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=StatevJaques.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 State v. Jacques], 558 A.2d 706 (Me. 1989)
 
 
 
 
 
Levin: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/Opening_Statements.rtf Opening Statements]
 
* Fundamentals
 
* Format
 
* Issues
 
* Law
 
 
 
Nesson: Power of Narrative
 
 
 
* Lawyer Credibility
 
 
 
 
 
Thoughts Provoked:
 
*[[Personal]]
 
*[[The Blue Bus & Solomon's Charade]]
 
----
 
 
 
===January 8:===
 
 
 
Levin:  Examinations 1
 
* Direct Examination
 
* Redirect Examination
 
* Expert Examination
 
* Confrontation
 
*From Raleigh to Crawford
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36966&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent91784&view=view.do&viewParam_name=note-treasontrial.html#a_icb_pagecontent91784 The Treason Trial of Walter Raleigh]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=MattoxvUnitedStates.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 Mattox v. United States], 156 U.S. 237 (1895)
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=CrawfordvWashington.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 Crawford v. Washington], 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004)
 
;[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-5224.ZS.html Davis v. Washington](2006)
 
 
 
[[Jan 8 Feedback]]
 
----
 
===January 9:===
 
 
 
Nesson: Experts
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=DaubertvMerrellDowPharmaceuticalsInc.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 Daubert v. Merrell Dow] 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=GeneralElectricCompanyvJoiner.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 General Electric Co. v. Joiner],522 U.S. 136 (1997)
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=KumhoTireCompanyLtdvPatrickCarmichael.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael], 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999)
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=DaubertvMerrellDowPharmaceuticalsInconRemand.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 Daubert v. Merrell Dow (on remand)],43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)
 
 
 
[[Jan 9 Feedback]]
 
----
 
===January 10:===
 
 
 
Jury Instructions & Verdict Form
 
* Theory
 
* General and Special Verdicts
 
* [[Levin Reading]]
 
 
 
Nesson: Hearsay in Theory
 
;[http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule801|FRE Definition of Hearsay]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36966&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent91784&view=view.do&viewParam_name=tribe.html#a_icb_pagecontent91784 L. Tribe, Triangulating Hearsay]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36966&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent91784&view=view.do&viewParam_name=falknor.html#a_icb_pagecontent91784 J. Falknor, Evidence of Conduct]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36966&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent91784&view=view.do&viewParam_name=park.html#a_icb_pagecontent91784 R. Park,  McCormick on Evidence and the Concept of Hearsay]
 
 
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=ArsenicandHorsdOeuvres.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Arsenic and Hors d'Oeuvres]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=MurderattheSeasideBistro.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Murder at the Seaside Bistro]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=AssaultonMassachusettsAvenue.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Assault on Massachusetts Avenue]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=MurderintheAjaxBuilding.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Murder in the Ajax Building]
 
 
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheCornCribCase.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Corn Crib Case]
 
 
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=CaptainCookandDaveyJones.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Captain Cook and Davey Jones]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=BlackCrepe.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Black Crepe]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=HotPursuit.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Hot Pursuit?]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheStolenBMW.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 The Stolen BMW]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheForgetfulWitness.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 The Forgetful Witness]
 
 
 
[[Jan 10 Feedback]]
 
 
 
 
 
----
 
 
 
===January 11:===
 
Closing Arguments and Summation
 
* Fundamentals of Closing Argument
 
* Stylistics Issues Specific to Closing Argument
 
* Addressing Issues Head-On in Closing Argument
 
* The Law on Closing Argument
 
 
 
Levin Readings:
 
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/Fundamentals_of_Closing-1.rtf Fundamentals of Closing Argument]
 
 
 
Privilege
 
* Attorney-Client Privilege
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36966&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent91784&view=view.do&viewParam_name=bentham.html#a_icb_pagecontent91784 Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence]
 
;[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/Proposed_Rule_503.rtf Proposed Rule 503]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheBlackacreFraud.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 The Blackacre Fraud]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheEavesdropper.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 The Eavesdropper]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheEnergeticInvestigator.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 The Energetic Investigator]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=HitandRunArticle.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Hit and Run]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36966&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent91784&view=view.do&viewParam_name=dcbcle.html#a_icb_pagecontent91784 D.C.Bar on Ethics of Evidence Destruction]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheSmokingGun.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Smoking Gun]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=ClarkvState.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 Clark v. State]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=HitchvArizona.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 Hitch v. Arizona]
 
;[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=UpjohnCovUnitedStates.html#a_icb_pagecontent90797 Upjohn v. United States]
 
 
 
[[Jan 11 Feedback]]
 
 
 
----
 
 
 
===January 12:===
 
* exam
 
* Rodney King
 
*[[reactions to the exam]]
 
----
 
 
 
===January 16===
 
 
 
<big>''''We meet as usual in Austin North.''''</big>
 
 
 
Hearsay Exceptions<br>
 
[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheStolenBMW.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Stolen BMW]  <br>
 
[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=TheForgetfulWitness.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 Forgetful Witness]<br>
 
[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34732&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent86710&view=view.do&viewParam_name=HeWhoLaughsLast.html#a_icb_pagecontent86710 He who Laughs Last...]<br>
 
Stage Fright (p. 474)<br>
 
Stagger P (p. 475)<br>
 
Snowmobile Crash (p. 475)<br>
 
Strong Feelings and Future Plans (p. 476)<br>
 
Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892)(pp. 476-480)<br>
 
Shepard v. United States (II), 290 U.S. 96 (1933)(pp. 481-483)<br>
 
Negligent Entrustment (pp. 484-485)<br>
 
Window Washers<br>
 
Accident Reports (p. 487)<br>
 
Palmer v. Hoffman , 318 U.S. 109 (1943)(pp. 487-490)<br>
 
Hospital Reports (p. 490)<br>
 
Computer Records (p. 490)<br>
 
Giving Them the Business (p. 491)<br>
 
Police Reports (p. 495)<br>
 
Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N.Y. 124, 170 N.E. 517 (1930)(pp. 495-497) <br>
 
[[0.doc]]
 
 
 
 
 
* [[Bragg v. Linden Labs Moot Court in Second Life]] in OpenCourseWare.
 
 
 
==JANUARY 18==
 
late thursday afternoon
 
 
 
[http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=1142 OPEN STRATEGY FOR UNIVERSITY]
 
 
 
question tool as organizing force for class, for social gatherings, for web focal point of our activity,
 
 
 
we wish to organize a confernece in the shape of a cone through time with the conference days themselves just slices.
 
 
 
==January 19==
 
 
 
elements for question tool
 
*best evidence
 
*vinny
 
*second life
 
*digital discovery
 
*other to be nominated
 
 
 
==Useful Links==
 
*[http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~cyberlaw/wiki/index.php/Evidence Evidence Wiki 2006]
 
*[http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ Federal Rules of Evidence]
 
*[http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page34239 Nesson's Evidence book]
 
*[http://eecs.harvard.edu/~nesson/QT_final/list.php The Question Tool]
 
*[http://secondlife.com Second Life]
 
*[http://secondlife.typepad.com/ Bragg v. Linden Labs]
 
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/UF_Law_Magazine.pdf (Levin) Burned Out and Searching for Answers]]
 
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/Lawyers_USA.pdf (Levin) Representing the Unattractive Plaintiff]
 
==January 20==
 
;now the challenge begins
 
;does the wiki stay alive
 
;come alive
 
 
 
;ok
 
;we have a format
 
;what is it
 
;what are its component parts stated at a meta level such that others could produce it
 
;can we feedback, tweak it, reiterate it
 
;just like programming from scratch
 
 
 
;here's from andy, ska phil rosedale
 
 
 
***
 
 
 
Hi Becca/Eon
 
 
 
Feedback (as requested at the end of the meeting yesterday).
 
 
 
1. I don't need to highlight the positive. You drew large crowds of
 
enthusiastic people all 3 days. Format works.
 
 
 
2. Fitting everything in to 3 days is certainly difficult. Its starts
 
out slow, and ends at breakneck pace. Don't think you want to add
 
another day.
 
 
 
The only change I would suggest would to be include the opening arguments, straight after jury selection on day 1.
 
And give the sides fixed amounts of time for their direct and cross so that they can rehearse and make sure they can fit their arguments in
 
 
 
Each side could have.. for example  40 mins for their directs and 20 for their crosses. They could use that as they choose.
 
Maybe call 2 witnesses for 20 mins each or only one for 40. Their choice. Like a chess game, their clock stops when the other side does their cross.
 
I'm sure there must be a chess clock in SL already that someone sells.
 
 
 
And to get it right, the teams could do a dry run with their witnesses beforehand.
 
If they have not done this before in SL, they won't know whether their lines of questioning are too slow for SL audiences.
 
particularly as they have to factor in the lag. What looks good on paper rarely translates to SL, and won't cut and paste effectively.
 
 
 
3. One of the law students on each side could be "director/co-
 
ordinator" and be involved with all the groups on his/her side to
 
make sure that they make a consistent presentation,  and (for example)
 
make sure that those who cross or close will pick up on issues that
 
have come before.  It felt like a number of disjoint scenes, rather
 
than a consistent argument that was being developed. The closings,
 
for example, did not summarize and draw conclusions from what had
 
been heard before.
 
 
 
4. It might be worth having a "client" role as well as witness roles.
 
Maybe one of the students. So they have to answer to someone, and
 
maybe talk through their strategy in advance to an outsider.
 
 
 
5. Sitting on one side of the amphitheater I never heard the verdict.
 
It would be good to mark a circle at the center of the amphitheater
 
so, "if you stand here everyone can hear you".
 
 
 
6. Lag is a huge issue. Maybe close the sandbox (or the island
 
itself) for an hour or so while the event is happening. When I was on
 
the witness stand, SecondLife itself was almost completely
 
unresponsive, and it was extremely difficult just to get a reply
 
typed in (cut and paste was impossible). Maybe I need to discard my
 
powerbook and buy a bigger computer.
 
 
 
7. Maybe allow a "not empathic" objection :-) Wasn't much empathy out
 
there.
 
 
 
I hope it was a useful exercise for the law students. The one I spoke
 
with did seem to really enjoy it.
 
 
 
Thanks for allowing me to get involved to the extent I did.
 
 
 
best regards
 
 
 
Andy
 
 
 
***
 
 
 
and here is my reply
 
 
 
andy, your contribution once again is wonderful and very much appreciated. i heard in your testimony the winning line for linden labs. may i have your permission to post your suggestions to our wiki?
 
-c
 
 
 
***
 
 
 
Hi from GeoffMcG Xi (the infamous Bragg):
 
 
 
I'm excited that this excercise is not "out of sight, out of mind," and that the project continues with feedback and comments on how to proceed into an uncharted and promising future.  I'll follow Andy's inspired lead and offer some ideas from a participant perspective;
 
 
 
1) Despite some of the snafus of using SL for a mock trial, I thought this was a tremedous success.  Whether or not the success came from the synergy between the case facts itself (i.e., would a non-SL case be as successful in SL?) I can't say.  But since Eon's committment to open access drove the move into SL, I think it is the right format to get outside, non-HLS perspectives (am I a non-HLS perspective???).
 
 
 
2) Wow, trials move slowly.  Even more so in a text-based format.  How can we trim the time yet boost the content?
 
*Meet with the witnesses before hand.  Andy and I put lots of time into preparing our testimony--reading the court filings, finding blog posts to flesh out the facts of the case, putting it all together into a presentable whole.  As such, I think we can be seen as delegates for the case specifics.  This is an enormous resource to more fully employ in the future.  I had a blast doing it, and wouldn't hesitate to put the effort into another run.  But I felt removed from the attorneys.  At times, I felt there were arguments made to the jury that I could have suggested wouldn't fly at all.  Now, granted I know most of the jurors through this and the Cy1 experience.  But the knowledge that we at-large participants have about SL could have been used more effectively.
 
 
 
*Attorneys need to spend time in SL to understand how the system works, the speed of chat, the role of typed communication.  There is room for rhetorical subtlety in SL, but you need to know your audience.  Long, double barrel questions don't work well.  If you spend more time in-world, I think you'll pick up the flow of conversation and be a more effective in-world advocate.
 
 
 
*Cross examinations seemed a bit scattered.  The questions were more open ended than I expected, and I often time think the attorneys lost their main points.
 
 
 
3) Use we participants more.  I know that most of the jurors were/are willing to debrief on what was effective, chat about the experience, and give feedback.  This is the real strength of open-access programming from the enrolled student's perspective.  We are the court of public opinion and we can give you more than a verdict.  So please, use us!
 

Latest revision as of 18:03, 10 December 2007