POSC 130g 1st Edition Lecture 9 Current Lecture 1 When you watch the film look at the jury overall Is it representative 2 Consider the pros and cons of juries What are the negative effects that juries can have by how they are constructed What are the positives 3 What is the role of dissent One actor Fonda who plays dissent consider the role of that Consider if you would be able to play that role If there is 11 versus 1 would you be able to play that role 4 Themes of the film look at the construction of the jury It s called 12 angry men not women all white The accused was Puerto Rican Think of Paxon v Kentucky Consider the peremptory challenge Make sure connect to major themes of the class Apply cases to the film 5 Consider the bias of the jury Look at the specific jury somewhere prejudice and some wanted to watch the ball game Consider what happens in real life How would you want your jury to be structured Pita case Orcas at Sea World Judge dismissed it yesterday PITA s main argument the access rule standing Orcas are enslaved and in violation of the 13th amendment Slavery is illegal and should not be practiced under US jurisdiction Live about 8 9 years in captivity when in the wild they live over 60 years They are forced to do tricks for the people Access rules the issue of standing didn t get any attention The judge took for granted that PITA absolutely was the next best person to bring the case on behalf of the Orcas PITA proved that they were closely enough related to the case and had their best interest in heart PITA had trainers one that had been with Flippers and had an investment and their best interest at heart Bill Hurchcock person that made it legal for interracial marriage Sea World s Response Whales don t have constitutional rights and this is offensive to humans that are and were enslaved Judge s Response How do you communicate to the Orcas He said that whales don t have rights What is it about for animal activists Have a legal system that corporations have constitutional rights but non human animals don t Prohibition against advisory opinions 1 Arguments for and against 2 Two requirements to avoid advisory opinions a There must be an actual dispute between adverse litigants b There must be a substantial likelihood a favorable court decision will have some effect Standing 1 prohibition against generalized grievances a A generalized grievance is where plaintiff is suing as a citizen or a taxpayer b Goal to make government comply with the law Better to use political processes In the area of the first Amendment where people are saying the government shouldn t be giving money to religious schools for textbooks etc because it violates the separation of church and state under the first amendment the court has made an exception There are limits on access Since 1970s mostly prohibited except for establishment clause cases government giving money to religious schools Prop 8 issue with this is the standing issue The people who wrote Prop 8 may not have had standing on the fact it was struck down When the lawsuit was brought challenging the validity of it the state didn t want to defend the law on the basis of Prop 8 If the state refused to defend the law that had come a state law could the sponsors of the law defend it Those who drafted it did have standing to defend it Ripeness 1 The more serious the hardship the more likely the Court will consider the case and grant reinforcements review Some people think it is related to the rule of advisory opinions If it is too early to decide the case it may be dismissed on ripeness Crucial whether individual is put to an unfair choice United Public Workers v Mitchell 1947 federal hatch act rule that didn t allow employees to be involved in political things employees brought a challenge but the court said it wasn t right because nothing happened to them As to one person who had been political action and lost his job the lawsuit was ripe for him Violate the law and risk consequences or not violate the law and not get to exercise political rights 2 Fitness Hinges on whether a more purely legal question not dependent on factual record There needs to be enough of a factual record for the court to decide the case They may say the case isn t ripe if there isn t enough factual record If it is purely legal they won t be so concerned Mootness Case is moot if there is no longer an actual controversy between adverse litigants If the person is dead If it is a civil suit they can still sue Law that makes abortion illegal Roe v Wade If someone challenges the law by the time the person is convicted time may work against them She would have had the baby already by the time the US Supreme Court decides if abortion violates the constitution If it is likely to happen again it can be an exception to mootness Exceptions a wrongs capable of repetition yet evading review b Likely to happen again to plaintiff c Injury of inherently limited duration Examples Roe v Wade 1973 abortion Moore v Ogilvie 1969 election law election would already have taken place if there is a controversy over how ballots are done and signatures If the matter is finished and if it is likely to happen again it is an exception to mootness 3 Collateral injuries Challenge to criminal conviction but not sentence Person cant challenge sentence if they have served already If there are consequences like not getting jobs and collateral injuries it is okay for a person to challenge a criminal conviction 4 Voluntary cessation Women challenges employer and employer voluntarily ceases behavior it is a moot issue that he stopped but since the person can do it again the court will not deem this as moot because he could do it again 5 Class actions Sosna v Iowa 1979 one year residency requirement it was a class action on people who didn t want to wait a year In her case by the time the court would deal with the challenge she had already lived there a year and it didn t pertain to her But because there were other people affected the case is moot to the named person but not to the huge number of people that would be affected to in the class Political Question Doctrine 1 Cases that courts decline to adjudicate because they pose political questions too hot to handle matter 2 Arguments for and against other branches in government have better expertise the other branches are accountable legitimacy the courts that preserve legitimacy shouldn t get to preserve courts are robust and don t have to worry about