Update: New documents on the password-protected page.

The Clintons’ Patronizing Strategy (link)
Response form (PDF, 121 kb)

The assignment:

• read the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution
• translate them into modern-day English
• rank them according their importance to you
• write a brief reflection paper explaining why you chose the order that you did.

Bill of Rights worksheet (PDF, 37 kb)

From the PA Bar association…

V. CLOSING STATEMENTS

Objective: To provide a clear and persuasive summary of the evidence you presented to prove your case and the weaknesses of the other side’s case.

Structure and Outline of Closing Statement

1. Introduction. Thank the jury for their attention in listening to and synthesizing your theory of the case. Lead into a discussion of the evidence.
2. Parties. Remind the jury of certain background facts that bear directly on witnesses’ credibility.
3. Issue. Identify the central issue as simply as possible. After stating the issue, you should emphatically answer the issue in your favor.
4. What Happened. This discussion should parallel the opening statement and be in the same narrative you used up to this point.
5. Corroboration. Pick significant parts of the important testimony that are the heart of your case and argue them emphatically as support for your position.
6. Other Side and Refutation. You should at least mention what the other side’s contentions are and refute them.
7. Conclusion. Smoothly and efficiently sum up your position and request a proper verdict.

Here’s the notetaker for this week’s lectures on Britain’s appeasement policy and the ultimate causes of World War II.

Appeasement notetaker page 1
Appeasement notetaker page 2 

Our competition schedule is as follows:

Thursday, Jan. 31: Defense vs. Ambridge, 7:00 PM
Monday, Feb. 4:  Prosecution vs. Quigley, 5:30 PM
Thursday, Feb. 7: Defense vs. Beaver (A team), 5:30 PM
Monday, Feb. 11: Prosecution vs. Monaca, 5:30 PM

We’ll also meet today, January 23, and Thursday, January 24, to prepare witnesses and fine-tune our cases.

Crisis in San Pedro (PDF, 26 kb)

Today, we imagined a crisis in the town of San Pedro, and spent the class period allocating resources and establishing a provisional government.

Key concept: Moral vs. pragmatic lawmaking

Supplemental research:
Many of you expressed interest in egg production by chicken in stressful circumstances. Click here for more information.

1. Leading Questions: “Your Honor, I object to Counsel’s leading the witness.” This objection is only available where the witness is testifying on direct and redirect examination. (Rule of Evidence 611(c))
2. Irrelevant Evidence: “I object your Honor, the question is not relevant to the facts in this case.”  This is used sparingly because opposing counsel does not care that the direct exam is wasting time and is not getting to the important facts. Raise the objection only if the irrelevant evidence is prejudicial to your case. (Rule of Evidence 401, 402)
3. Non-responsive Answer: “Your Honor, the witness is not answering the question asked.” During direct examination, this objection should be raised when the witness provides testimony not in accordance with the attorney’s question. During cross examination, it should be raised if the witness repeatedly tries to avoid answering questions. It may not be used to restrict a witness to a “yes” or “no” response.
4. Hearsay: “Objection Your Honor. Counsel is asking for hearsay testimony.” If the question is proper but the witness gives an answer that is hearsay, raise this objection. Hearsay and its Exceptions are listed in Section B.
5. Improper opinion or conclusion: “Objection Your Honor. Counsel is calling for an opinion from his witness who is not an expert”; or, “Objection, the witness is offering a conclusion rather than facts.”
6. “Unfair extrapolation”: “Objection, Your Honor, Counsel is seeking information notcontained in the witness’ affidavit/statement.” Or, “Objection, Your Honor, the witness’ testimony is making an unfair extrapolation of information contained in his/her affidavit/statement.” This objection should only be raised during a direct examination by the cross examining attorney. However, while this is a permitted objection, you are encouraged, under the Rules of Competition (regarding unfair extrapolations), to impeach the witness during cross examination instead of raising this objection; that is, point out the contradiction by introducing the witness’ contrary statement into evidence. The attorney should also raise it again during closing arguments. Testimony is not beyond the scope of the affidavit/statement if it is a “fair extrapolation” thereof. A fair extrapolation is one that is neutral and can be reasonably inferred from the information in the witness’ statement. An unfair extrapolation is one that has no basis in the witness’ affidavit and has been invented by the witness in order to strengthen his/her testimony. While this objection is also available to a direct examining attorney while his/her witness is being cross examined, there is little value in raising it. If your witness is asked a question during cross calling for information outside the scope of the problem, your witness can invent responses helpful to your side. You want to allow your witness to answer such questions. If you do raise this objection, the judge may choose to hold a sidebar with the coordinator and examining attorneys. The direct-examining attorney should either concede that the information is outside the scope of the affidavit or be prepared to show the judge the specific section in the affidavit upon which the testimony is based. The judge will determine whether the testimony is beyond the scope of the affidavit, i.e., no extrapolation, a fair extrapolation or an unfair extrapolation.
7. Argumentative: “Objection, Your Honor, Counsel is arguing with the witness.” An examining attorney is not permitted to argue with a witness but must ask questions intended to elicit facts.
8. Asked and answered: “Objection, Your Honor, that question has been asked and answered.” If an attorney continues to ask the same question with the intention of emphasizing a favorable response or of trying to get a different answer, opposing counsel may object.
9. Failure to lay a proper foundation for an exhibit: If an exhibit is not properly authenticated, an objection may be raised to its admission into evidence. See Rule of Competition 5.5.
10. Beyond the scope of cross or re-direct: Questions asked during re-direct and re-cross examination are limited to those exploring information raised on cross and re-direct, respectively.
11. Facts not in evidence: In closing argument, attorneys may only discuss those facts actually brought out in testimony by witnesses. See Rule of Competition 6.18. If other facts are not brought out or objections to them were sustained, this objection is appropriate. Please note that the Rules of Competition prohibit a team from raising any objection during a closing argument (or opening statement). Under Rule of Competition 6.19, following the closing argument, the attorney may stand to be recognized by the judge and may say, “If I had been permitted to object during the opening statement or closing argument, I would have objected to the opposing team’s statement that ____________.” The attorney may cite the Rule from the Rules of Competition in making this Objection. The presiding judge should note the objection but not rule upon it. A short rebuttal is permitted by the opposing team.

You may take any or all of the following essay test. The average of your two scores will be your grade.

This is due Friday, January 18, the last day of the nine weeks.

You must answer #1 and #2.

1. What caused the Great Depression? Explain each of the three primary causes in detail.
   
   
2. Compare and contrast in detail the responses of Hoover and FDR to the Great Depression. How was Hoover responsible for exacerbating the problem? How could he be seen a scapegoat? How did the New Deal assist in recovery? What other factors aided or hampered economic improvement?
   

Now choose one of the following three:

3. What political and economic circumstances allowed Hitler to rise to power in the 1930s? How was Stalin’s rise similar? How was it different?
   
   
4. “The Great Depression wasn’t that bad – if you had money.” What does this statement mean in the context of 1930s economics? How were different sectors of society affected differently?
   
   
5. Describe the human condition of the Great Depression as shown in Grapes of Wrath. What sacrifices and difficult choices did people have to make? What parts of society were hit hardest? How does the movie portray the New Deal initiatives? Do not simply summarize the movie.