JOURN 4000 1nd EditionExam # 1 Study Guide Lectures: 1 -7Lecture 1 (August 25)--US law has roots in British law-First treatise: Glanvill (1187)13 century:-King Henry II created national court system-Judges of king’s courts presided over jury cases-“Circuit judges” rode around countryside to hear cases-Judges created “common law”14th Century:-Dual court system-Chancellor’s courts no juries-Dual system affects law today-Libel? Jury case-Prior restraint? No jury-William Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69)Sources of law:1. Judge made law: common law2. Legislative law: statutes and constitutions 3. Bureaucracy made law: administrative law-Stare decisis- doctrine that precedents should be followed-Precedents- earlier court decisions-the “holding”: actual decision in the case sets precedent-Dicta: collateral unnecessary statements in cases-Shows courts’ passionPolicy:-Behind appointments-Strict constructionists (conservative)-Judicial activists (liberals)-Precedents= persuasive and binding-Only trial courts hear testimony-Courts on same level do not bind each other-Lower federal courts do not bind state courts (not even on questions of federal law)-Appellate courts work from cold records-Interplay between federal and state systems-US Supreme Court binds every court-US Supreme Court only hears cases involving federal laws-Federal law= 1) US Constitution 2) treaties 3) statutes passed by Congress-State law= law of everyday life-State courts bind federal courts on manners of state law-State judges make common law (judge-made law), which is constantly created-Federal judges can’t make common law-Double jeopardy: doesn’t apply if prosecuted by state and federal governments-There is no federal common law-Supreme Court only hears cases with sufficient and general significance -Do federal courts hear cases involving state laws? Yes, diversity cases Lecture 2 (August 27)- -Certification: federal court asks the state’s highest court how it would decide a matter of state law-No certification and the federal judge decides wrongly? Res judicata or “anything decided”-Who is more powerful, federal or state judges?-Habeas corpus- where federal judges have powerCitations:-US Supreme Court cases= US-If a citation has an “F” it is a federal case-Names of state courts= Supreme Court= highest ranking court, except for NY and Maryland (Court of Appeals is highest court)-What if an appellate court needs more info? It “remands” the case to the trial court-If testimony is involved, only trial courts hear it-If appellate court overturns the trial court’s decision, it remands it to the trial court1791: 1st Amendment “Congress shall make no law”3 possible models:1. “No limits; no legal damages”a. Like the state of nature in social contract theory b. Locke and Hobbes anarchistsc. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in the 1960s “Congress shall make no law. Period”2. “No limits; legal damages”a. William Blackstone, British jurist, wrote the Commentaries of the Law of Englandb. Thought freedom of press would be destroyed if there were limitsc. Publish anything, if it is improper, immoral, or illegal, there will be repercussions 3. “Some limits, legal damages”a. Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell HomesLecture 3 (August 29)-Marbury vs. Madison (1803)-Judicial review-John Adams: President on his way out-James Madison: new Sec. of State-Thomas Jefferson: incoming president-Marbury: Adam’s nominee for Justice of the Peace in D.C.-John Marshall: Adam’s Sec. of State, soon to be Chief Justice-Marbury’s commission was signed/sealed, never delivered-Writ of Mandamus, order a public official to perform their duty-The question: does the Supreme Court have the power to issue the writ? NoJurisdiction:-Constitution says Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction” in only two cases:1. Cases affecting ambassadors2. When a state is a party-In all other cases, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction-Jurisdiction means power to hear a case-Courts must have jurisdiction over:1. The subject matter2. The person-Supreme Court declared “law repugnant to Constitution is void”-Heavy influences in Marbury were Lock and BlackLecture 4 (September 3)-1791- 1st Amendment1803- Marbury vs. Madison1816- Martin vs. Hunter’s Lessee-Supreme Court can strike down decisions of state’s highest courts1868- 14th Amendment-Life, liberty, property, states cannot deprive you of these without due process1925- Gitlow vs. New York-Freedom of expression is among fundamental liberties1791- 5th Amendment self incriminationSedition:-Treason is the most serious form-Then seditious libel (crime of criticizing the government)-England gruesome and broad definition and punishment for treason-Star Chamber: abolished the notion of truth as a defense-Secret, without a jury, brutal punishment-William Prynn victim of Star Chamber-Published a book condemning the performing arts-“Female actresses were notorious whores”-Charles I’s wife was in a play-Branded with letters S and L, ears cut off, imprisoned for life1641- Star Chamber abolished1643- Regulation of Printing Act aka book censorship-John Milton wrote a book about the liberalization of divorce laws that was not censored-Wrote a plea for freedom of press so he would not be punished1695- abolish because book trade was losing money1790- Punishment of burning alive for females abolishedUSA:-Adopted censorship early on-Most persistent threat was seditious libelZenger case: 1st freedom of the press case1735- Zenger published criticism of William Cosby-Truth was not a defense-Libel law existed to keep domestic peace-Truth was an aggravating circumstance-Jury only got to decide whether words were printed (limited capabilities)-Judge decided guilt of libel-Andrew Hamilton represented Zenger-Told the jury they should decide guilt, not the judge acquitted Zenger-Jury nullification  first case of it1798- Alien and Sedition Acts crime to criticize government-Part of bad blood between Adams and Jefferson-Days of the XYZ affairLecture 5 (September 5)-1917- Espionage Acts of 1917-Bradley Manning convicted under this act-Could be punished for 20 years for obstructing military recruitment-Urging curtailment of necessary war material as well1919- First 1st Amendment case (Schenck vs. US)-Communists and socialists did not like the draft/ US alliance with the Czar of Russia-Schenck was general secretary of the