1. American Law and Legal Research Class One May 11, 2011 Jennifer Allison, Research Services Librarian Pepperdine Law School Library © 2011 Jennifer Allison

2. There will be four 2-hour class sessions. Although I speak German, the language of this class is English. We are going to cover a lot of material quickly, but the main point is for you to learn. If you don’t understand something, please ask questions. About the Course © 2011 Jennifer Allison

3. Class One: Legal English Introduction to the Common Law Legal System and U.S. Law Class Two: Legal Education in the United States Reading and Analyzing Cases About the Course © 2011 Jennifer Allison

4. Class Three: The United States Constitution Constitutional Case Law Class Four: Reading and Analyzing Federal Statutes About the Course © 2011 Jennifer Allison

5. About Jennifer I have a bachelor’s degree in German and English, a master’s degree in Library Science, and a law degree (J.D.). I work as a law librarian at Pepperdine Law School in California. In 2006, I was an exchange student at the Juristische Fakultät here at the Uni Augsburg. Email: jennifer.allison@pepperdine.edu.jennifer.allison@pepperdine.edu © 2011 Jennifer Allison

6. Legal English Legal English: A language all its own © 2011 Jennifer Allison

7. I will only hear your case if you have standing to file a lawsuit in this court. Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

8. Standing…? Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

9. You probably know what “case,” “lawsuit,” and “court” mean. However, you may not know what “standing” means in a legal sense. Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

10. Black’s Law Dictionary Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

11. Black’s Law Dictionary Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

12. Legal English 3-part definition © 2011 Jennifer Allison

13. Legal English If we break it down, maybe it will be a little clearer… © 2011 Jennifer Allison

14. Standing (first part): A party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right. Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

15. This means that you must have an injury that has a legal remedy to have standing. Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

16. Legal English That’s the easy version. Over time, the definition of “standing” has become more complicated… © 2011 Jennifer Allison

17. Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

18. Standing (part two): According to Black’s Law Dictionary, to have standing in federal court, a plaintiff must show two things: (1)That the challenged conduct has caused the plaintiff actual injury, and (2)That the interest sought to be protected is within the zone of interests meant to be regulated by the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question. Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

19. Standing under Constitutional law: There must be an injury that was caused by the violation of a constitutionally protected interest. Legal English Violation of protected interest? Injury? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

20. Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

21. Legal English Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has also written about how to define the term “standing.” The Black’s Law Dictionary definition includes an example of this, from a 1962 opinion written by Justice William Brennan. This might help us get a deeper understanding of “standing.” © 2011 Jennifer Allison

22. Standing (part three): “Have the appellants alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions? This is the gist of the question of standing.” United States Supreme Court Baker v. Carr, 1962 Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

23. Legal English Great… What does that mean? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

24. Let’s break it down… According to the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, you need more than just an injury. These elements must also be present to establish standing: A clearly adversarial battle between two parties who have strong and competing legal interests. The presence of one or more difficult constitutional questions. Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

25. Standing: “Have the appellants alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions? This is the gist of the question of standing.” United States Supreme Court Baker v. Carr, 1962 Legal English © 2011 Jennifer Allison

26. Legal English & Common Law Why should we waste our time even considering all of these elements? Standing is just…standing…right? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

27. Legal English & Common Law Using and understanding language properly is very important in U.S. law. Many common English words have a special meaning when they are used in a legal sense. While non-lawyers may say lawyers use “legalese,” lawyers would say they use “terms of art.” © 2011 Jennifer Allison

28. Legal English & Common Law Lawyers use three sources to define a legal term of art: 1.Foundational legal principles (like having an injury for which there is a legal remedy). 2.Legal texts (like the Constitution). 3.Judicial opinions, which define and interpret the law. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

29. Definition of Standing: The Common Law Injury Constitutionally Protected Interest Strong Competing Interests Difficult Constitutional Question General Legal Principle Legal Text Interpretive Judicial Opinion © 2011 Jennifer Allison

30. The Common Law Let’s focus on interpretive judicial opinions © 2011 Jennifer Allison

31. The Common Law Common law (U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada) vs. Civil Law (Germany, France, etc.) © 2011 Jennifer Allison

32. The Common Law In a common law legal system, judicial opinions are always legally binding precedent for all future cases in lower courts. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

33. The Common Law In other words, JUDGES MAKE LAW. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

34. The Common Law Is a judicial opinion the same as a case? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

35. The Common Law YES. A judge writes an opinion (also called a decision) to explain the legal reasoning that was used to reach the legal conclusion in the case. In law school, these opinions (or decisions) are often called CASES. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

36. The Common Law When you study law in the U.S., you will read a lot of cases. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

37. The Common Law In a common law legal system, judicial opinions (or cases) are always legally binding precedent for all future cases in lower courts. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

38. The Common Law Precedent? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

39. The Common Law © 2011 Jennifer Allison

40. Legal Precedent United States Supreme Court United States Court of Appeals United States District Court California Court of Appeal California Superior Court California Supreme Court © 2011 Jennifer Allison

41. Legal Precedent Let’s look at an example of legal precedent, from criminal law… © 2011 Jennifer Allison

42. Legal Precedent The United States Constitution prohibits the police from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. To search for evidence, or to arrest someone, the police must get a warrant from a judge. The police must show the judge WHY the search or arrest is reasonable to get a warrant. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

43. Legal Precedent The United States Constitution prohibits the police from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. To search for evidence, or to arrest someone, the police must get a warrant from a judge. The police must show the judge WHY the search or arrest is reasonable to get a warrant. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

44. Legal Precedent However, sometimes the police do not need a warrant to seize evidence in a criminal case. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

45. Legal Precedent In 1960, police officers went to the apartment of a California couple. The police had seen the husband commit a crime, and wanted to arrest him. When the police entered the apartment, they saw a large bag of illegal drugs in plain view. The police seized the drugs, and arrested both the husband and the wife for drug possession. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

46. Legal Precedent In 1960, police officers went to the apartment of a California couple. The police had seen the husband commit a crime, and wanted to arrest him. When the police entered the apartment, they saw a large bag of illegal drugs in plain view. The police seized the drugs, and arrested both the husband and the wife for drug possession. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

47. Legal Precedent Uh-oh… © 2011 Jennifer Allison

48. Legal Precedent During their criminal trial, the couple argued that their arrest had been unlawful. The couple said that the police had violated their constitutional rights by seizing the drugs without a search warrant. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

49. Legal Precedent During their criminal trial, the couple argued that their arrest had been unlawful. The couple said that the police had violated their constitutional rights by seizing the drugs without a search warrant. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

50. Legal Precedent Their case, Ker v. State of California, went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

51. Legal Precedent The Court’s opinion in this case clarified the law for the Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

52. Legal Precedent According to the Court, the government was allowed to use the drugs against the couple in their criminal trial, even though the police seized them without a search warrant. Why? Because the police had probable cause to arrest the husband. Therefore, they were allowed to enter the apartment without a search warrant. Once in the apartment, they were allowed to seize any criminal evidence in plain view. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

53. Legal Precedent According to the Court, the government was allowed to use the drugs against the couple in their criminal trial, even though the police seized them without a search warrant. Why? Because the police had probable cause to arrest the husband. Therefore, they were allowed to enter the apartment without a search warrant. Once in the apartment, they were allowed to seize any criminal evidence in plain view. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

54. Legal Precedent Bummer… © 2011 Jennifer Allison

55. Legal Precedent What does this mean for future criminal cases? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

56. Legal Precedent Every court in the United States must follow the legal rule established in this case, Ker v. California: © 2011 Jennifer Allison

57. Legal Precedent So what is the legal rule? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

58. Legal Precedent If: The police are in a place they are legally allowed to be, such as in the apartment of a person they have probable cause to arrest, AND The police see criminal evidence in plain view, Then: The police may seize the evidence, AND This seizure is reasonable and constitutional, AND The evidence seized is admissible against the defendant in his or her criminal trial. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

59. Legal Precedent United States Supreme Court United States Court of Appeals United States District Court California Court of Appeal California Superior Court California Supreme Court © 2011 Jennifer Allison

60. The Common Law The Court used this case to better define the term “unreasonable” when referring to a seizure of criminal evidence. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

61. The Common Law In Ker v. California, what was the injury? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

62. The Common Law Injury: The couple was convicted of drug possession based on the drugs the police found in their apartment. The police did not have a search warrant to search for the drugs, but seized them anyway. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

63. The Common Law In Ker v. California, what was the constitutionally protected interest? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

64. The Common Law Constitutionally Protected Interest: The U.S. Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

65. The Common Law In Ker v. California, what were the competing interests? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

66. The Common Law Government Interest: The government wanted to use the drugs seized in the defendants’ apartment against the defendants in their criminal trial. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

67. The Common Law Defendants’ Interest: The defendants did not want to be subjected to an unreasonable search, and they did not want the evidence seized during that search to be used against them in a criminal trial. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

68. The Common Law In Ker v. California, what was the constitutional question? © 2011 Jennifer Allison

69. The Common Law Constitutional Question: Was the search unreasonable? No, because of the plain view exception to the search warrant requirement. Therefore, the drugs were admissible. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

70. Review 1.Use Black’s Law Dictionary to look up legal terms of art. 2.The definition of the term will include references to relevant legal principles, legal texts, and cases. 3.Remember that “cases” are judicial opinions, and that they have the value of precedent in the U.S. legal system. © 2011 Jennifer Allison

71. Questions?

72. Homework Assignment Read the following chapters in An Introduction to the Legal System of the United States, by E. Allan Farnsworth: Chapter 2: Legal Education (pages 15-23) Chapter 3: Legal Profession (pages 23-37) Download and read these cases: Cohen v. Petty New York Times v. Sullivan © 2011 Jennifer Allison

73. Course Website Download reading assignments from my website: http://www.calilawlibrarian.com/Germany2011/Augsburg2011.html Username: Augsburg Password: Malibu © 2011 Jennifer Allison