Page 6 of 11

IMPORTANT! Observe a federal trial next week!

Ladies and Gentlemen!  If you are available (do not have another class) next Wednesday afternoon April 3 after class (leave City Tech about 1pm) or Thursday morning until about 12:30pm, and would like to observe a federal court trial in Manhattan, please email me ASAP!  We have been cordially invited by the federal court judge presiding over the trial described below at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NY (in Manhattan) to come in and observe it next week.  It sounds really interesting!   And we’d probably get a “behind the scenes” chance to meet the Judge!  This can count as your observation for the assignment.  If you want to go, email me ASAP!

Cheers,

Prof. C.

The plaintiff is a prisoner who started off pro se, but who now has a team of associates at a major firm representing him pro bono for trial.  The defendant is the United States (it’s an FTCA claim).  The basis of the claim is that federal corrections officers committed the tort of battery by using excessive force against the plaintiff when they allegedly removed, by force, contraband (packets of tobacco and ketamine, placed in a condom) that he had tried to hide in his anus. He doesn’t deny having the contraband, or trying to secret it — he’s only claiming that it was removed from his body in an unreasonable manner.   The officers deny using force — they say it fell out and they picked it up off the floor.  Very readily understandable issues for students!  

Court Observation -Sandra

On Friday, March 22, I went to New York Supreme Court of Kings County. I got there around 9:30 am and told the guard at the information desk who I was and what I was looking for. She told me to go to room 285, which handled Guardianship. Again, I told the man in there who I was and what I was looking for. He was kind enough to make some phone calls and found a case about a contract gone wrong. He told me where to go and I thanked him. I met with Ana and we both headed up to see this observation. From my understanding, this was a contract over a construction job that was not completed. There were a lot of specific details given, especially from the defendant’s attorney, and the contract was being read over and over again and questioned by both sides. Overall, it was very interesting, this was the first time I was in a court room with jurors and the whole scene, like on Law and Order. The plaintiff was all for us watching the case and he even told us that he hoped they gave us “a good show.” I asked questions and introduced myself every time I went up to someone to ask them their name. Don’t be afraid to do that. They were all nice, except one guard on the floor who was very serious and barely responded to us. We were there until about 12:35, when the judge ended it for the day and gave the next date. We were very hungry! So I suggest you eat a heavy breakfast if you are going to go in the morning but other than that I enjoyed it.

Abigail’s Adventurous Abiding Adjournment in Albany: Observations and Reflections of the trip up to Albany

October 19, 2019

It was a pretty temperate day, neither too warm nor too frigid. I took off from my house at almost 5:00am to run 20 minutes for the train to the ferry. I finally arrived at CityTech at about 7:15am. Although, It would be another 5 hours before we would reach Albany at approximately 12:15pm. I spent the bus ride there riding with three other aspiring women. Once we arrived at Albany and had a quick lunch it was time to proceed to court.

We arrived at the courthouse somewhere around 1:40pm. Check-in through security was pretty routine for a government building. I was warned not to open up my gummy bears in the court room. Darn! All I need is to get sanctioned for contempt of gelatin. Inside the building reeked of tradition, order, and formality. From the mural on the central ceiling to the filigree woodwork in the court room. I wish I had not worn my hearing aids all through the ride, as prolonged usage weakens their effectiveness. Something that precluded my participation in the conversations Latasha-Nicole and Marlo would have with Mr. Spencer (court of appeals public information person) and Officer Shevlin before the trial. We had managed to get into the court room early thanks to Latasha-Nicole and Marlo and their effusive nature. They attracted the attention of Gary Spencer. Gary Spencer, the public information officer, after showing us in proceeded to give us a brief historical synopsis concerning the court, followed by a short lived Q&A session. It did not take long before picture taking and historical narrative led to 2:00pm. When the words “Hear ye, hear ye” ascended everyone to their feet and all the justices except Judge Fahey entered for the initial proceedings. He would later creep in as the appeal against PSC was convening. The attorneys from the first contestant, David Burke, were kept anxious by the continual inquisition by the judges. The first two trials were extremely long winded and technical. With a lack of excitement being replaced with legal verbosity.  The last appeal was certainly shorter and less verbose than the early combined appeals against PSC. But People versus Brown was certainly a match to see. Justices progressively leaned on both sides heavily. At one point you could have sworn it was a heavily contested game of tennis. With both sides posturing to get that one last shot over the net to break the tie.

After the court was finally adjourned, we went to tour the state capital building. I believe professor Espinosa’s intent was to have us witness our great state legislature in action. As we walked through the building we began to see more and more anti-choice protesters relaying signs against Cuomo’s late term abortion law. To which my thought was, “I have a bad feeling about this”.  We attempted to access the chamber through the second floor. Only to find the elevators kept bypassing it. I started voicing my thought that it could be intentional, that the protests could be blocking our access and the elevators weren’t stopping on that floor for that reason. We finally found out, through attempting to access the second floor by the stairs,  my assumptions or something relatively close to them, was indeed what was going on. After bopping around the capital building for an hour or so more. Appreciating the architecture and the informative historical displays, it was time to get back to Brooklyn. So we finally made our way back outside where the bus picked us up at around 5:00pm. I arrived back home at about 10:30pm…exhausted and cranky about having to get up again at 4am. Yet, somehow energized and fulfilled from the experience. I took in a lot this day, fostered some friendships, and learned a lot from people and the experience.   I think we all did. Good luck to everyone on the memorandum .

Abigail

New York State Court of Appeals Observation

NYS Court of Appeals- Court room

New York State Court of Appeals 

 

I had the opportunity along with a few other students in the class, to attend the court of appeals trip on Tuesday, March 19th. It took us 3 hours to get there, but it was a comfortable ride because our bus (a nicely interior one at that) had tables on it, so we were able to place our books to study,  use or laptops/tablets to get a preview of the cases we were going to hear- you name it. We arrived to Albany around 12pm; we had lunch and went straight to the court, which was nothing close to what I expected. The court personnel were so friendly, welcoming, and willing to answer any question I had for them. I even took a picture with court officer Jenny; I spoke to a retired judge, Judge Pigot,  who was very nice and gave me brief history on the judges, whose pictures surrounded the court room. Now the 7 judges of the court, ( the hot bench)  is a completely different story. They were brutal with the attorneys and I mean brutal; they would ask a question and before the attorney could fully answer, the judge (S) would interject with question after question, ( double, even triple teaming them) hampering  the attorney from  answering  the previous question that was asked. In total, we heard 3  consolidated timed cases, which went fast. I  can tell you so much, but I’ll end up writing my entire paper instead of a post. my main advice, is ASK! Do not be afraid to ask anyone anything. You won’t get the information you need otherwise. Focus more on what you see, and what is going on during the case; don’t just focus on the case. try to write a quickly as possible to get as much information as you can. I would suggest wearing something casual, to give yourself that, “I’m studying law look” (just an opinion but not necessary )  GOOD LUCK CLASS!

-Nicole

 

Court Observation

On Monday March 13th, I went to NYS Supreme Court Kings County at about 2:15pm for my court observation. When I approached the revolving doors, a confrontation began between one of the officers standing guard for the employee entrance and a civilian woman. In that moment, it appeared as if the woman was trying to enter through the doors for which she was not  permitted. Hence the reason for the disturbance that concurred. When I saw this, I decided to go to the NYS Family Court, Kings County instead, located next door to avoid the commotion.  When I went to NYS Family Court, I observed a case between a muslim mother and father. The case was about whether the court would  allow the father accessibility to his passport in order to travel, which was ultimately denied. When this ended, I headed back to NYS Supreme Court to observe another case when I realized the initial disturbance had been handled. The civilian woman stood handcuffed with about 3 officers surrounding her.  When I entered the building I asked for directions and was directed to a case about a robbery and attempted murder for which they were doing jury selection.  The jury selection lasted about 45 minutes to an hour when the judge alongside the prosecutor and defense attorney came to a mutual decision for which 6 jurors were chosen.

In Unrelated News

In an unrelated topic, on Wed 04/03 immediately following class..i will be running ALLLLL the way over to Grace Gallery to speak on a round table concerning Gender & Sexuality.. And for those who didn’t get it, Grace Gallery is right across from. The bathrooms on the 11th floor. Should make an interesting transition from class.

Midterm exam grades posted!

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have posted your midterm exam grades, your midsemester status grades (P/BL/U), grades for all of your homework assignments (each one graded out of 4) and your grade for Quiz #1 (out of 40) in the “GradeBook” linked at the bottom right corner of this page.   The midsemester grade (P/BL/U) reflects your what your grade would likely be if the semester were to end today, based on your performance so far: P means “likely to pass”; BL means “borderline”; and U means “unlikely to pass.”  Keep in mind that in law courses, 75 is passing.  There’s still plenty of time to improve!  (Or to decrease, but I don’t expect you’ll do that.)  We’ll discuss that more on Monday.

In case you’d like to get a head start on extra credit for the final exam, I’ve posted a few new articles under the “Articles” tab.  Of course, you’re welcome to post on legal news articles you find on your own.  Please always be sure to follow the instructions for the assignment (under the “Assignments” tab) so you can earn maximum credit!

The assignment for our next class (Mon. March 18) is also posted under “Assignments.”  Enjoy the weekend, happy St. Patrick’s Day!

Prof. C.

 

Trump Court Pick Neomi Rao Confirmed As Kavanaugh’s Appeals Court Replacement

In an article on March 13 Jennifer Bendery covers how the Neomi Rao was confirmed as the replacement for Kavanaugh. The article goes on to explain Rao’s problematic history, such as her published opinions on women and how they’re partly to blame in date rape. In addition they highlight how as the Administrator of Donald Trump’s Office or Information and Regulatory affairs Rao has worked to weaken protections for victims of sexual assault. Bendery continues to illuminate how Rao has never been a judge and recanthow Kavanaugh, confirmed only a few months earlier, amidst allegations of sexual assault. I presume to to contrast for oeony’s sake, that senate followed the appointment of an alleged assailant, by appointing someone who seems to be a rape apologist to replace them.

I am conflicted on this one. As a woman I want to be sympathetic to women everywhere. The problem comes from those who conflict with the general needs of women. Rao has demonstrated this time and time again as her desire to hold another woman accountable for drinking too much, translates into your responsible for what he did because your drunk. To put this into context, this is similar to blaming you for letting the rapist in because your bedroom window was open on a summer night. And my opinion is if you wouldn’t break into my bedroom in the middle of the night, then you shouldn’t be doing it to me when I’m incapacitated and unable to consent. Lastly my opinion is having an apologiest on the Supreme Court may not overturn the precedent set, she may alter it in such a way as for it to be counterproductive. Take for interest Texas. While abortion in Texas is very much legal. The regulation and licensing of abortion clinics, however, is so that it’s almost impossible to easily get an abortion unless you have transportation and means to travel great distances, you aren’t getting an abortion. Given Rao’s history, academic work, and public opinions I am deeply concerned: first the impact she’ll have on sexual assault issues, but over the long run on women’s issues in general. To say the least I think this is one appointment all victims of sexual assault will watch with a scrutinizing eye.

Link to article
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c893432e4b0450ddae6a025?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063&utm_source=main_fb&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages

« Older posts Newer posts »