User:Admin: Difference between revisions

; On Finding of Guilt
{{VictimHeader}} 
|s. 151 {{DescrSec|151}} || || ||
|-
{{VictimEnd}}

5

{{DesignationHeader}}
|-
|s. 266 {{DescrSec|266}}|| {{XMark}}  || {{OKMark}} ||{{OKMark}}  || {{XMark}} 
{{DesignationEnd}}

7

{{ProbationM| }}
{{ProbationY| }}
{{SDNA}} Template:SDNA</nowiki>
{{DRAFT}}

THIS TEXT IS IN ROUGH DRAFT STATE. NOTHING HERE WILL BE OF USE TO READERS.

</nowiki>

Quote box

The court may allow video testimony if it is "appropriate" in "all the circumstances" including:

the location and personal circumstances of the witness
the costs that would be incurred if the witness had to be physically present; and
the nature of the witness’ anticipated evidence.

s. 714.1

Tasks

checklist of wiretap applications
update participating in terrorist activities, there are many errors

Reference

Maintenance

Grammar

"the the"
"hte"

Terminology

supra
infra
cf
contra
esp
aff'd
rev'd

Lawyering

“First, all prospective lawyers should make themselves intimately familiar with the fundamentals of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning... is based on the act of proving a conclusion by means of two other propositions. Perhaps 90 percent of legal issues can be resolved by deduction, so the importance of understanding this type of reasoning cannot be overstated. Second, students should acquaint themselves with the principles of inductive generalization.” [3]

“Third, reasoning by analogy—another form of inductive reasoning—is a powerful tool in a lawyer’s arsenal. Analogies help lawyers and judges solve legal problems not controlled by precedent and help law students deflect the nasty hypotheticals that are the darlings of professors.”

Defined broadly, deduction is reasoning in which a conclusion is compelled by known facts.

The basic principle of the syllogism is surprisingly straightforward: What is true of the universal is true of the particular.

We start with the basics. To shape a legal issue in the form of a syllogism, begin by stating the general rule of law or widely-known legal rule that governs your case as your major premise. Then, in your next statement, the minor premise, describe the key facts of the legal problem at hand.

If you find yourself having trouble organizing a brief or memo, try shoehorning your argument into this generic model, which is based on the argument made by prosecutors in nearly every criminal case:

Major premise: [Doing something] [violates the law.]

Minor premise: [The defendant] [did something.]

Conclusion: [The defendant] [violated the law.]

Notice that the three parts of a syllogism—the two premises and the conclusion—are themselves built from three units. Logicians call these units “terms.” Two terms appear in each statement: the “major term” in the major premise and conclusion, the “minor term” in the minor premise and conclusion, and the “middle term” in the major and minor premises but not in the conclusion. Notice that the middle term covers a broad range of facts, and that if the conclusion is to be valid, the minor term must be a fact that is included within the middle term. Although the jargon can get confusing, the basic idea isn’t hard to grasp: Each statement in a syllogism must relate to the other two.

Other

x
xx

xxx

2021 Decision

Why bother with these objections to the substantive aspects of today’s opinions if, as I have explained, they will have all the binding effect of a law review article?12 Because the procedural and substantive problems with this case are two peas in the same activist pod.

Judicial restraint is a double victim of today’s tome. The court ignores standing requirements that enforce “the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). And a willingness, even eagerness, to strike down a 43-year-old federal law that continues to enjoy bipartisan support scorns the notion that “declar[ing] an Act of Congress unconstitutional . . . is the gravest and most delicate duty” that federal judges are “called on to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142, 147–48 (1927) (Holmes, J., concurring). Whither the passive virtues? Alexander Bickel, The Supreme Court 1960 Term Foreword: The Passive Virtues, 75 Harv. L. Rev. 40 (1961). Whither the “conviction that it is an awesome thing to strike down an act of the legislature approved by the Chief Executive”? Robert H. Jackson, The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Power Politics 323 (Legal Classics ed. 2000).