The First Impressions and Apexes of
the Introduction to American Law Program
By Cigdem Yorgancioglu
http://www.cigdemyorgancioglu.org/
How to write a legal memorandum American Style , Fourth Amendment[i] , Fifth Amendment ,10 Commandment of Cross Examination[ii] ,Impeachment of Witness and General Overview of Career of Law School Student, starting from the stage of appication to Law School. Those were the basic outlines of the chapters covered in five days program at Bahcesehir University ,Faculty of Law.
4th AMENDMENT The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The Fourth Amendment's text bans "unreasonable searches and seizures." Define probable cause and Warrant Clause, states the scope of basic requirements for search warrants which they must be supported by an confirmation that establishes probable cause,
5th AMENDMENT No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Prof.Leslie Burton- Çiğdem Yorgancıoğlu
Good Wife - “Probable Cause”
But for now, Castro was still on the preliminary hearing. Judge Morris (Jane Alexander) was skeptical that he was taking over the case, but he powered through, calling Alicia Florrick to the stand. Judge Morris granted the subpoena. But before Alicia could testify, Colin approached her and essentially asked her to lie to keep Renata safe. As it turned out, this was just a plan concocted by Diane; she’s going to ask Alicia about it on the stand and undermine her testimony. The judge decided there wasn’t enough probable cause, so she released Renata.
O.J Simpson “Warrantless search” – “admissibility of evidence” “Reasonable Assumption” “ Exigent circumstances”
As the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is one of the most imperative rights enjoyed by Americans according to the Fourth Amendment., and at times one of the most resented. Reasonable people who would be appalled if the forces burst into their homes and started opening drawers and searching trash bins are frequently less supportive of the amendment when it provides the same protection to people accused of crime. On Simpson case there were pinpoints about the subject with days of testimony and hours of debate among criminal law experts on the admissibility of evidence taken from the home of the accused. It is powerful evidence, and if Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell had not decided as she did previous day to admit it, the public's confusion and resentment might have escalated. The judge was right to take her time in ruling on the defense motion to suppress the evidence, for the events leading to the contested search are complicated. In retrospect, the police officer probably did have time to obtain a warrant, which would have avoided this controversy and polemic. Nevertheless they didn't know that at the time and made a reasonable assumption that bloodstains on Mr. Simpson's car and on the pavement outside his home meant trouble. They testified that they were afraid he might also have been wounded or killed, and that it was imperative that they go inside to discover out without waiting for a warrant. Exigent circumstances are one of the exceptions to the general principle that warrantless searches taint the evidence obtained, and the judge ruled that the exception applied in this case. Her decision is not final, of course, since the same points can be raised later in the consecutive episodes when the case proceeded to trial. But for purposes of deciding whether a trial is justified, the challenged evidence will be considered. Meanwhile the decision would have gone the other direction and significant evidence was kept out because of a defect in the search. That kind of thing happens, and sporadically people go free who might have been convicted if evidence obtained during a tainted search had been admitted. Such outcome is always difficult to accept, but on balance the prohibitions in the law serve the public well. The inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence provides a powerful deterrent to abusive, warrantless searches.
12 Angry Man –- “Beyond a reasonable doubt”.
The movie was a good example “The Art of Effective Persuasion” in terms of convincing other Jurors sounds like a good chapter and title for my next Key Note Speech in the horizon. Anyway, the defense and the prosecution have restored and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young 19 years old Puerto Rican boy grown up at orphanage is on trial for the alleged murder of his father (1 st degree murder) is guilty or innocent .Juror #8 starring Henry Fonda (Mr. Davis-movie ) seems skeptical about the evidence at hand, he didn’t feel well to decide under such uncertainty, cares about justice and is willing to stand up against a mass (11 Juror) to act consistent with what he thinks is right and proper. He demands a thorough deliberation of the facts from each juror before sentencing the boy to death to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reminding decisiveness and fairness of Alpachino on the movie “Justice for All” (1979) and Mat Damon of Rainmaker (1997) based on the dramatization of the John Grisham novel. In the beginning, it was a bit hard to comprehend what Henry Fonda’s (Juror #8) deal was, since he starts kind of gently, saying, "There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first." So at this early point, it sounds like he just wants to talk for a while prior to reach a guilty verdict. Then it doesn't take long before the other jurors start pressing him to give a “Guilty” verdict. They assure him that he'll not be able to change their minds concerning the guilt of the defendant, but he responds by saying, "I don't want to change your mind. I just want to talk for a while. Look, this boy's been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. That's not a very good head start. He's a tough, angry kid. You know why slum kids get that way?" The smart Juror #8 was kind, and a real risk taker. He was aware the power of the leverage in his hand as well “unanimous vote” was must He took his predominant risk of all early in the movie (within first 10 minutes ) when he says, "I want to call for a vote. I want you eleven men to vote by secret ballot. I'll abstain. If there are still eleven votes for guilty, I won't stand alone. We'll take in a guilty verdict right now. “If this vote once again went for a unanimous Guilty verdict, this movie was supposed to be over, and there'd be nothing else to go further Nevertheless Fonda trust in his fellow man pays off, as Juror #9 gives a Not Guilty verdict and puts us all on the path to setting the defendant free. At the end of the movie, Juror #8 has proven himself to be a true conqueror for stranded by his values and having the courage and ability to put them to effort. He eventually gets the jury to find the defendant Not Guilty, and in the process, he avoids sending an innocent 18 year-old kid to jail. He also helps restore our faith in democracy and human decency, which is pretty darn good for a day's work.
It was my pleasure to get introduced to with Prof.Leslie Burton during “Introduction to American Law” Program classes between 24th-28th July 2017 organized by Bahcesehir University Faculty of Law. She has over 20 years of experience as Legal Writing Professor at GGU,(Golden Gate University, School of Law San Francisco, CA ) where She teaches objective and persuasive writing and assist students with professional writing samples. A skilled and experienced writing coach helps lawyers and other professionals achieve clarity, conciseness, and creativity in their legal writing. In addition, she directs an educational program (LLM department), excel at recruiting international students, serve as an academic counselor, travel internationally to recruit LLM students, negotiate exchange agreements with foreign law schools, and plan and assess curriculum. She has taught law classes and legal writing in Prague, Brno, Bavaria, and Istanbul, and administered a comparative law summer program in Paris. Having taught legal writing and US Law Skills in the US and in four countries, including as a Fulbright scholar, she directed a program for international law students for 8 years and has worked with students from every continent. She adapts to diverse learning environments and thrive in a multicultural and diverse community that I personally witnessed during the program at Bahcesehir University. I witnessed how she genuinely cared the audiences with a professional manner during the session. Me as a person who affiliated with watching court cases - criminal justice movies–thrillers, documentaries including forensic sciences approx. 2 hours in a day, have been impressed with the subjects and her presentation. She conjured up the images of the scenery of the several movies in my mind from OJ Simpson cases to Good Wife serials, from 12 Angry Man to Rainmaker, L’Amistad to Fugitive ,from Fried Green tomatoes, L.A.Confidential to Jane Doe Case(The Many of Jane Doe Trial). From Homeland to Prison Break ,From Jagged Edge to Atonmente, from Accused to Kidnapping Mr Heineken and more…which touch the concepts mentioned in the Program, start relating to scenes of the movies with the Fourth Amendment, probation, search, seizure, search warrant, parole, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, routine searches and Fifth Amendment 10th Commandment as well.
In Katz, Charles Katz practices the game theory effectively and a good risk taker who used a public telephone booth to place bets. One of the interesting illustrative issue covered during the Program. The police officer investigating Katz’s activity attached a listening device to the outside of the telephone booth and recorded several of Katz’s calls, which the prosecutor introduced into evidence at trial and subsequently Katz’s was convicted. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction and noted the absence of any physical trespass into the phone booth. The Supreme Court thought otherwise.
Meanwhile the program motivated me to concentrate on preparation of the comparative analyze between the corresponding Turkish Law and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution providing right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and dishonored . In order to that a preliminary study focuses on summarizing the pinpoints of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution first in Turkish Language was being initiated and published. Version 1 https://boun.academia.edu/CigdemYorgancoglu ABD Hukukunda İstisnai Hususlar Mahremiyet Beklentisi ve Daraltilmiş Gizlilik Perspektifi (1) By Çiğdem Yorgancıoğlu http://www.cigdemyorgancioglu.org/article/122/abd-hukukunda-istisnai-hususlar-mahremiyet-beklentisi-ve-daraltilmis-gizlilik-perspektifi-1 Then the consecutive study intended to be focused on the comparative analyze between the two (Turkish- American Codes and Practices)
With special thanks to Bahcesehir University Faculty of Law, Prof.Leslie Burton and Prof Dr. Feridun Yenisey in this regard.
[i] Amendment IV SEARCH AND SEIZURE Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Comments