Exam

From CyberOne Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

e

i intend to file a motion on behalf of my client, keith stroup, requesting our trial judge to give a preliminary instruction to our jury about its role. what follows is a first draft of the instruction we will propose. it needs your finest rewrite. speak in the voice of Madison, Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King.

The People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in forming a government of laws to better ensure their common protection and well- being, sought to preserve their liberty by reserving to the people the irrevocable and unreviewable authority – in the form of the jury – to pass judgment upon the question of whether their fellow citizen has committed a criminal act meriting punishment. This authority vests within the jury in a criminal trial the right to return a general verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in the case before them. This verdict encompasses a finding of facts as instructed above, but also a determination of criminal guilt based on those facts.

If you believe, to a moral certainty, that the defendant’s proven conduct constituted a criminal act that deserves public condemnation and punishment, then you should enter a verdict of guilty. If, on the other hand, you believe that the defendant’s conduct was not criminal – that it did not constitute a breach of the peace, threaten the public’s welfare or public order, or prejudice any of the rights of others – and that it does not therefore merit public condemnation and punishment, then you may enter a verdict of not guilty.

The People of the Commonwealth created a government of checks and balances in which they vested the legislature with the power to create laws, the executive with the power to enforce them, and the courts with the power to interpret and apply them. The right of the People, entrusted to a jury of free citizens, to stand between the government’s law and an individual accused of its violation stands as the final check on the government’s power to revoke the liberty of its citizens by creating, enforcing, and applying a law which unjustly encroaches upon the right of the People to their liberty.

(text only)

π

if and when the time comes i intend to file a motion to quash a subpoena from riaa to my client, the university, associated with suit against John and Jane Doe, demanding that we produce a student identities associated with an IP addresses within our network at a specific times. The grounds of our motion will be that judicial enforcement of the subpoena places undue burden on university. prepare the statement of burden. (300 word rough limit, text only)


i

what meaning do you make of the rules of evidence in context of their evolution

(500 word rough limit; any digital form)


=

how can i make this funny

CRIMINALIZING ONLINE POKER: HOW CRAZY IS THAT????
(no limits)


-1


what meaning do you make of your experience with me

(500 word rough limit with links)


all questions to be answered
due january 22, 2008 5pm est
by email to
mharding@law.harvard.edu
subject: [id number]]

Andrew advises:

“Text Only” means that you should send in your answer like a typical exam answer, typed out in Word or some other word processor. “Any digital form” means that you can submit an answer that takes on, well, any digital form. It could be a YouTube video, a picture, a website, etc. And “word limit with links” means that you would need to limit your answer to the rough word limit given, but you can also include links in your answer to relevant websites or media sites.


For the first section, you should rewrite the jury instruction in whatever way you think would be effective and would capture the lessons of the course – there is no word limit. And in regards to the video regarding the criminalization of online poker, you should use your creativity in any way that you think would be worthwhile in making the video more effective, interesting, or funny.


As a general note on the exam, please understand that this exam is (obviously) a different type of test, which will require that you be more creative than typical law school exams. The test is meant to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of the core themes and concepts of the course. To that end, the exam is purposefully left somewhat vague, to allow you to explore the themes of the course and reflect the way that those lessons have taken hold with yourself. Do not feel constrained by attempting to draft an exam that somehow captures what you think Professor Nesson is looking for – I can personally guarantee you that he is not looking for any specific answer to any of these questions – he is simply looking for you to demonstrate the quality of thought that you have put into the ideas of the course and is interested to see how you’re able to project these thoughts when asked.

^^^^



Forwarded message ----------

From: Andrew M. Woods <amwoods@law.harvard.edu> Date: Jan 21, 2008 2:06 AM Subject: RE: [ Evidence C ] To: Tony Borich <aborich@law.harvard.edu>, "Charles R. Nesson" <nesson@law.harvard.edu>


Hi Tony,

I only meant to indicate that you should not feel constrained in how you should respond to the question. Your response could take the form of a modification to the video provided in the prompt, or any other enhancement of the message. You could certainly modify the video, you could change the basic text of the speech, or you could do anything else that you find useful in projecting the message of the video. The idea is to allow you to attempt to capture the basic themes of the course in your response, keeping in mind the goal of demonstrating the ability to project a message consistent with the themes of the course.

If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know.

Best, Andrew


Original Message-----

From: Tony Borich [1] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:31 AM To: amwoods@law.harvard.edu; Charles R. Nesson Subject: Re: [ Evidence C ]

Hello Professor Nesson and Mr. Woods,

I am not sure whether questions about the exam are permissible (or welcome), but I'd like to take a shot nonetheless. My question relates to Andrew's explanation of question "=", the one that involves online poker. Andrew's explanation seems to suggest that our responses to the question should involve modifications to the movie provided in the prompt: > And in regards to the video regarding the criminalization of online > poker, you should use your creativity in any way that you think > would be worthwhile in making the video more effective, > interesting, or funny. >

Is this the case or am I misreading the explanation?


Thanks!


Tony Borich

KarltronLlewellyn1995



-- when appropriate (in my judgment) to an open project and not sensitive (in my judgment) in terms of privacy, i may post email to my blog. all privacy requests respected.