MUSIC: CLAUDE DEBUSSY, Afternoon of a Faun (1894); Nocturnes (1900); The Sea (1905) ORCHESTRE de la Suisse Romande (1988/1990) conductOR: ARMIN JORDAN B2 LUNCH TODAY (Friday): Meet on 12:05 Baros; Binko; Burns; Coupet; Fenton; Woodby

Liesner Trial Transcript: DQ20 Oxygen TRIAL COURT CORRECT DIRECTING VERDICT? WHY OR WHY NOT?

Liesner Trial Transcript: DQ20 Trial Judge’s Perspective He must believe: – Abdomen shot was mortal wound (location of shot; wolf’s behavior) – Only evidence of shot that could have made that wound was Liesner shot (bullet/angle) Keep in Mind – Judge might have experience with guns/hunting – Judge could see pelt & holes (e.g., might have thought dog bite theory of hole in side impossible)

Liesner Trial Transcript: DQ21 Oxygen What relevance do the additional facts found in the trial record have for how you should read the appellate opinion?

Liesner Trial Transcript: DQ21 Oxygen Relevance of additional facts found in trial record have for how you should read the appellate opinion? Helps to understand what happened BUT normally unavailable to lawyers Meaning of written opinion: – Determined by what Wisc SCt chooses to include – What doesn’t go into opinion isn’t part of opinion

Liesner Trial Transcript QUESTIONS?

LOGISTICS: CLASS #8 Dean’s Fellow Sessions – Make-up Today 1:30-2:20 (F109) Note Room Change from Original Posting – 9/10: First Monday Session 6:00-6:50 pm (A110) I Will Post on Course Page by Tuesday after Class: – IM#3 (Group Assignment #1; Shaw Brief) – Next Set of Course Materials Note re Life & Law School: Just Because ESPN Broadcasts 6.5 Hours of MNF …

EXERCISE FOR MONDAY/TUESDAY Which of These Things Is Not Like the Others (and Why)? LION FISH BULL FOX

Musical Interlude Shaw-1902  1908  1914-Liesner The Most Performed Waltz in American Popular Music

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton STATEMENT OF THE CASE? CRIMINAL CASE Government always brings the suit, so can say: State (or U.S.) charged X with [name of crime]. -OR- Criminal action against X for [name of crime]. Relief requested always is incarceration or fines; can leave unstated.

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton STATEMENT OF THE CASE? “State charged [names?], [relevant description?], with [name of crime?].

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton STATEMENT OF THE CASE? “State charged o Shaw, Thomas and another (or) o Three defendants including Shaw and Thomas o Shaw to tie to name of case o Thomas because his trial is the one that is appealed [relevant description?], with [name of crime?].

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton STATEMENT OF THE CASE? “State charged Shaw, Thomas and another, who removed fish from nets belonging to others Can’t say “stole” or that fish “belonged to others” b/c that’s what’s at issue with [name of crime?].

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton STATEMENT OF THE CASE? “State charged Shaw, Thomas and another, who removed fish from nets belonging to others with [grand larceny].

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton PROCEDURAL POSTURE? Note that indictment is method by which State charged Ds, so don’t need here (already in Statement of Case)

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton PROCEDURAL POSTURE? Thomas was tried separately. At the close of the state’s evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for Thomas. The state excepted [appealed].

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton Return to FACTS After ISSUE

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART? Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendant …

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART? To prove “grand larceny” state must show that defendants took property belonging to other people. Directed verdict means state’s evidence was insufficient to show the crime. Why did Trial Court think state’s evidence was insufficient here?

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART? To prove “grand larceny” state must show that defendants took property belonging to other people. Trial Court held fish at issue were not property of net-owners because nets do not create property rights when some fish can escape from nets (“Perfect Net Rule”) What does state say is wrong with Trial Court’s position?

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART? Trial Court held fish at issue were not property of net-owners because nets do not create property rights when some fish can escape from nets (“Perfect Net Rule”) State says net need not be perfect to create property rights in net-owners.

STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton ISSUE: Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendant on the grounds that defendant did not commit grand larceny because net-owners do not have property rights in fish found in their nets where the fish can escape from the nets?

STATE v. SHAW Discussions of Shaw: Focus On “Perfect Net Rule” Do our other cases support the rule? Policy arguments for and against the rule. When Ohio Supreme Court rejects the rule, what does it leave in its place? FIRST: BACK TO THE FACTS

STATE v. SHAW: FACTS Significance of Indictment Issued by Grand Jury after viewing evidence presented by Prosecution (but not by defense). Particular charges included if Grand Jury believes it saw evidence sufficient to support going forward with them.

STATE v. SHAW: FACTS Significance of Indictment Phrase “with force and arms” in indictment: Boilerplate language traditionally used in conjunction with any criminal charge Does not mean that evidence showed guns were actually used in this case.

STATE v. SHAW: FACTS Significance of Indictment Once trial begins, trial court only looks at evidence actually presented by parties. Claims in indictment then effectively become irrelevant for most purposes Same thing happens to complaint in a civil case (unless claim on appeal is that complaint should have been dismissed before trial)

STATE v. SHAW: FACTS Ohio S.Ct. Treats State’s Evidence as “Facts” for Purposes of Appeal Directed Verdict means that Trial Court believed that, even looking at all the evidence “in the light most favorable” to the State, State cannot win.

STATE v. SHAW: FACTS Ohio S.Ct. Treats State’s Evidence as “Facts” Directed Verdict = even looking at all the evidence “in the light most favorable” to the State, State cannot win. To review Directed Verdict, appellate court must: Treat all of state’s evidence as true Make all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the State

STATE v. SHAW: FACTS Ohio S.Ct. Treats State’s Evidence as “Facts” Common to treat information from a particular source as true for purposes of appeal E.g., allegations in declaration in Pierson

STATE v. SHAW: FACTS NOW TO WHITE BOARD FOR “FACTS” FOR PURPOSES OF BRIEF