Reference no: EM131431939
Case Study 1
Related to concepts covered in Chapter 1.
Question: What happens when the State and Federal government disagree on the creation and enforcement of laws?
Do the federal immigration laws preclude Arizona's efforts at cooperative law enforcement and preempt the four provisions of S.B. 1070 on their face?
Follow the Oyez Project link to see the entire text of the case.
Note : In addition to audio recordings of the arguments and opinions on the Oyez site, the full written opinion of court's decision is located at the bottom of the Oyez site page below the photos of the justices.
After reviewing the case, submit your answers to the following 6 questions. You only have to answer the multiple choice questions with the letter of your answer. Be detailed and thoughtful on the Essay Questions.
ARIZONA, et al., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES
on write of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
[June 25, 2012]
Oyez Project link:
ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES
1. Which provision of Arizona's law was found by all of the Supreme Court opinions (majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions) to not be preempted by federal law?
a. Section 2(b)
b. Section 3
c. Section 5
d. Section 6
2. Which justices believed that all of the provisions of Arizona's challenged law were not preempted by federal law?
a. those in the majority, and Justice Alito
b. those in the majority and Justice Thomas
c. Justice Scalia and Justice Alito
d. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas
3. Which of the following is NOT found in the law of preemption?
a. State law must give way when Congress has determined the field must be regulated entirely by the federal government.
b. State law must give way when there is a federal interest so dominant that the federal laws will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.
c. State law must give way when they conflict with federal laws.
d. State laws must give way whenever Congress enacts a law that effects citizens of a state.
4. Congress establishing a federal banking system would be an example of _____________.
a. implicit preemption
b. field preemption
c. federalism
d. explicit state sovereignty
5. Discuss what it means when the Court says that federal law preempts state law? What are some fields in which federal preemption has been found?
6. Discuss the tension between state sovereignty and federal sovereignty. Discuss the issues that Arizona is concerned about and the issues that the federal government is concerned about. Are they in conflict?
Case Study 2
Related to concepts covered in Chapters 11 and 12.
Questions: Hearsay and the right to confront witnesses.
Follow the Oyez Project link to see the entire text of the case.
Note* In addition to audio recordings of the arguments and opinions on the Oyez site, the full written opinion of court's decision is located at the bottom of the Oyez site page below the photos of the justices.
After reviewing the case, submit your answers to the following 6 questions. You only have to answer the multiple choice questions with the letter of your answer. Be detailed and thoughtful on the Essay Questions.
MICHIGAN, PETITIONER v. RICHARD PERRY BRYANT
on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of michigan
[February 28, 2011]
Oyez Project link:
MICHIGAN v. BRYANT
1. This case asks the court to examine ___________.
a. whether the statements made were made as part of an ongoing emergency
b. whether the statements made were hearsay
c. whether the Confrontation Clause applies to dying declarations
d. whether the Confrontation Clause applies to out of court testimony
2. Justice Scalia would adopt a test that examined the __________.
a. primary purpose of the police in questioning
b. the primary purpose of the declarant in making the statement
c. primary purposes of both the interrogator (police) and the declarant
d. primary purpose of both the interrogator and the declarant, but only rely on the declarant if there was mixed motive
3. Which of the following cases rejected a reliability approach used by the Court and re-established the pre-eminence of the Confrontation Clause over hearsay rules and exceptions?
a. Ohio v. Roberts
b. Davis v. Washington
c. Hammon v. Indiana
d. Crawford v. Washington
4. In this case the Court determined that the statements by Covington were _________.
a. testimonial because they were made to respond to an ongoing emergency
b. were non-testimonial because they were made to respond to an ongoing emergency
c. were reliable and thus did not violate the Confrontation Clause
d. not available from the record since the case was decided before the Confrontation Clause was enacted
5. According to the majority opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court erred in several respects. What were these errors, and do you disagree with the Court's assessment?
6.Justice Scalia argues that the majority opinion resurrects the Courts earlier holdings on reliability. Do you agree that this is the effect? Do you think it is the intent of the majority to do so?
Case Study 3
Related to concepts covered in Chapter 12.
Question: Did the State of Louisiana ignore due process by rejecting Smith's Brady claim?
Follow the Oyez Project Link to see the entire text of the case.
Note* In addition to audio recordings of the arguments and opinions on the Oyez site, the full written opinion of court's decision is located at the bottom of the Oyez site page below the photos of the justices.
After reviewing the case, submit your answers to the following 6 questions. You only have to answer the multiple choice questions with the letter of your answer. Be detailed and thoughtful on the Essay Questions.
JUAN SMITH, PETITIONER v. BURL CAIN, WARDEN
on writ of certiorari to the orleans parish criminal district court of louisiana
[January 10, 2012]
Oyez Project link:
SMITH v. CAIN
1. As a result of this case ________________.
a. Smith's conviction was upheld
b. Smiths conviction was overturned and the state could possibly retry him.
c. Smith's conviction was overturned and he was acquitted.
d. the state must turn over all Brady-type material to Smith.
2. The test of whether defendant's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland have been violated is ________________.
a. whether the state intentionally failed to turn over evidence to the defendant that was either favorable or disfavorable to the defendant.
b. whether the jury failed to consider the defendant's evidence that the eyewitness had initially failed to identify the defendant.
c. whether the state failed to disclose to the defendant evidence that a witness has recanted eyewitness identification.
d. whether the state failed to turn over evidence to the defendant that was material to determination of defendant's guilt.
3. When should the Court overturn a jury verdict based upon a Brady violation?
a. When the jury verdict would have been different had been different had the evidence been disclosed.
b. When there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the result would have been different.
c. When the jury verdict might have been different had the evidence been disclosed.
d. When the evidence that was not disclosed was overwhelming and irrefutable.
4. The majority and dissent reached different conclusions about how the jury would view Boatner's statements had they heard them. Do you agree with the majority or dissent about whether this evidence would have had an impact on the jury's verdict.
5. Will Brady violations always result in a due process violation? When might they not?