So, 3L year began today. I'm enrolled in five classes that cover diverse topics of law--five classes is a lot but I somehow managed to cram them all into the first three days of the working week, so I have a four-day weekend. Ship it.
First class of the day: Antitrust, taught by this guy. Some of the highlights of that brief wikipedia entry: my professor was nominated to be a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (one step below the U.S. Supreme Court) but his ultra-conservative writings were so controversial he was not a politically viable nominee. Bummer! On the plus side, he's married to a woman who wrote an anti-feminist book, so you know he's probably not doing the dishes.
After Antitrust comes Evidence. Class only meets on Mondays and Tuesdays, and since UT's calendar begins on Wednesday for some reason, I can't elaborate much on the course. Long story short: it's a class that takes 3 months to answer the question, "is this piece of evidence admissible at trial?"
After Evidence comes Jimmy John's, most likely. Vito, Italian Night Club, even the Veggie sub--can't go wrong with any of 'em.
After my lunch break, I head to Criminal Procedure, which explains the various procedures that occur between arrest and trial (assuming there is a trial). To sum this one up, just check out this helpful flowchart:
We talked briefly today about an accused's right to probable cause, and already I'm learning new things. For example, did you know that a person who is arrested must be "presented" before a judicial officer without substantial delay? "Substantial delay" isn't precisely defined, of course--if law were cut-and-dried, no one would hire expensive lawyers--but it basically means that you get to appear in front of a magistrate (minor-league judge) within 48 hours and he decides whether the cop who hauled you down to jail had probable cause to do so. (Probable cause has two elements: (1) has a crime been committed and (2) does evidence exist to link the crime to the person being detained?) So, next time you get arrested for, say, DWI, you'll know why you're appearing in front of someone in robes. Note that this isn't a trial: you aren't necessarily entitled to a lawyer and you might not even get a chance to give your side of the story (I say "might" because each state has different procedure), but it's better than nothing.
As a reference point, our professor told a story about how a drug smuggler got detained in France over the summer (while the judges were on their five-week vacations that the denizens of Francia cherish so dearly), asked for a probable cause determination in front of a neutral third-party (ie, a judge), and was told, "sure, no problem...as soon as a judge gets back in late August, we'll get you in front of him." Ouch. What's worse is that he's stuck in jail until then, because no one is around to set bail. Those lazy sonsuvbitches, that's why we had to bail them out in WW2!
My working day concludes with either Employment Discrimination Law (Mondays and Wednesdays) or a Federal Criminal Prosecution seminar (Tuesdays). I can't remark on the seminar because I haven't had a class yet, but I'm sure it'll be just as interesting as it sounds. Regarding Employment Discrimination, this course tackles the age-old question of "I don't want to [hire/promote/respect] the [black/old/atheist/gay] [woman/pregnant woman], but how can I treat her badly (and how badly can I treat her) before I risk getting a pesky lawsuit on my hands?" Since 1964, white men like myself have been struggling with the answer--hopefully this class will shine some light on the topic.
But seriously, folks, this course seems interesting to me. One question we mulled over today was this: must there be some sort of intent to discriminate (or, at the least, knowledge of discrimination) before we give relief to the protected class member, or are actions sufficient? For example, most of us agree that we should award damages to a black person who is not hired solely because he was black.* But, what if the prospective employer--an honest, decent man who has no prejudices and has no intent to discriminate against any race/sex/religion--administers a test as a precondition of employment? Let's say that the test is neutral on its face but has the result of disqualifying a disproportionately higher percentage of blacks than other races. Should a black person who fails the employer's test (and consequently isn't hired) get relief, or should the employer be allowed to administer the test? Does it matter whether the test relates to the position for which the prospective employees are applying?
All in all, should be a pretty fun semester--being a 3L is great. You can check out the hot new 1Ls, you know where all your classes are and just how much you can slack off without it affecting your grade, and you have an ever-growing group of friends with whom to gchat while the professor digresses. I'll try to update this blog whenever I learn something that a reasonable person may find interesting. Until then, enjoy the rest of y'all's summers.
*I know there are free-market arguments against this, but in the long run we're all dead and blah blah blah.
No comments:
Post a Comment