1 SIMON CASE WRITING ASSIGNMENT PART TWO (40 OF

3 TRIGESIMONOVENO PERÍODO DE SESIONES EXTRAORDINARIAS DE
30 SEXAGESIMONOVENO PERÍODO ORDINARIO DE SESIONES DE
38 SEXAGESIMONOVENO PERÍODO ORDINARIO DE SESIONES DE

9 OCTOGESIMONOVENO PERÍODO EXTRAORDINARIO DE SESIONES DE
1 SIMON CASE WRITING ASSIGNMENT PART TWO (40 OF
1-Hernandez-Simon-UNMdP-perfil-usuarios

1

Simon Case


WRITING ASSIGNMENT: PART TWO (40% of Course Grade)

Format: Double-spaced, 12 point, one inch margins on all sides. 6-10 pages. Please submit as an email attachment in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, or Rich Text Format. Papers receiving a grade of B+ or better may be posted on the course web site; your name and the actual grade will not be posted. Place your name at the top of the first page, only, and do not place your name in a header or footer. Please title your text file: Ex1-2[initials]. (For example, if I submitted a paper in Word Perfect, the text file would be named Ex1-2CC.wpd.)


Due: Before commencement of class on February11. The paper grade will be reduced by the equivalent of a full letter grade (e.g. A to B, D to F) if submitted late without good cause.


Subject: Address both of the following topics, giving approximately equal weight to each.


Topic One: Supplement or revise your analysis of the first interview conducted in your own subgroup in light of what happened in the second interview of your subgroup and the confidential information provided to lawyers and clients (whether or not used or disclosed in the first or second interview), still citing to specific time marks on the videotape. Confidential information provided for the role other your own is attached. You can also compare your second interview with that of the other subgroup. The videotapes of both second interviews should be available on reserve and on the course web site by 5:00 pm on January 30. I also plan to return your analysis of the first interview with comments by February 4.


Topic Two: In previous simulations of the Simon case all of the following strategies were used by different students playing the lawyer role:


-went over the TV watching story in a neutral way without commenting on its believability

-worked with Simon to tell the TV-story in the most credible way consistent with the other known evidence (including the newspaper article)

-pressed Simon to tell the truth about the TV watching story

-tried to poke holes in the TV watching story

-said the hearing examiner would not believe the TV watching story

-said the lawyer himself/herself did not believe the TV watching story

-said the lawyer would refuse to permit Simon to testify if Simon insisted on telling the TV watching story

-said he or she would withdraw from the case if Simon insisted on telling the TV watching story

-if Simon admitted that the TV watching story was false but insisted on still telling it at the hearing, the lawyer then said to Simon that he/she would have to tell the hearing examiner that Simon had admitted the story was false.


Do you think the way the truth of the alibi was handled (or perhaps even not explored) in your subgroup interview was the right way to handle it? (Cite to specific time codes in the second interview.) By the "right way" I want you to think about (1) the lawyer's legal and moral obligations to the client; (2) the lawyer's role as "an officer of the legal system, and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice" (MR: Preamble [1]); and (c) the lawyer's commitment to his or her own personal integrity. If it was "right," what made it right? If it wasn't "right," or at least not the best way the situation could have been handled, discuss at least one alternative way the lawyer could have handled the situation and explain why you think that would have been a better way.


14 CITAZIONI FILOSOFIA SIMONE WEIL FILOSOFIA SIMONE WEIL
15 FÜGGELÉK SIMONTORNYA VÁROS ÖNKORMÁNYZATA KÉPVISELŐTESTÜLETE 1202009(IX21) SZÁMÚ KT
21 ALBINA SIMONIČ NAVODILA ZA IZDELAVO PISNIH NALOG INTERNO


Tags: assignment, simon, writing