1. Ian Whitcomb, Titanic: Music as Heard on the Fateful Voyage

2. Liesner v. Wanie TRIAL RECORD

3. Phosphorus: Phosphorus: DQ19 (Wanie) Wanie must have argued: L-Boys did not mortally wound wolf L-Boys did not continue pursuit BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?

4. Phosphorus: Phosphorus: DQ19 (Wanie) Wanie must have argued: L-Boys did not mortally wound wolf L-Boys did not continue pursuit BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING? Wanie testimony re wound Earlier pursuit & shots that hit wolf OTHER?

5. ZINC: ZINC: DQ19 (Liesners) Liesners must have argued: L-Boys did mortally wound wolf L-Boys did continue pursuit BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?

6. DQ20: Trial Judge’s Perspective He must believe: –Abdomen shot was mortal wound (“gut shot”; wolf’s behavior) –Only evidence of shot that could have made that wound was Liesner shot (bullet/angle) Keep in Mind –Judge probably had experience with guns & hunting –Judge could see pelt & holes

7. Why No Ratione Soli? Apparently not claimed Maybe: Lawyer’s Mistake or Owner Unaware Maybe: Unowned or unclaimed land or custom to allow hunt Maybe 1st Liesner shot on Liesner land & death on Wanie land

8. PHOSPHORUS: PHOSPHORUS: DQ21 What relevance do the additional facts found in the trial record have for how you should read the appellate opinion?

9. Liesner v. Wanie TRIAL RECORD: Questions?

10. 1902  1908  1914 Brief Musical Interlude

11. Calcium: Shaw Brief

12. Calcium : Shaw Brief STATEMENT OF THE CASE?

13. Calcium : Shaw Brief STATEMENT OF THE CASE? CRIMINAL CASE Government always brings the suit State charged X with [name of crime] Criminal action against X for [name of crime] Relief requested always is incarcera- tion or fines; can leave unstated.

14. Calcium : Shaw Brief STATEMENT OF THE CASE? State charged 3 defendants (including Thomas & Shaw) who removed fish from nets belonging to others with grand larceny.

15. Calcium : Shaw Brief PROCEDURAL POSTURE?

16. Calcium : Shaw Brief PROCEDURAL POSTURE? Thomas was indicted and tried. At the close of the state’s evidence, the Court directed a verdict for Thomas. The state excepted [appealed].

17. Calcium : Shaw Brief FACTS We’ll do next week!

18. Calcium : Shaw Brief ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?

19. Calcium : Shaw Brief ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART? Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendant …

20. Calcium : Shaw Brief ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART? Directed verdict means state’s evidence was insufficient to show the crime. –What did Trial Court think was missing here? –Why did it matter?

21. Calcium : Shaw Brief ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART? Trial Court held that fish caught in nets are not the property of the net- owner if some fish can escape from nets (perfect net rule) What does state say is wrong with Trial Court’s position?

22. Calcium : Shaw Brief ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART? Trial Court held that fish caught in nets are not the property of the netowner when some fish can escape from nets (“Perfect Net Rule”) State says net need not be perfect to create property rights in net-owners.

23. Calcium : Shaw Brief ISSUE: Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendant on the grounds that defendant did not commit grand larceny because owners of nets cannot have property rights in fish found in their nets where the fish can escape from the nets?

24. Discussions of Shaw Next Week FOCUS ON “PERFECT NET RULE” Do our other cases support the rule? Policy arguments for and against the rule. When the Ohio Supreme Court rejects the rule, what does it leave in its place?

25. LIESNER PREVAILING RULE: COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES 1.Actual Possession Likely 2.Actual Possession Practically Inevitable 3.Actual Possession Inevitable

26. COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES 1.Actual Possession Likely 2.Actual Possession Practically Inevitable 3.Actual Possession Inevitable NEON: DQ17: Policies Supporting Choice of #2?

27. COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES 1.Actual Possession Likely 2.Actual Possession Practically Inevitable 3.Actual Possession Inevitable NEON: DQ17: Policies Opposing Choice of #2?