Judge Richard Posner

I encourage you to read the stories written about Judge Richard Posner, who died yesterday. Posner left the Seventh Circuit in 2017, suffering from Alzheimer's. But as a judge and before that a law professor at University of Chicago, he was the legal giant of the second half of the 20th century and without question one of the two most influential non-SCOTUS federal judges (the other being Learned Hand).

Update: Here is one interesting take, with links. 

Make-up Class:

12:30-1:45 p.m., Tuesday, Nov. 17, RDB 2006.

This is the make-up for the Jewish holy day in September. It may allow us a short class in our final meeting on Monday, Nov. 23. But it ensures we get through everything.

If you already have something scheduled, I understand. I know it is short notice.

Judge Richard Posner

I encourage you to read the stories written about Judge Richard Posner, who died yesterday. Posner left the Seventh Circuit in 2017, suffering from Alzheimer's. But as a judge and before that a law professor at University of Chicago, he was the legal giant of the second half of the 20th century and without question one of the two most influential non-SCOTUS federal judges (the other being Learned Hand).

Question # 192

I received some questions about Question # 192, so I wanted to clarify.

We have this:

Para <-- Neighbor ("Brooke said Joe shot Leslie w/ revolver") <-- Brooke ("Joe shot Leslie w/ a revolver")

Here's a better way to think about the portion from the Neighbor to the Paramedic: This utterance contains two statements: 1) Joe shot Leslie w/ a revolver and 2) Brooke said that.

So what you can do with the combined statements depends on what you are trying to prove.

If you want to prove Brooke made the statement (i.e, making the statement is relevant independent of what she said), then "Brooke said" is offered TMA but admissible under 803(1) or (2), assuming you can establish foundation (timing or the neighbor's excitement when he spoke to the paramedic). The first statement ("Joe killed") is not offered TMA, but is incidental to the second statement ("Brooke said") and thus not problematic, subject to a pretty strong 403 objection (the jury will use it TMA and it goes to the heart of the case).

If, as here, you want to prove that Joe killed Leslie, then both statements are TMA. "Brooke said" is 803(1) or (2), as above. But "Joe shot" raises different concerns. That is why you need to turn to 803(4).

For Monday, November 16

Tuesday audio.

Prep the rest of documentary exceptions and Other Documents and Statements. We will get to Declarant Unavailable on Tuesday. 

For Tuesday, November 10

Monday audio. 

Review and prep the rest of Spontaneous Statements. Then move to Documentary Exceptions. For tomorrow, prep 803(5) and (6), along with problems 195, 196, 202, and 204. 

For Monday, November 9

Tuesday audio. Remember that the Judicial Lecture will take place at 12:30 p.m. next Monday, November 9, in the Large Courtroom.

Review Exclusions, then prep Exceptions: Spontaneous Statements. What gives each of 803(1)-(4) sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness? Be sure to circle back to Questions 180-186 and consider whether any exceptions might apply. 

For Tuesday, November 3

Monday audio.

Review Introduction, then prep all of Exclusions. 

Judicial Lecture with Judge Emil Bove III

Monday, November 9. Class participation points awarded.

 

Prelim Exams

Available outside my office. Arranged in four folders by Blind ID:

8000-8250

8251-8500

8501-8750

8751-8999 

Sample Answer here. After you have had time to review your graded paper and compare your answers with the sample, feel free to come by my office to talk.

Mean: 84.83

Median: 87.5

High: 130