1. Chapter 3 The U.S. Legal System Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

2. 3-2 Chapter 3 Case Hypothetical Sara Burns cares deeply for her best friend Allison Lefevers, even though she does not care for her timidity. Last month, Allison’s co-worker, Thomas Benfield, informed their supervisor that Allison had wrongfully taken hundreds of dollars from the company’s operational account for her own personal use. After an extensive investigation, the company concluded that Benfield’s allegations were baseless, originating from ill will between the two co-workers. The company allowed Allison to keep her job, and terminated Benfield for his wrongful conduct. Sara has encouraged Allison to pursue a civil action against Benfield for defamation (even though he lost his job, Sara has determined that he is far from “judgment-proof”), but Allison has politely declined, saying that she does not want to “fight the fight.” Frustrated with her friend’s lack of fortitude, Sara plans to file a civil action on behalf of Allison, listing her friend as the plaintiff, and Thomas Benfield as the defendant. Should she recover a judgment in favor of her friend, and should execution on the judgment be successful, Sara will turn any proceeds over to Allison. Can Sara Burns proceed in a civil action against Thomas Benfield on behalf of her friend Allison Lefevers? Why or why not?

3. 3-3 Chapter 3 Case Hypothetical Officer Brian Perkins was having a difficult Monday morning. For the past three hours, he was responsible for “serving process” in three (3) civil cases (As Chapter 3 indicates, service of process is the procedure by which courts present litigation documents to defendants. Those documents typically consist of a complaint, which specifies the factual and legal basis for the lawsuit and the relief the plaintiff seeks, and a summons, a court order that notifies the defendant of the lawsuit and explains how and when to respond to the complaint). For the first civil case, Merriwether v. Alstott, Officer Perkins attempted to serve the defendant Harry Alstott at his home, but no one appeared to be there. For the second civil case, Setliff v. Sanders, the person answering the door claimed the defendant, Marshall Sanders, did not live there, and that he did not even know who Marshall Sanders was. Leaving the premises, Officer Perkins surmised that the residential address indicated on the summons was incorrect. Either that, or the person who answered the door was lying. For his third attempt at service of process that morning, in a lawsuit captioned Jackson v. Graves, Officer Perkins drove to the home of Laticia M. Graves at 721 Magnolia Street. Officer Perkins knocked on the door of the dilapidated house, and although no one answered the door, a second-story window opened almost immediately. A female in the house looked down from her second story vantage point and pointedly asked Officer Perkins, “What do you want?” Officer Perkins responded with a question, “Are you Laticia Graves?,” to which the woman responded, “Yeah. What’s it to you?” Officer Perkins asked the not-so-polite occupant to open the door, to which she responded, “I ain’t comin’ down there, and if you ain’t got a warrant, you ain’t comin’ in.” Frustrated, Officer Perkins replied, “Well, I have civil papers to serve you, ma’am, and if you won’t come down to get them, I’m going to put them in your mailbox.” The response was, “I ain’t comin’ to the door.” Officer Perkins immediately proceeded to the mailbox, and put the complaint and summons in the matter of Jackson v. Graves in the box. The address on the mailbox indicated 721 Magnolia Street. In his notes, Officer Graves wrote that the defendant, Laticia Graves, had been served with process on Monday, September 13, 2010 at 11:47 a.m. As he entered his patrol car, Officer Perkins looked backed at the second-story window from which he had received his impolite greeting. The woman had since closed the window, and was watching his every move. Did Officer Perkins effectively serve process on the defendant, Laticia Graves? Why or why not?

4. 3-4 Chapter 3 Case Hypothetical Defendant Woodson is an African-American male accused of murdering a white female in an apartment burglary. During the jury selection process, Prosecutor Forbes exercises only two peremptory challenges, excusing from service the only two African-Americans in the jury. An all-white jury is eventually empanelled, and Defendant Woodson is convicted of first-degree murder, with life imprisonment imposed as punishment. After the jury verdict is announced, Prosecutor Forbes is questioned by the local media concerning his exercise of the peremptory challenges. Prosecutor Forbes explains that race was not a factor in his decision, but that the two potential jurors were excused “because they have facial hair, and as a matter of practice, I do not want individuals with facial hair serving on my jury.” Further, Prosecutor Forbes states “I categorically deny that race played any factor whatsoever in the jury selection process.” On appeal, should the appellate court: 1) deem Prosecutor Forbes’ actions reversible error, and remand the case to the trial court level to be retried; 2) vacate (nullify) the jury verdict, and dismiss the charges against Defendant Woodson; or 3) allow the conviction to stand? Should prosecutors be allowed to consider race as a factor in the jury selection process? Gender? Age?

5. 3-5 Types of Jurisdiction Original Jurisdiction: The power to hear and decide cases when they first enter the legal system Original Jurisdiction: The power to hear and decide cases when they first enter the legal system Appellate Jurisdiction: The power to review previous judicial decisions to determine whether trial courts erred in their decisions

6. 3-6 Types of Jurisdiction In personam jurisdiction: The power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court In personam jurisdiction: The power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court Subject-matter jurisdiction: The power to hear certain kinds of cases

7. 3-7 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Admiralty cases Admiralty cases Bankruptcy cases Bankruptcy cases Federal criminal prosecutions Federal criminal prosecutions Cases in which one state sues another state Cases in which one state sues another state Claims against the United States Claims against the United States Federal patent, trademark, and copyright claims Federal patent, trademark, and copyright claims Other claims involving federal statutes that specify exclusive federal jurisdiction Other claims involving federal statutes that specify exclusive federal jurisdiction

8. 3-8 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Concurrent Federal and State Jurisdiction Federal question cases Federal question cases Diversity of citizenship cases Diversity of citizenship cases

9. 3-9 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: State Jurisdiction All cases not falling under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction All cases not falling under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

10. 3-10 The Federal Court System The United States Supreme Court The United States Supreme Court Intermediate Courts of Appeal Intermediate Courts of Appeal Federal Trial Courts (U.S. District Courts) Federal Trial Courts (U.S. District Courts)

11. 3-11 State Court Systems State Supreme Courts State Supreme Courts Intermediate Courts of Appeal Intermediate Courts of Appeal State Trial Courts State Trial Courts

12. 3-12 Threshold Requirements for Litigation Standing (to sue) Standing (to sue) Case or Controversy (Justiciable Controversy) Case or Controversy (Justiciable Controversy) Ripeness Ripeness

13. 3-13 Steps in Civil Litigation: The Pretrial Stage Informal Negotiations Informal Negotiations Pleadings Pleadings Service of Process Service of Process Defendant’s Response Defendant’s Response Pretrial Motions Pretrial Motions Discovery Discovery Pretrial Conference Pretrial Conference

14. 3-14 Steps in Civil Litigation: The Trial Jury Selection Jury Selection Opening Statements Opening Statements Examination of Witnesses and Presentation of Evidence Examination of Witnesses and Presentation of Evidence Closing Arguments Closing Arguments Jury Instructions Jury Instructions

15. 3-15 Steps in Civil Litigation: Post-Trial Motions Motion For Judgment In Accordance With Verdict Motion For Judgment In Accordance With Verdict Motion For Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict Motion For Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict Motion For New Trial Motion For New Trial

16. Steps in Civil Litigation: Appellate Procedure 3-16

17. 3-17 Appellate Court Decision-Making Powers Affirmation Affirmation Modification Modification Reversal Reversal Remand Remand