LSTD510 – Constitutional Law: Understanding Constitutional Principles, Judicial Power, and Civil Liberties

Introduction:

LSTD510 – Constitutional Law examines the structure, interpretation, and application of the U.S. Constitution. The course explores key amendments, Supreme Court decisions, and the balance of power between government and individual rights. For expert help with constitutional law essays or case analysis projects, visit Owlisdom’s Law Assignment Help.

LSTD 510 1-1 DISCUSSION: INTRODUCTION

Instructions of LSTD 510 1-1 Discussion: Introduction

W1: Introduction

Welcome to the course! This is your first posting for the course, which must be at least 250 words long.

Please take a moment to:

1. Introduce yourself and tell us about your background; and

2. Articulate your individual student learning goals and/or expectations for this class.

3. Explore the U.S. Supreme Court website, and in particular, examine these sections: 

• Supreme Court at Work
• History and Traditions
• The Supreme Court Building
• Supreme Court Filing Rules

Note at least two points of significance that you found surprising and/or interesting. (The goal here is to learn more about the Court before we examine the Court’s analysis of cases.) How do you think that this new-to-you information might help you to think critically about the Supreme Court’s role in facilitating solutions to complex societal legal problems?

Introductions are due by 11:59 on Sunday and must be at least 250 words. Be sure to respond to three classmates! 

This must be made in the first week of class. It is used to confirm your entry into the course.

Let’s Start LSTD 510 1-1 Discussion

The first assignment is designed to assist you in familiarizing yourself with the U.S. Supreme Court, introduce you to your peers, and provide you with a means to articulate your learning goals for the class, to use the Supreme Court’s official website better to understand how it works and what its traditions and societal role are. This assignment guides critical thinking and analysis of how the Supreme Court can affect the issue of law and society.

1. Introduce yourself and tell us about your background

• Start by providing LSTD 510 1-1 Discussion: Give yourself a brief background. Tell your academic and professional journey and not forget to mention experience or interest in legal studies.

I am excited to be in this amazing course. I have always been interested in legal studies and an excellent understanding of what role the judicial systems play is the impact that the judicial systems have on the social norms and legal reforms. I look into the future with desire to go deeper in academic study, but save the practical view that is the product of my career in law.

2. Articulate your individual student learning goals and/or expectations for this class.

• LSTD 510 1-1 Discussion: Introduction Provide a concise statement of your learning objectives and what you expect to be able to do as a result of this course. This could be enhancing specific skills or achieving greater knowledge in specific areas.

My main objective for this class is to strengthen my critical thinking about judicial decision-making and its repercussions on public policy. I want to achieve a more subtle understanding of the role the Supreme Court plays in creating the legal environment of the US. Furthermore, I can develop my capacity for evaluating complex intellectual arguments on the legal terrain and express these intellectual analyses explicitly.

3. Explore the U.S. Supreme Court website, and in particular, examine these sections: Supreme Court at Work, History and Traditions. The Supreme Court Building Supreme Court Filing Rules.

• Select specified sections of the Supreme Court’s website for you to browse. Exciting facts and significant information to take notes of.
• Sections to Explore:
• Supreme Court at Work
• History and Traditions
• The Supreme Court Building
• Supreme Court Filing Rules

Note at least two points of significance that you found surprising and/or interesting. (The goal here is to learn more about the Court before we examine the Court’s analysis of cases.)

• Write down at least two points that surprised you or that you found particularly interesting. Explain what made LSTD 510 1-1 Discussion Introduction. These points stand out and give details.

I learned the most about the “History and Traditions” sections on the U.S. Supreme Court’s website and “The Supreme Court Building.” I was surprised to read about the ‘Justices’ Conference,’ during which decisions are made without aides and where the tradition of the solemnity and confidentiality of their deliberations is stressed (History and Traditions, n.d.). The Supreme Court Building is equally intrigued by its architectural symbolism, which is intended to represent the ideals of justice and integrity and as a constant reminder of the seriousness and independence of the judicial exercise (The Supreme Court Building, n.d.).

How do you think that this new-to-you information might help you to think critically about the Supreme Court’s role in facilitating solutions to complex societal legal problems? 

• Think about how your understanding of the information you have just learned might affect your opinion of the Supreme Court’s role in dealing with the current legal problems of society. The new knowledge should be discussed into how it can help with critical thinking and analysis. 

One thing this knowledge does is that it gives me an appreciation for the Supreme Court as an institution and as the custodian of the traditions and principles that are the safeguards of its role as a mechanism to resolve difficult legal questions. This insight leads to a firmer belief that understanding how laws are interpreted by the judiciary, which has long served to clarify laws in light of long-standing historical situations, is an important task. It is important to analyse its decisions and their wider societal ramifications critically.

CLOSING

The purpose of participating in the LSTD 510 1-1 Discussion is to have you introduce yourself, share your goals, and critically engage with the course material. This paves the way for a discovery of the function of Judicial Authority in LSTD 510 1-2.

References

History and Traditions. (n.d.). Retrieved June 20, 2024, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/historyandtraditions.aspx

The Supreme Court Building—Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.). https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtbuilding.aspx

PEER RESPONSES

The LSTD 510 course’s discussion posts involve responding to peers. This guide will teach you how to create effective and constructive peer responses that encourage actual participation and helpful advice. You are expected to answer at least three classmates, provide constructive feedback, suggest strategies and justify your recommendations with reason.

Be sure to respond to three classmates!

• First, you acknowledge your peer’s points and give positive feedback. Pick out specific items that you found exciting or informative in their post.
• Offer actionable suggestions on what your only peer can do to level their decision-making processes going forward. Work with their examples or describe the challenges they encountered.
• Give reasons and insights behind your suggestions. The aim is to explain how the mentioned strategies can lessen the risks and enhance the results.

Response 1

It was fascinating to read about your background in environmental law and how that interests you in the regulatory aspects of Supreme Court decisions. It is a great observation about the key place the Court takes in environmental legislation, with landmark cases. Specifically, it reflects the fine line the judiciary walks between legal instruments and ecological protection. You point about how such decisions mold environmental policy does an important service by putting part of the Court’s diverse impact into perspective.

Response 2

Your emphasis on the historical evolution of the Supreme Court as an institution and on the decision-making process of the Court as an institution makes for compelling reading. I liked how you associated the architectural plan of the Supreme Court Building with its symbolism for the presentation of justice. It took this self-reflection to realize how significant every element of the Court is to the public perception of the Court and the judiciary’s sense of what the Court is and what makes it unique. Indeed, this approach will contribute to our analysis of judicial decisions.

Response 3

I share that interest because you are interested in justices’ biographical backgrounds and how that shapes their case perspectives. The “History and Traditions” section demystifies the personal and professional paths that make for their jurisprudence by providing valuable context. This will be great to have and contribute to our conversations around how the jurisprudential philosophies of individual justices play into their rulings – especially as a way of understanding some of the subjective elements that can factor into otherwise ‘objective’ legal interpretations. The human elements of the legal system remind you that you have an approach.

LSTD 510 1-2 JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

Instructions of LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority: Introduction

W1: Judicial Authority

While you should already have a good understanding of judicial review, let’s have a brief review. We know that the concept of judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Rather, it arose from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared one part of a federal law (Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789) to be unconstitutional. 

In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall concluded: “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.”

• Read Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: Article III and VI

• Summarize the scope of the checks and balances that the Executive and/or Legislative Branches of government have available to them relative to the Judicial Branch of government.

• In light of the Supreme Court’s role in the federal government, do you think that it is correctly deemed activist when people disagree with its decisions and restrained when the Court does not take any action to disturb a prior decision or declare a law unconstitutional? Historically, how long has the judicial activism concept existed within the United States? Could judicial activism, if it exists, be a form of checks or balances on either/both the Executive and/or Legislative branches? What does literature in other fields (e.g., political science, public policy, history, etc.) indicate about this question? Either way, if you believe that such activism is a problem, what solutions do you recommend to fix it? How do your proposed solutions fit within the scope of Checks and Balances, if at all?

• Using Nexis Uni, research U.S. Supreme Court cases and locate one case (from within the past ten years) that you believe exemplifies the concept of judicial activism.

• Explain in your own words what the case is about, the Court’s decision (majority, concurring and dissenting), and your argument as to why that case displays the Court’s activism. What did the dissent assert and if the dissent discusses precedent and/or stare decisis, explain this point.

• Do you think that, given the activism, the case’s holding is still aligned with our Constitution? Do you think such activism can erode the doctrine of stare decisis? Why or why not? What is the difference between horizontal stare decisis and vertical stare decisis? Provide your own example(s).

• Given precedent, how would you have decided the case that you chose to summarize? Explain.

• How is your proposed decision hampered or supported by the existing law or practices in the legal field, or political / social climate, etc.? What recommendations do you have to bridge the gap (if any) between what you would like to do in your proposed decision and the existing law, legal practices, and/or climate, etc.? 

• Could technology [including, but not limited tothe use of electronic legal (research or other kinds of) tools and/or social media] help facilitate, or interfere with, the change that you are seeking? How? If you view technology as a problem, then what recommendations do you have for overcoming the challenges that you see, relative to your proposed decision?

Do not offer your personal opinion, but explain how your conclusion is supported by the law or other academic quality resources.

document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function() { // Select the container var container = document.getElementById("instruction_container"); // Get all headings (h2, h3, h4, h5) inside the container var headings = container.querySelectorAll("h2, h3, h4, h5"); // Loop through each heading and replace with p>strong headings.forEach(function(heading) { // Create a new p element var p = document.createElement("p"); // Create a strong element and set its text to the heading's text var strong = document.createElement("strong"); strong.textContent = heading.textContent; // Append the strong element to the p element p.appendChild(strong); // Replace the heading with the new p element heading.parentNode.replaceChild(p, heading); }); });

Introduction to LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority

For this Owlisdom, LSTD 510 1 2 Judicial Authority assignment, you need to have a good grasp of judicial review, specifically, from Articles III and VI of the U.S. constitution and judicial activism. You will analyze checks and balances between the branches of government, research a case before the Supreme Court that exemplifies judicial activism, assessing its conformity with constitutional principles, and the doctrine of stare decisis. The goal of this exercise is to improve your level of critical thinking, as well as your analytical constitutional law skills..

Read Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: Article III and VI

Introduction to Judicial Review and Examination of Articles III and VI

• Read and understand the content of Articles III and VI carefully. Instead concern how they identify the judicial power and supremacy of the Constitution and federal laws.

Example

Marbury v. is most well known for introducing us to judicial review, the preeminent elements of American jurisprudence.. (Marbury v., setting forth the doctrine of the Supreme Court’s power to invalidate federal laws in conflict with the Constitution), 5 U.S. 137, Madison. Madison, n.d.). Although not so much as spelled out in the Constitution, this principle is very consistent with the concept of checks and balances from Articles III and VI. Article III sets forth the judicial when the Supreme Court receives its power from this article and state the jurisdiction in which they hold, including that the Supreme Court serves as the interpreter of the law and enforcer of the Constitution (The Constitution of the United States, 2015). The Constitution, federal laws, declared in Article VI as being the Supreme Law of the nation, that all judges swear an] oath to uphold and that sovereigns any state code in conflict with it.

Summarize the scope of the checks and balances that the Executive and/or Legislative Branches of government have available to them relative to the Judicial Branch of government.

Scope of Checks and Balances Relative to the Judicial Branch

• Explain how the Executive and Legislative sheets check the Judicial sheet. Include their specific (mechanisms) powers they use.

Example

The separation of powers doctrine places great checks on the judiciary belonging to the legislative and executive branches of the United States government. Its power is to form the structure and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which is chiefly the Congress. Among these are the definition of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court as specified by Article III, § 2 of the Constitution, thus leaving the delineation of the kinds of cases the Court may hear to the discretion of Congress. If that is the case Congress is empowered not only to enact constitutional amendments to reverse judicial decisions but to directly alter the legal landscape. The President has a large effect on the judiciary through his role as being responsible for Supreme Court justices' appointments on the executive side. Those appointments require Senate advice and consent, and can result in huge amounts of negotiations and decisions on what the Court's ideological balance and judicial philosophy should be. The power granted under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution to the President to appoint the judges of the United States is an appointment power, and it is this indirect power that indicates the great direct influence that this President carries on the composition, and consequently, on the opinions of the judicial branch.

In light of the Supreme Court’s role in the federal government, do you think that it is correctly deemed activist when people disagree with its decisions and restrained when the Court does not take any action to disturb a prior decision or declare a law unconstitutional? Historically, how long has the judicial activism concept existed within the United States? Could judicial activism, if it exists, be a form of checks or balances on either/both the Executive and/or Legislative branches? What does literature in other fields (e.g., political science, public policy, history, etc.) indicate about this question? Either way, if you believe that such activism is a problem, what solutions do you recommend to fix it? How do your proposed solutions fit within the scope of Checks and Balances, if at all?

Judicial Activism and Its Implications

• Can judicial activism be a form of checks and balances? Discuss it with a historical background. Think about that as if it’s a problem, or find solutions to it.

Example

Judicial activism refers to court cases that are interpreted as literally being too progressive and to the point that they will depart from established legal wisdom. The idea behind this concept has appeared in the U.S. legal discourse as early as the 1940s, when individuals condemned the Supreme Court decisions that widened civil rights and liberties. It is an argument that can be made that judicial activism serves as a check and balance to the other branches' action which may eviscerate constitutional principles. But critics say it potentially eats away at the stability afforded by the doctrine of stare decisis, which maintains the status quo in law. To counter worries about judicial activism, for example, one might suggest a tougher commitment to originalist approaches treating the Constitution or an enhanced intensity in the Senate process for looking at judicial appointments to guarantee a fair proportion of judicial philosophies.

Using Nexis Uni, research U.S. Supreme Court cases and locate one case (from within the past ten years) that you believe exemplifies the concept of judicial activism.

Locating Case Study

• Look for a recent example of judicial activism using Nexis Uni, a Supreme Court case. Make sure the case is within ten years.

Explain in your own words what the case is about, the Court’s decision (majority, concurring, and dissenting), and your argument as to why that case displays the Court’s activism. What did the dissent assert and if the dissent discusses precedent and/or stare decisis, explain this point.

Case Study of Judicial Activism: Obergefell v. Hodges

• Outline the selected case, using LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority to summarize the Court’s decision and your own argument for why it constitutes judicial activism. Add details from the dissent.

Example

In a landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, the United States Supreme Court found that the right to marry constitutes for same sex couples, a fundamental liberty and is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection and due process (Obergeffel, 576 U.S. 669). Many cheered the ruling as a victory of civil rights while others depicted it as judicial activism (Obergefell .) Hodges, n.d.). This usurp [of] of the democratic process is what caused the dissenting justices to argue that decisions about such policies as marriage should be left to the legislature and by the will of the electorate rather than the decision from a judge (Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 689). This division marks the latest round of argument about the role of the judiciary in defining social policy in the United States..

 

Do you think that, given the activism, the case’s holding is still aligned with our Constitution? Do you think such activism can erode the doctrine of stare decisis? Why or why not? What is the difference between horizontal stare decisis and vertical stare decisis? Provide your own example(s).

Stare Decisis and Its Erosion

• In the case LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority, decide if the holding of the case is in accordance with the Constitution and if it affects the doctrine of stare decisis.s. Talk about horizontal and vertical stare decisis with examples.

Example

If judicial activism is allowed, it may threaten the virtue of stare decisis doctrine, that courts should follow precedents to have legal predictability and uniformity. Whereby the previous expression, horizontal stare decisis, the expression imports the means of a court adhering to its previous decisions; by the latter expression, vertical stare decisis, the expression imports how a lower court shall follow the precedent of higher court. Attending to prior decisions by the Supreme Court, such as regarding the First Amendment in Citizens United v., is an example of horizontal stare decisis d uniformity. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its previous decisions, while vertical stare decisis mandates lower courts to follow higher courts’ precedents. An example of horizontal stare decisis is the Supreme Court’s adherence to its earlier decisions regarding the First Amendment in Citizens United v. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310. FEC, n.d.).

Given the precedent, how would you have decided the case that you chose to summarize? Explain.

a. How is your proposed decision hampered or supported by the existing law or practices in the legal field, or political / social climate, etc.? What recommendations do you have to bridge the gap (if any) between what you would like to do in your proposed decision and the existing law, legal practices, and/or climate, etc.? 

b. Could technology [including, but not limited to the use of electronic legal (research or other kinds of) tools and/or social media] help facilitate, or interfere with, the change that you are seeking? How? If you view technology as a problem, then what recommendations do you have for overcoming the challenges that you see, relative to your proposed decision?

Proposed Decision and Technological Implications

• Case Explanation Lstd 510 1 – 2: Judicial Authority: Explain how you would have decided the case given, existing laws, legal practices and the political/public climate.e. Recommend ideas for the bridging the gaps.

Example

If I were to decide Obergefell, I might side with the majority because it comports with developing equal protection and due process.. Legal research tools in technology make available for broader access more legal precedents and scholarly critiques, which support the increasingly informed judicial decisions. But social media’s all pervasive presence can distort public perceptions and judicial independence pressures. Enlarging digital literacy among the judiciary to see and withstand such pressures well.

Conclusion

• Key takeaways from the assignment LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority should be summarized.In the next module of LSTD 510 2-1 Amending the Constitution, highlight the importance of understanding judicial review and activism within the framework of the checks and balances. checks and balances.In the next module of LSTD 510 2-1 Amending the Constitution

Example

Judicial Review The key takeaways of the assignment LSTD 510 1 2: What Judicial Jurisdiction should be about In the next module LSTD 510 2 1: Ammending The Constitution: about the importance of the understanding of judicial review and how it should be taking the shape if checking and balance of the American governance.e. Judicial activism within this framework is a complicated force. It is capable to render great effects such as legal and social changes and to overthrow the traditional explanation and to lead forward into the progressive norms. Yet it also requires a careful relationship with judicial restraint so we don’t end up with too much legal consistency and not enough legal predictability. To help maintain the integrity, public trust and overall goal of fairness we maintain in our legal system, getting this equilibrium of activism and adherence to legal precedents just right is essential. The balance that exists helps the judiciary cope with contemporary issues while honoring the sort of legal structures laid down in the Constitution.

References

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved June 21, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved June 21, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved June 21, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription. (2015, November 4). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

LSTD 510 2-1 AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION

Instructions of LSTD 510 2-1 Amending The Constitution

W2: Amending the Constitution

Women were never mentioned in the federal Constitution. Women are still not mentioned in the Constitution.

In March 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was passed in Congress. Yet, several decades later, the ERA is not an amendment to our Constitution.

• What is the procedure for amending our Constitution? How does this procedure differ from how your state’s constitution can be amended?

• What is the ERA’s current status?

• What did State of Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Idaho 1982) and Virginia v. Ferriero, 525 F. Supp. 3d 36 (D.D.C. 2021) determine regarding Article V of the Constitution and ratification?

• Explore and explain at least one amendment to your state’s constitution (or that of another state if you cannot find an amendment in your home state).

• Reformulate what you have learned so far so that you can set forth:

• your own proposed hypothetical constitutional amendment. Explain why should this be changed or added? What other kinds of laws and policies need to be addressed to ensure that your proposed amendment can be assimilated properly into the body of American law? What are you ultimately trying to accomplish, and why?

• the specific language that you want to see in the altered amendment. What problems can your proposed language solve? What problems could it worsen — or create?

• Could technology [including, but not limited tothe use of electronic legal (research or other kinds of) tools and/or social media] help facilitate, or interfere with, the legal change that you are seeking? How? If you view technology as a problem, then what recommendations do you have for overcoming the challenges that you see, relative to your proposed constitutional amendment?

Do not offer your personal opinion, but explain how your conclusion is supported by the law or other academic quality resources. 

Introduction to LSTD 510 2-1 Amending the Constitution

In LSTD 510 2-1 Amending The Constitution course of Owlisdom, I mostly spoke about the process and the challenges of U.S. Constitution amendment using Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as a case study. In this assignment, you will informally investigate the constitutional amendment process, identify significant legal cases on the ERA, and discuss which of the 36 state constitutional amendments addressing the ERA is most preferable. This exercise is meant to increase your knowledge on constitutional law as well as what determines legal change.

What is the procedure for amending our Constitution? How does this procedure differ from how your state’s constitution can be amended?

Procedure for Amending the Constitution

Describe the LSTD 510 2-1 Amending The Constitution procedures for amending the U.S. Constitution as per Article V, and compare this to establishing amendment procedures for your State’s constitution.

Example

Article V gives us the United States Constitution can be changed by an arduous process. However, two-thirds of Congress must propose an amendment or Congress can call a national convention on the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. The amendment may be proposed either by the legislature or by a convention of the people of at least two-thirds of the several states, whose enactment may be confirmed by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states or by conventions in three-fourths of the several states. As proposal and ratification entail the dual process, they allow for a broad consensus to be hidden with them while preventing changes being made to the Constitution until after a broad consensus reflecting the federal structure and diversity of interests in the different states.

In contrast, the processes for amending state constitutions have been easier, and therefore easier to manipulate, including allowing such an amendment via the state legislature for a lower hurdle than does the federal process which requires adoption by the public in a public referendum following ratification by a simple majority vote. The California Constitution is a good example: Changes to the Constitution can be made with a two thirds vote of the state legislature and a majority of the people or a public initiative form.

What is the ERA’s current status?

Current Status of the ERA

Examine the LSTD 510 2 1 Amending the Constitution’s equal rights amendment from the fact that it passed congress down to the different ratification attempts.

Example

In 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was passed through Congress, though never ratified in the Constitution, to insure all American citizens equal legal rights irrespective of sex. First introduced in 1967 with a seven year countdown, followed by extension until 1982 and not obtaining ratification by at least a three fourths of the state legislatures before the deadline (Zarrella, 2023). So, 38 states signed on and 38 ratified, though adoption and legal and political controversies remain, including those involving rescissions and the deadline.

What did State of Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D.Idaho 1982) and Virginia v. Ferriero, 525 F. Supp. 3d 36 (D.D.C. 2021) determines Article V of the Constitution and ratification.

Legal Determinations Regarding the ERA

Review the LSTD 510 2-1 Amending The Constitution decisions made in State of Idaho v. Freeman and Virginia v. Ferriero and the ERA and Article V of the Constitution.

Example

Freeman (1982) and Virginia v. Ferriero (2021) help explain some of the legal challenges that surround the ERA’s ratification. In Freeman, the court stated that states can withdraw their ratification of a particular federal amendment before achieving the required number of ratified states. The court held that states can rescind their ratification of a federal amendment before reaching the necessary ratification threshold. Conversely, Virginia v. Ferriero brought the discussion to the present outcomes of the ERA ratification process, such as whether the archivist should recognize the ERA as ratified even though the deadline has passed (Suk, 2021). The court did not force the archivist to certify, thus reflecting further controversies concerning the statutory requirements of Article V of the Constitution.

Explore and explain at least one amendment to your state’s constitution (or that of another state if you cannot find an amendment in your home state).

State Constitutional Amendment

Discuss LSTD 510 2-1 Amending The Constitution and describe at least one amendment to your state’s constitution or another state if that is the case.

Example

State constitutions have been amended many times; this is evidence of their flexibility as compared with the federal Constitution. For example, Proposition 8, put forward in 2008, made a Proposition that amended the state constitution and banned same sex marriage (Stephens, 2020). But then federal courts later found it unconstitutional, showing the way in which state and federal legal frameworks dovetailed and balanced one another in the U.S. legal system.

Reformulate what you have learned so far so that you can set forth: a. your own proposed hypothetical constitutional amendment. Explain why this should be changed or added. What other kinds of laws and policies need to be addressed to ensure that your proposed amendment can be assimilated properly into the body of American law? What are you ultimately trying to accomplish, and why?

Proposed Hypothetical Constitutional Amendment

Present the LSTD 510 2 1 Amending The Constitution rationale for your proposed amendment explaining the problems it will resolve and its outcomes.

Example

Since the complexity provoked by the ratification debates of the ERA, a suggested hypothetical amendment is serving to shed light on the ratification process of constitutional amendments. The amendment shall provide that when, during the period within which the legislative process is complete, a constitutional amendment is proposed by Congress, ratification shall occur within such period, and rescission of ratification by any state shall take place within that period. This would permit same measure as far as streamlining the amendment of the country’s constitution and ensure clarity and efficiency.

b. the specific language that you want to see in the altered amendment. What problems can your proposed language solve? What problems could it worsen — or create?

Proposed Amendment Language

Specific language for a proposed amendment in the LSTD 510 2-1 Amending The Constitution.

Example

“When an amendment to this Constitution has been proposed, all the States shall be divided into three Classes, as nearly as may be equal. Ratification can only be rescinded during these ten years. Nevertheless, a subsequent amendment ‘may only provide’ for extending this period.”

The language addresses problems of prolonged uncertainty and legal ambiguity in the amendment process. Yet it poses a challenge of setting time limits, potentially placing inordinate pressure on states to act on a hurried basis without full public discourse.

Could Technology [Including, But Not Limited To, The Use Of Electronic Legal (Research Or Other Kinds Of) Tools And/Or Social Media] Help Facilitate Or Interfere With The Legal Change That You Are Seeking? How? If You View Technology As A Problem, Then What Recommendations Do You Have For Overcoming The Challenges That You See Relative To Your Proposed Constitutional Amendment?

Role of Technology in Legal Change

Explore LSTD 510 2-1 Amending The Constitution, discuss how technology can be used to aid or make it difficult to realize your proposed amendment, and make suggestions on how to overcome possible difficulties.

Example

There is a great ability for technology, and particularly digital platforms and social media to shape the discourse surrounding constitutional amendments. They provide unprecedented opportunity for education, advocacy and support mobilization. But they also spread misinformation and provoke polarisation in debates. To address these challenges, however, digital literacy programs, and fact-checking mechanisms should be boosted, so that discussions about constitutional reforms stay well-informed and constructive.

Conclusion

In the assignment about LSTD 510 2 1 Amending The Constitution, summarize the key takeaways and briefly state why it is essential to understand the amendment process and what political consequences may result.

In the next module of LSTD 510 2-2, Research Paper Preparation

The process of amending the Constitution is a delicate balancing act between a need to establish stable governance, and to be able to continuously adapt to ever changing societal values. The implementation of a fast track for the ratification process brought into being by logical usage of technology and strong legal systems is intended to facilitate smooth and where possible, systematic constitutional amendments. The initiative marks the continuing evolution of American constitutional law in the shadow of both history and future opportunities.

References

Stephens, B. (2020). Where Were the States? Same-Sex Marriage Before Obergefell. In D. N. Farris & A. J. J. Bourque (Eds.), International Handbook on the Demography of Marriage and the Family (Vol. 7, pp. 273–284). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35079-6_18

Suk, J. C. (2021). The Equal Rights Amendment, Then and Now. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3841112

Zarrella, L. (2023). Is the Equal Rights Amendment “Lost?”: A Contemporary Analysis of the ERA. Bellarmine Law Society Review, 13(1), 9–25.

LSTD 510 2-2 RESEARCH PAPER PREPARATION

Instructions for LSTD 510 2-2 Research Paper Preparation

Background

In Week 8, you must submit a formal research paper (8 pages). Your paper needs to analyze the jury selection process and its relationship to both (a) Constitutional law, and (b) an allied field (e.g., education, history, law enforcement, public administration, public policy, psychology, sociology, technology, etc.). By definition, then, you will be required to address the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees a defendant the right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury.

Within your research paper, you must discuss:

• Peremptory challenges

• Challenge for cause

• Whether jurors may testify about their deliberations in the event of possible racial or ethnic bias.

• Racial or ethnic bias

• Whether virtual jury trials comply with the fairness and impartiality goals of the Sixth Amendment.

• You may also address other subtopics that relate to the allied field required component.

For this assignment, due in Week 2:

• Research existing case law to analyze how the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in an effort to achieve the Sixth Amendment’s chief goal.

• Analyze at least four cases (three of which must be from 1990 to the present). Make sure that all of your cases are still good law.

• Research at least five law review or other academic quality journal articles regarding criminal jury selection and the Sixth Amendment.

• Identify the four cases and five law review / other academic journal articles that you intend to use in your research paper. (You will be able to collect more resources throughout the course.)

• Explain in detail how you determined that the cases you will use are still good law and likely to be of value to you as you construct your research paper.

• Given the required topic and its components:

• What is your thesis statement? What do you plan to prove or illustrate in your research paper? 

• Outline your intended plan to research, analyze, and synthesize what you learn in order to build your research paper. What tools do you expect to use? What criteria will you use to assess relevance, currency, authority, accuracy, purpose, audience and/or ideological perspective, etc. for your research project?

Note: You must approach this research project objectively; let what you learn through your research and analytical efforts guide you to the actual answers to the question(s) raised in or by your thesis statement. But that does not prevent you from identifying what you wish to explore within your research paper; that is what your thesis statement should address.

To aid you in your task: Watch this brief video created by the legal studies librarian to introduce you to Nexis Uni and its legal resources: Introduction to Nexis Uni: Basic Tips for APUS Legal Studies Students. This tour shows students how to access Nexis Uni, find specific cases, locate different legal research materials (including law review articles), and Shepardize cases.

I to LSTD 2-2 Research Paper Preparation

The assignment LSTD 510 2-2 Research Paper Preparation, you have to prepare a formal research paper on the analysis of the jury selection process as regards to constitutional law as well as an allied field, for instance, psychology or technology. You will examine peremptory and challenges for cause, racial or ethnic bias, the Sixth Amendment, and the impact of virtual jury trials. This guide will walk you step by step through research, analysis, and synthesis of information for your paper.

Research existing case law to analyze how the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in an effort to achieve the Sixth Amendment’s chief goal. a. Analyze at least four cases (three of which must be from 1990 to the present). Make sure that all of your cases are still good law.

Research and Case Law Analysis

• In this research paper, we research and analyze the LSTD 510 2-2 Research Paper Preparation four Supreme Court cases that deal with the jury selection process and ensure that the three are dated from the year 1990 to the present.

Example

In order to examine jury selection process in relation to constitutional law and its intersection with psychology and technology, I will analyze of key Supreme Court cases which show how the jury selection practices have changed and what is the state is now. The following cases have been identified for their relevance and recency, ensuring they reflect the current legal landscape:

• Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986): Establishes that peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors based solely on race.

• J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994): Extends the principles of Batson to gender discrimination.

• Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017): Allows jury deliberations to be examined when evidence indicates racial bias influenced the verdict.

• Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016): Reaffirms Batson by demonstrating the continued relevance of race in jury selection decisions.

Research at least five law review or other academic-quality journal articles regarding criminal jury selection and the Sixth Amendment.

Academic Sources and Journal Articles

• Review at least five law review or other academic journal articles regarding criminal jury selection and the Sixth Amendment, and find and review LSTD 510 2-2 Research Paper Preparation.

Example

Detailed review of law reviews and other academic journals on the specific procedures and constitutional issues in the actual processes of jury selection is also part of the research. The following five sources have been selected for their depth of analysis and academic rigour:

• A Fair and Impartial Trial Free from Racial Discrimination Will Require an Across-the-Board Approach”: Systemic Reforms Still Needed in Light of the “Other” Racial Justice Jury Trial Rulings in State v. Veal & State v. Williams.

• Virtual Reality: Prospective Catalyst for Restorative Justice

• Implicit Bias and Antidiscrimination Policy

• Online Courts: Bridging the Gap between Access and Justice

• The Constitutional Right to Peremptory Challenges in Jury Selection

Explain in detail how you determined that the cases you will use are still good law and likely to be of value to you as you construct your research paper.

• Select the LSTD 510 2-2 Research Paper Preparation, four cases and five academic articles you will use. Check that these cases are still good law with a little help from legal research tools such as LexisNexis.

Eample

I then used the legal research platform LexisNexis to make certain that these cases still stood as good law, looking to see if any laws had conclusively overruled or drastically skewed them. Their continued (and frequent) citation in recent law review articles confirms that their applicability in today’s legal discourse remains strong.

The reason this list has been made is that articles have been chosen based on date of publication, meaning they are all very up to date and provide the latest perspectives. Academic rigour and authority are guaranteed by publication in reputable law reviews. The relevance of each article to the top key topics, peremptory challenges, racial and gender bias, and the effect of technology on the fairness of jury trials was vetted.

What is your thesis statement? What do you plan to prove or illustrate in your research paper?

Developing a Thesis Statement

• Construct a thesis statement for your project that LSTD 510 2-2 Research Paper Preparation will solve..

Example

The effect of contemporary challenges to the jury selection process, such as peremptory challenges, challenges for cause, and the integration of technology in court proceedings, on the ability of the jury selection process to protect the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a fair trial is discussed. The goal of this research is to investigate how these elements interact with the constitutional mandates and social variables in the fields of psychology and technology to affect the integrity and impartiality of jury trials.

Outline your intended plan to research, analyze, and synthesize what you learn to build your research paper. What tools do you expect to use? What criteria will you use to assess relevance, currency, authority, accuracy, purpose, audience, and/or ideological perspective, etc., for your research project?

Research Methodology and Tools

• For law research, use legal databases LexisNexis and Westlaw, and for accessing peer-reviewed articles, JSTOR and Google Scholar are good academic databases.

Example

Legal databases, including LexisNexis and Westlaw will be used for case law research and academic bibliographic databases such as JSTOR, Google Scholar for peer-reviewed articles. Criteria of relevance to the thesis, currency of the data, authority of the publication or author, and accuracy of the information will be applied for the assessment of sources, to ensure a balanced view of the issues, including the ideological perspective.

Synthesis and Analysis

• Combine case law findings with academic articles to provide an all encompassing analysis. Learn about LSTD 510 2-2 Research Paper Preparation on how psychological and technological insights affect jury selection biases and virtual trials.

Example

The research will synthesize findings made both in case law and in academic articles in order to reach a comprehensive picture of how jury selection addresses the challenges resulting from societal changes and technological advancements. In particular, the analysis will consider how psychological and technological insights can project knowledge about biases in jury selection and what role virtual trials can play in maintaining or interfering with the goals of the Sixth Amendment.

Conclusion

• Summarize key points from your research on your LSTD 510 2-2 Research Paper Preparation. First, emphasize the idea that it is crucial to know how the jury selection system is working to have fair trials as required by the Constitution in the next part module of LSTD 510 3-1 EQUAL PROTECTION

Example

Approaching this research objectively offers the intent of offering a well-rounded and balanced view of the status of jury selection and its effectiveness at providing a trial that complies with that commanded in the Constitution. The ultimate aim is to isolate points to which more legal reform may be needed, or where additional safeguards against integrity should be found to protect the integrity of the jury system.

References

Bloch, K. E. (2021). Virtual reality: Prospective catalyst for restorative justice. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 58, 285.

Gawronski, B., Ledgerwood, A., & Eastwick, P. W. (2020). Implicit Bias and Antidiscrimination Policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732220939128

Gras, I. O. (2021). Online courts: Bridging the gap between access and justice. UCLJLJ, 10, 24.

Jolly, R. L. (2024). The Constitutional Right to Peremptory Challenges in Jury Selection. Vanderbilt Law Review, 77. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4743424

LSTD 510 3-1 EQUAL PROTECTION

Instructions of LSTD 510 3-1 Equal Protection

W3: Equal Protection

In 1971, the Supreme Court concluded in Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971) that an Idaho law that discriminated against women was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Before this case, no court had ever made such a ruling. Two other key Fourteenth Amendment cases from the 1970s concerned jury duty for women: Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) and Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979).

Given those cases, apply what you have learned to this hypothetical situation regarding your law firm’s client, Keiko.

Keiko and her husband TJ jointly own a farm and home in Utah. A law in their home state grants husbands the authority to sell the property without the wife’s consent. That law (Utah Code 987.zyx) provides:

“The husband is the head and master of the partnership or community of assets (property and money); the husband can sell and use the revenue which any asset produces, without the consent and permission of his wife.”

Keiko recently left TJ because he was verbally and physically abusive to her and their minor son, Buddy.

Your supervising attorney (Willy Free, under his signature) has asked you to write the first draft of a client letter to Keiko. Within that letter, please address all of the following: 

• TJ decided that the farm was no longer profitable and decided to sell the property. Can he do so without Keiko’s consent?

• In what types of cases will the court use a strict scrutiny analysis, an intermediate scrutiny analysis, or a rational basis review? Which level review is appropriate for Keiko’s case?

•  Apply a Fourteenth Amendment legal analysis to determine whether this law is constitutional. Research other cases to support your analysis. What was the court’s approach and reasoning regarding equal protection? How do you think that it applies to Keiko and TJ’s situation? Based on your analysis, do you think that Keiko should pursue litigation? If she does not want to litigate, what other solutions are possible?

• Shepardize one of the cases noted above and find a subsequent case to support your analysis and conclusion. (Identify which of the three cases that you Shepardized, as well as the facts, and holding of the new case you found.)

• After you conclude the letter to Keiko, address the following:

• What are the implications of what you have learned as a result of analyzing this hypothetical scenario and its relationship to the historical evolution of Fourteenth Amendment law? (As you reflect on this, consider especially legal and societal perspectives within their respective historical contexts, not applying a modern lens to older time periods. But you can use the old points of view to make informed reasoning within the contemporary contexts.) 

• What challenges did you discover, including how society was, is, or could be affected? How have or could the challenges be overcome? Has (or can) technology be used to make improvements? Why or why not?

document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function() { // Select the container var container = document.getElementById("instruction_container"); // Get all headings (h2, h3, h4, h5) inside the container var headings = container.querySelectorAll("h2, h3, h4, h5"); // Loop through each heading and replace with p>strong headings.forEach(function(heading) { // Create a new p element var p = document.createElement("p"); // Create a strong element and set its text to the heading's text var strong = document.createElement("strong"); strong.textContent = heading.textContent; // Append the strong element to the p element p.appendChild(strong); // Replace the heading with the new p element heading.parentNode.replaceChild(p, heading); }); });

 

Step-By-Step Guide and Introduction to LSTD 510 3-1 Equal Protection

This Owlisdom, LSTD 510 3-1, is an equal protection assignment dealing with legal advice for a client in the context of a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection analysis. In this case, students are presented with a fact pattern in which a state law gives a husband the right to sell marital property without the wife’s consent. You will learn about the key legal principles underlying scrutiny levels, relevant case law, and legal strategy. However, this guide will assist you in structuring your research and analysis.

TJ decided that the farm was no longer profitable and decided to sell the property. Can he do so without Keiko’s consent?

Understanding the Legal Scenario

• Can TJ sell the property without Keiko’s consent under Utah Code 987. zyx? Discuss the issue of Equal Protection in LSTD 510 3-1.

Example

I pray that you are well. I know how hard that is so I want to give you comprehensive legal advice in that regard related to you and TJ with your farm.

Under the current Utah Code 987. zyx, in theory TJ can sell the farm without your consent because, under the current Utah Code, a husband can control and dispose of community property alone. It appears, however, that this provision would be in conflict with hard-won principles set out in many landmark cases, including Reed v. with comprehensive legal advice regarding your situation with TJ and the ownership of your farm

In what types of cases will the court use a strict scrutiny analysis, an intermediate scrutiny analysis, or a rational basis review? Which level review is appropriate for Keiko’s case?

Scrutiny Levels in Equal Protection Cases

• Describe the LSTD 510 3-1 Equal Protection levels of scrutiny and which level of scrutiny applies to the case of Keiko.

Example

Equality cases heard by courts when applying the Equal Protection Clause are evaluated according to one or the other of the three scrutiny levels (rational basis, intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny), determined by the nature of the defined classification. Gender based classifications, however, typically receive intermediate scrutiny, which means that the government has to show that it has a significant government interest that is served only by a way that is substantially related to that interest. Were your circumstances to prompt such scrutiny, it would find it justifably supported by the state statute you are drawing constitutional red lines about.

Apply a Fourteenth Amendment legal analysis to determine whether this law is constitutional. Research other cases to support your analysis. What was the court’s approach and reasoning regarding equal protection? How do you think that it applies to Keiko and TJ’s situation?

Fourteenth Amendment Legal Analysis

• Study and discuss of Fourteenth Amendment LSTD 510 3-1 Equal Protection relevant research cases.

Example

When looking at the Fourteenth Amendment, there are similar cases that indicate the law with which you are concerned may well be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that it does not accede to gender classification without reason, and this principle was extended in cases such as Craig v.nal. In Reed v. Reed, the Supreme Court rejected arbitrary gender-based distinctions, and this principle was further supported in cases like Craig v. Boren. Additionally, in Taylor v. The United States Supreme Court in Taylor v. Louisiana, 1979, decided that to exclude women systematically from serving on the jury deprived the defendant of a right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Louisiana, n.d.). Furthermore, in Duren v. In Missouri, the Court declared a statute that resulted in striking women from juries and, therefore, left women underrepresented on juries as unconstitutional (Duren v. Missouri, n.d.). Thus, it is possible to conclude what enables these decisions Utah Code 987. As such, ZYX may not be compliant with the constitution as it provides for differential treatment based on gender.

 

Based on your analysis, do you think that Keiko should pursue litigation? If she does not want to litigate, what other solutions are possible?

Applying Case Law to Keiko’s Situation

• Using the LSTD510 3-1 Equal Protection from the researched cases, analyze the constitutionality of Utah Code 987. zyx.

Example

In fact, taking a step back to look at this analysis, if TJ were to actually go ahead and sell the farm without your consent, pursuing any sort of litigation might actually be a realistic option. The courts may feel this law is outdated and discriminatory, and will advocate for your rights to equal treatment and decision-making when it comes to marital property. Litigation is just too daunting; alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, will often offer an alternative. If you give it a chance, it might offer a way to tackle your just claims to the property so that you get a settlement in a way that does not involve a fight with TJ.

Shepardize one of the abovementioned cases and find a subsequent case to support your analysis and conclusion. (Identify which of the three instances you Shepardized and the facts and holding of the new case you found.)

Shepardizing Cases

• Shepard’s Citations to LSTD 510 3-1 Equal Protection should be used to give you a further case to support your conclusion.

Example

After Reed v., I have reviewed subsequent cases.To do this, Reed ensures our approach aligns with the most current legal standards. Finally, (Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 2017) reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s position that laws imposing gender based distinctions must be subject to a stringent scrutiny standard, and recent arguments against Utah Code 987.zyx used this case to bolster their position.

What are the implications of what you have learned as a result of analyzing this hypothetical scenario and its relationship to the historical evolution of Fourteenth Amendment law? (As you reflect on this, consider especially legal and societal perspectives within their respective historical contexts, not applying a modern lens to older time periods. But you can use the old points of view to make informed reasoning within the contemporary contexts.)

Implications and Reflections

• Examine the historical development of Fourteenth Amendment law and LSTD 510 3-1 Equal Protection and how it flowed into gender equality.

Example

Considering this situation and the historic development of Fourteenth Amendment law it is clear how essential the judicial interpretation has been in the furthering of gender equality. The once fluid ideas about gender roles, now renders them as rigid and fixed in older versions, but in the modern versions, any legal distinction based on gender, unless for a rigorous reason, is a show of unfair treatment. This is where the difficulty lies in taking these legal precedents and putting them into daily practice — it also shows there is a resistance to change and it’s very hard to uproot entrenched biases. Gender roles historically have been viewed, too often, through a lens that envisioned unequal treatment as justified, but modern legal interpretations are slowly remaking these norms into demands for equality and fairness.

What challenges did you discover, including how society was, is, or could be affected? How have or could the challenges be overcome? Has (or can) technology be used to make improvements? Why or why not?

Challenges and Solutions

• Discuss LSTD 510 3-1 Equal Protection challenges and their potential solutions, and the role of technology.

Example

But technologically, there is a supportive role to be played in overcoming these challenges by platforms that raise awareness, educate on legal rights, and facilitate access to legal resources. Virtual legal consultation and online support groups are good examples of such important support and empowerment. But we have to be careful at the same time to be not just reliant on technology, … but also to make sure that the digital tools we’re using are accessible and are reaching those people who are the most in need of empowerment and support. But it’s paramount that we overcome the digital divide, and use technology ethically and inclusively.

Conclusion

Recall the main points of LSTD 510 3-1 Equal Protection and why is equal protection critical in avoiding discriminating against women and girls? If you ever choose to dispute the applicability of Utah Code 987? zyx in the following module of LSTD 510 4-1, US Constitution And The States Should, you will be able to have our great team ready for a legal representation with appealing and reasonable arguments supported by legal precedent. Presentation, drawing on precedent and advocating for a fair and just interpretation of the law in line with constitutional protections. Kindly communicate to us your preferred action plan therefore the right process can be initiated.

References

Billy J. Taylor, Appellant, v. State of LOUISIANA. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved June 22, 2024, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/419/522

Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979). (n.d.). Findlaw. Retrieved June 22, 2024, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/439/357.html

Sally M. Reed, Appellant, v. Cecil R. Reed, Administrator, etc. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved June 22, 2024, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/404/71

Sessions v. Morales-Santana. (2017). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1191_2a34.pdf

LSTD 510 4-1 US CONSTITUTION AND THE STATES

Instructions of LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution And The States

W4: US Constitution and the States

What if a state passes a law that some believe conflicts with federal law?

The Eighth Amendment provides: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

With respect to the death penalty, you may recall that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution do not permit the execution of a person with an intellectual disability. Review Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002).

Yet, how do we know when a person has an intellectual disability? What level of intellect does a person have to have so as to permit the use of the death penalty?

Your client, Buddy Bluebook, 24 years old, was convicted of killing his employer after his employer informed Buddy that Buddy was fired. When Buddy worked at the company, Buddy delivered the mail within the company as well as took the mail to the post office on behalf of the company. A non-profit organization that helps adults with intellectual disabilities contacted the company to secure Buddy the mail delivery job.

The state in which Buddy lives recently enacted a new law that permits the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities. The state’s prosecutor seeks to execute Buddy. Buddy’s attorney argues that, given Atkins, Buddy cannot be executed.

The state law at issue provides that if: (a) the person convicted of murder scored above 75 on an IQ test; (b) a trial court concluded that the crime required forethought, planning, and complex execution; and (c) at least three lay witnesses could testify that the defendant was not intellectually disabled, then he could be executed.

Buddy scored a 76 on the IQ test. Buddy was physically and mentally abused as a child, and attended school until the ninth grade.

• Can Buddy be executed? What major theories or practices from allied fields (e.g., education, healthcare, public policy, psychology, sociology, etc.) are advanced about determining the extent of intellectual disabilities? How can such data be used in Buddy’s legal case, whether by the prosecution or the defense?

• What does your state provide regarding the death penalty? How does it compare to the Eighth Amendment? Be sure to carefully review whether your home state is still enforcing the death penalty. Provide data about how the residents of this state feel about whether it still enforces the death penalty or not.

• If you could change the Eighth Amendment, set forth how you would alter it so that it can be clearer regarding what is “cruel and unusual” punishment.

• Document how and why you would do so, and articulate how these elements influenced the specific language that you chose for your proposed change.

• Assess the significance of your proposed change in light of the major debates or developments that you have analyzed in this Discussion. 

document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function() { // Select the container var container = document.getElementById("instruction_container"); // Get all headings (h2, h3, h4, h5) inside the container var headings = container.querySelectorAll("h2, h3, h4, h5"); // Loop through each heading and replace with p>strong headings.forEach(function(heading) { // Create a new p element var p = document.createElement("p"); // Create a strong element and set its text to the heading's text var strong = document.createElement("strong"); strong.textContent = heading.textContent; // Append the strong element to the p element p.appendChild(strong); // Replace the heading with the new p element heading.parentNode.replaceChild(p, heading); }); });

Step-By-Step Guide: LSTD 510 4-1 – US Constitution and the States

This LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution and The States assignment entails a consideration of a scenario whereby state law violates federal law insofar as it prohibits the execution of mentally disabled persons. You will use the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and outline important cases and theories with emphasis on related disciplines to your reasoning. It aims to give a reasonable legal justification for the unconstitutionality of the state’s actions.

Can Buddy be executed?

• LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution And The States: Analyze after the precedent set by Atkins v., is Buddy able to be executed under the state’s new law. Virginia.

Example

The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause states that when state law conflicts with federal law, federal law wins out. This principle is terribly important in the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments provision, especially so in cases in which the death penalty is sought and the defendant has an intellectual disability.

In Atkins v. In Atkins v. Virginia, U.S. Sup. Ct. 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that providing for the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities offended the Eighth Amendment proscription of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. Virginia., n.d.). We now require an intellectually accurate framework to cope with the landmark decision. These criteria frequently include IQ tests (e.g., one of these sits at about an IQ below 70-75 as indicating disability) and the assessment of adaptive behavior and skill, and an assessment that these must be significantly limited in the conceptual, social, and practical domains (of the Achievable Scales; Fletcher & Miciak, 2024).

Buddy’s IQ score 76 is close to the standard cut-off, making his classification difficult. While they do, adaptive behavior assessments and indications of his intellectual and developmental challenges over his lifetime, such as his history of abuse and education, are critical. The criteria listed under the state law take no account of the continuum of intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior; this includes an IQ score above 75. The narrow focus could be criticized as incompatible with Atkins, in that Knoxville claims the latter requires a greater overall evaluation of the intellectual disability.

What major theories or practices from allied fields (e.g., education, healthcare, public policy, psychology, sociology, etc.) are advanced in determining the extent of intellectual disabilities? How can such data be used in Buddy’s legal case, whether by the prosecution or the defense?

Major Theories or Practices from Allied Fields

• Present LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution And The States theories of psychology and sociology of how intellectual disabilities should be assessed as they apply in Buddy’s legal case.e.

Example

Understanding the multifaceted nature of intelligence and adaptive functioning is an application of major theories from psychology and sociology used by psychologists to assess what constitutes intellectual disability. These disciplines promote the integration of evaluation that includes environmental, genetic and social factors affecting the cognitive and adaptive skills. The insights also have implications for legal discourse on individuals such as Buddy who, based on intellectual capacity and life history, are likely impaired.

What does your state provide regarding the death penalty? How does it compare to the Eighth Amendment? Be sure to carefully review whether your home state is still enforcing the death penalty. Provide data about how the residents of this state feel about whether it still enforces the death penalty or not.

State Laws and the Eighth Amendment

• Compare LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution And The States regarding the death penalty with your state’s provisions to the Eighth Amendment. Give data on how you state’s public feels about the death penalty.

Example

When it comes to the death penalty, many states (and my hypothetical home, California), have taken such things as the abolition of, or moratorium on capital punishment. Therefore, for example, California has not executed anyone since 2006; in 2019, the governor ordered a moratorium on executions (Haberman, 2022). The stance comes as residents become increasingly uncomfortable with the death penalty, akin to a national trend that has increasingly turned against the death penalty, to be replaced with life without parole.

These state-level trends away from the death penalty are consistent with the Eighth Amendment’s nearly proscriptive ban on cruel and unusual punishments, which compares to broad standards of decency as well as more human rights based approaches of criminal justice.

If you could change the Eighth Amendment, set forth how you would alter it so that it can be clearer regarding what is “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Proposed Changes to the Eighth Amendment

• Argue how the LSTD 510 4-1 US Constitution And The States Eighth Amendment needs to be proposed and clarified to the current standards, dictating as to what is considered ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment.

Example

To clarify what constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishments and ensure consistent application across states, particularly regarding the death penalty, I propose the following amendment to the Eighth Amendment:

“No excessive bail shall be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, including the death penalty that shall not be applied at any time. The ban applies to any type of corporal punishment or penal sanction that physically or morally injures.”

Document how and why you would do so, and articulate how these elements influenced the specific language you chose for your proposed change.

Rationale for the Amendment

• Justify. Why did you include the LSTD 510 4 1 US Constitution And The States and how does it address the above issues.

Example

The amendment will clearly and categorically prohibit the death penalty and will stand in accordance with evolving human rights standards, and the growing moral and practical issues with the death penalty. The typography is informed by the wording, which was refined to explicitly state the breadth of punished punishments, in response to considerable discourse over the morality, utility and equity of capital punishment. This representation of cruelty offers modern analyses that include psychological suffering, as we know of cruelty today rather than only physical.

Assess the significance of your proposed change in light of the major debates or developments that you have analyzed in this Discussion.

Significance of the Proposed Change

• Assess the LSTD 510 4 1 state importance of your proposed changes in the light of the major legal debates and developments from the assignment.

Example

This amendment proposed would change criminal justice to conform to the constitutionally enshrined evolving standards of decency. Death Penalty in Israel addresses ethical concerns related to the death penalty such as its punishing the poor, minorities and those with mental obstacles (such as Buddy). It would also end definitively the death penalty in the U.S., putting U.S. law in line with human rights trends around the world and reinforcing the protection of human dignity in the criminal process.

Conclusion

Summarize the most important Lstd 510 4 1 US Constitution And The State starting points, and emphasize that the concept of equal protection ensures that people are accorded humane and fair treatment whenever in law.we follow with LSTD 510 5-1 Interests Of The State in the next module. In the end, Buddy’s case highlights the urgent importance of using a comprehensive and humane approach to justice which respects constitutional guarantees and reflects current understandings of intellectual disability and human rights. The proposed amendment to the Eighth Amendment would inscribe those principles, thereby guaranteeing that the American legal system does in fact maintain itself at the highest levels of fairness and compassion.

References

Atkins v. Virginia. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved June 22, 2024, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/536/304

Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2024). Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities and Intellectual Disabilities. Assessment, 31(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231194992

Haberman, L. (2022). More than Moratoriums? The Obstacles to Abolishing California’s Death Penalty. Cal. Legal Hist., 17, 333.

LSTD 510 5-1 INTERESTS OF THE STATE

Instructions of LSTD 510 5-1 Interests Of The State

W5: Rational Basis and the Legitimate Interests of the State

The government sometimes enacts laws that may infringe upon the rights of individuals. While typically we do not want this kind of discrimination to happen to anyone, sometimes that law is related to a legitimate interest of the state. In Week 3, we addressed the different standards of review. Here, we will explore the rational basis test in more detail.

• Review

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985)

Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Schools, 487 US 450 (1988)

• Why did each of these cases use the rational basis standard? Explain the Court’s reasoning in each case. Did any of the cases cite and/or discuss the other cases as it analyzed the rational basis test application? Did the Court’s reasoning change regarding the issues presented?

• Do the local government’s interests in Cleburne seem rationally related to its decision to deny a permit for a home for the mentally retarded? Were the community’s concerns and fears truly legitimate interests? 

• In Plyler, why didn’t the Court defer to Texas in its interest in discouraging illegal immigration?

• Why was the outcome in Kadrmas different than in Plyler?

• Is this test the best approach in trying to balance individual freedoms and government interests? Do any of the laws in these cases meaningfully advance the government’s goals?

• Why do you agree (or disagree) with the holdings in each case? Remember to support your answers and give attribution to your sources. 

document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function() { // Select the container var container = document.getElementById("instruction_container"); // Get all headings (h2, h3, h4, h5) inside the container var headings = container.querySelectorAll("h2, h3, h4, h5"); // Loop through each heading and replace with p>strong headings.forEach(function(heading) { // Create a new p element var p = document.createElement("p"); // Create a strong element and set its text to the heading's text var strong = document.createElement("strong"); strong.textContent = heading.textContent; // Append the strong element to the p element p.appendChild(strong); // Replace the heading with the new p element heading.parentNode.replaceChild(p, heading); }); });

 

Understanding the Interests of the State in LSTD 510 5-1

LSTD 510 5-1 Interests Of The State assignment of This Owlisdom investigates the rational basis test, a standard of judicial review that is used to analyze the constitutionality of laws that impact upon constitutional rights and are not deemed to be of fundamental right nor a protected class. By analyzing three key Supreme Court cases, you will discover how the test is used, if it empowers individual freedoms and government interests adequately.

• Give an introduction

Example

Rational basis test is the most relaxed form of the judicial review sought by courts in the assessment of legislation that infringe on constitutional liberties. The test is used when a plaintiff is not seeking to vindicate a fundamental right under Article III or alleging membership in a protected class under the Fourteenth Amendment. Being the least demanding criterion, it demands that a law bear a rational relationship to a government interest. The test’s application is explored in three landmark cases: Plyler v. Doe, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., and Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools.

Review Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985), Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Schools, 487 U.S. 450 (1988).

• The LSTD 510 5 1 Interests Of The State Court’s decision to strike down of a Texas statute that denied school funding to children born of illegal immigrants is examined.

• City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.: The Judge the city’s ruling of the ordinance requiring a special permit for a group home for mentally disabled people.

• Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Schools: Look at the Court’s decision to uphold a North Dakota statute allowing school districts to levy transportation fees.

Why did each of these cases use the rational basis standard? Explain the Court’s reasoning in each case. Did any of the cases cite and/or discuss the other cases as it analyzed the rational basis test application? Did the Court’s reasoning change regarding the issues presented?

RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW IN SUPREME COURT CASES

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202

• Why did the Court apply a more exacting version of the rational basis test when dealing with the vulnerable status of children in LSTD 510 5 1 interests of the state.

In Plyler v. In January 1982, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Texas statute, struck down by the Court in 1979, which deprived of an education illegally residing children. Because it involved children—vulnerable individuals—whose condition as illegal immigrants is the result not of their own making, the Court applied a more exacting version of the rational basis test (Plyler v. Doe). Doe, 1982). The Court then concluded that ■ ■ denying these children an education would not, logically speaking, further the state’s interest in limiting illegal immigration or reducing costs because ■ ■ the long term costs of under educating these children would far outweigh the savings the statute would make for the government concerning the cost of educating these children.

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432

• Briefly explain LSTD 510 5-1 Interests Of The State The Court’s use of “rational basis with bite” and why it concluded that irrational prejudice is not an acceptable state interest.

A city ordinance which would have required a particular use permit for the operation of a group home for mentally disabled individuals, was at issue in the case. In place of the rational basis test, the Supreme Court used the “rational basis with bite,” applying it, however, under a stricter standard. The city had justifications for needing a special permit from this group home, it the Court found. Unlike other similar group homes for other categories of inhabitants, it did not require one and was not a legitimate interest (City of Cleburne v. History: Michigan Native American Artist Twins, Cleburne Living Center, 1985). Under the cloak of a zoning ordinance there could be no justification for disparate treatment based on irrational prejudice against the mentally disabled, as the Court found..

Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools, 487 US 450

• It explains how a standard rational basis review was used by the Court to defend the transportation fee.

The Court upheld, in Kadrmas, a North Dakota statute that permitted a school district to charge a fee for transportation to school.. It was a standard rational basis review that was used as the decision. Kadrmas v. Dickinson, the court found that the fee system was rationally related to that interest in education, preserving the budget of the schools. August 1, 1988, Dickinson Public Schools).Unlike Plyler the access of children to education was not outright denied, while Kadrmas did not deny access outright, it did impose a condition that would not necessarily hinder access to education but could potentially have that effect for some.

Do the local government’s interests in Cleburne seem rationally related to its decision to deny a permit for a home for the mentally retarded? Were the community’s concerns and fears truly legitimate interests? In Plyler, why didn’t the Court defer to Texas in its interest in discouraging illegal immigration? Why was the outcome in Kadrmas different than in Plyler?

ANALYSIS OF RATIONAL BASIS APPLICATION AND GOVERNMENT INTERESTS

City of Cleburne

• Determine LSTD 510 5 1 Interests Of The State rationally whether community interests were legitimate for the permit’s denials.

The Court held that, even if that rationale purportedly represented the local government’s interest in furthering the local community’s interest in maintaining the neighborhood “suitability” of the mentally disabled, it was not rationally related to the discriminatory zoning. Although the Court noted that these concerns were not connected to any legitimate municipal planning objective, it found that they were grounded instead upon irrational prejudice.

Plyler v. Doe

• Explain why the Court did not defer to the Texas interest and whythe denial of education failed to rationally further the state objective.

Because the chosen means, denying education to children, was not an appropriate way of advancing Texas’s interest in discouraging illegal immigration, the Court did not defer to Texas’s interest. The Court reasoned that the statute’s imposition of a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not reasonably contemplated to be accountable for their actions, made no rational connection to further governmental objective and fell outside the scope of legitimate state interest to exclude aliens, such as fear of economic dependency on them.

Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools

• Compare your result to Plyler, where the correlation lies between the fee and outright denial of education.

This was different than in Plyler because the law was not one that flatly took away a fundamental right, but rather set a fee that could be burdensome but that did not prevent access to public education.. The Court saw it as a decision they believed was reasonable on allocational grounds for resource allocation within local bounds.

Is this test the best approach in trying to balance individual freedoms and government interests? Do any of the laws in these cases meaningfully advance the government’s goals?

EFFICACY OF THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST

• Ask yourself if an application of the LSTD 510 5-1 Interests Of The State rational basis test is safe for individual rights and allows operative government activities.
  Case Laws: Assess whether the Plyler, Cleburne, and Kadrmas laws amounted to a ‘meaningful advance’ of those government interests.

Example

The rational basis test is effective in authorizing a wide exercise of governmental power, but it is not necessarily effective in preventing the government from passing a law that marginally advances a legitimate government interest from infringing upon an individual’s rights.In the cases covered, the test’s flexibility helped preserve vulnerable populations in Plyler and Cleburne.But in Kadrmas, it enabled a policy that could close off access to education for children less able to afford it.

Why do you agree (or disagree) with the holdings in each case? Remember to support your answers and give attribution to your sources.

PERSONAL AGREEMENT WITH CASE HOLDINGS

• Plyler v. Doe: Give your view on what the Court’s decision and adoption of such policy means in terms protection of the rights of children.

• City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.: Explain why you agreed or disagreed with the Court’s rejection of discriminatory zoning principles.Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Schools: Why do you stand for upholding of the transportation fee?

Example

Both Plyler and Cleburne, I believe, correctly subjected superficial governmental interests from being the basis for prejudicial or economically punitive measures directed at vulnerable groups. But I have concerns about Kadrmas, in that the decision may be seen as ignoring the real effects of transportation on poorer families spending for their children’s education

CLOSING

Follow LSTD-510 5-1 Interests Of The State guidelines and you will be able to effectively analyze the application of the rational basis test in key Supreme Court cases, balance individual freedoms against government interests, and articulate your positions on the Court’s holdings in LSTD 510 5-2 LITERATURE REVIEW

 

REFERENCES 

City of Cleburne, Texas, et al., Petitioners v. Cleburne Living Center et al. (1985). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/473/432

James plyler, Superintendent of the Tyler Independent School District and Its Board of Trustees et al., Appellants, v. J. and R. Doe et al. Texas, et al., Appellants, v. Certain named and unnamed undocumented alien children et al. (1982). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202

Paula Kadrmas, et al., Appellants v. Dickinson Public Schools et al. (1988). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/487/450

LSTD 510 5-2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Instructions of LSTD 510 5-2 Literature Review

W5: Literature Review

Instructions

Submit a literature review of your completed research for your jury selection research paper. Copy and paste into the text box.

Review this helpful APUS Literature Review guide.

Then review the Literature Review (APUS Library). This site also contains helpful information about the difference between an annotated bibliography and a literature review, as well as formatting tips.

Additionally, read this APUS library response to the question (within that link are several other helpful sources/links):

How do I write a literature review? 

Your literature review should be well-organized and easy to follow. You MUST offer a critical review of at least 4 articles (scholarly, peer-reviewed articles, or government publications). 

Please cite in Bluebook format.

This short video about literature review is also helpful. Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

Remember, this submission is not simply a list of articles that you located. Review the APUS sample provided in the APUS Literature Review guide.

Finally, your paper must not simply be a reiteration of articles that you locate. Rather, your goal is to “provide context for your own research.” APUS Library 

document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function() { // Select the container var container = document.getElementById("instruction_container"); // Get all headings (h2, h3, h4, h5) inside the container var headings = container.querySelectorAll("h2, h3, h4, h5"); // Loop through each heading and replace with p>strong headings.forEach(function(heading) { // Create a new p element var p = document.createElement("p"); // Create a strong element and set its text to the heading's text var strong = document.createElement("strong"); strong.textContent = heading.textContent; // Append the strong element to the p element p.appendChild(strong); // Replace the heading with the new p element heading.parentNode.replaceChild(p, heading); }); });

Introduction to Literature Review in LSTD 510 5-2

For this Owlisdom, LSTD 510 5-2 Literature Review assignment, you submit a literature review focusing on your completed research for the jury selection research paper. At least four scholarly, peer reviewed articles or government publications will be critically reviewed and your findings will be reviewed, organized and synthesized to determine the relevance to jury selection and the Sixth Amendment. This guide provides step by step instructions to help you structure and write your literature review.

Review this helpful APUS Literature Review guide. Then, review The Literature Review (APUS Library). This site also contains helpful information about the difference between an annotated bibliography and a literature review, as well as formatting tips. Additionally, read this APUS library response to the question (within that link are several other helpful sources/links): How do I write a literature review?

REVIEWING KEY RESOURCES

• APUS Literature Review Guide: Click on LSTD 510 5-2 Literature Review to read the APUS Literature Review guide and see how a literature review is structured and what components it should have.

• The Literature Review (APUS Library): Check this resource to learn to distinguish between literature review and an annotated bibliography. Tons of tips, and careful attention to the formatting.

• APUS Library Response: To learn more insights and tips in organizing your review and integrating sources into your paper, read the APUS library response on writing a literature review.

Your literature review should be well-organized and easy to follow. You MUST offer a critical review of at least four articles (scholarly, peer-reviewed articles, or government publications). Please cite in Bluebook format.

ORGANIZING AND WRITING THE LITERATURE REVIEW

• Organize Your Review: Your LSTD 510 5-2 Literature Review should flow logically. You have to begin with an introduction at which you present a brief description of the topic and the aim of the review.

• Critical Review of Articles: Find at least four scholarly articles or government publications on your topic. For each article, critically analyze and discuss briefly the findings and core of the article, methodologies, and significant contributions for the field of this article.

• Citation in Bluebook Format: Make sure that all citations are Bluebook citation style. This also includes in text citations and the bibliography at the end of your review.

Example

The literature review examines vital scholarly efforts that focus on a wide array of aspects surrounding jury selection, primarily formulated through the prism of constitutional law and many other aligned areas of research including psychology, technology and public policy. This review critically reviews the ways in which research and development in technology and in the psychological evaluation of the jury selection process serve to reshape traditional jury selection practices, as well as how policy reforms address or fail to address the existing failings. The overarching research question is whether these interventions, and any other such interventions, ultimately maintain compliance with the Sixth Amendment in providing each defendant with a fair and impartial trial. This investigation is essential to the understanding of whether the jury selection practices presently in use adequately protect the rights protected by the Constitution, and if not, how they might be changed to better serve the ideals of justice and equality.

Virtual Reality and Restorative Justice

It looks into how virtual reality (VR) can be employed to heighten the restorative justice process. First, it contends that VR can transform jurors’ comprehension and sympathy of parties involved in a case because of its ability to create immersive perspective taking. E. Bloch explains how VR has tremendous potential to be a bias mitigation tool in jury deliberations. Jurors are able to become so immersed in avatars that they can actually feel the hardship, experience the diverse and challenging experiences all of which affect human behavior and jurors can make more emotional and less biased verdicts. And it does so by potentially limiting unconscious biases that could inform the decisions of juries. VR has this potential to revolutionize jury trials by making it more equitable and jus when cognitive science used in giving definition to relevant laws.

Implicit Bias and Its Implications for Jury Selection and Antidiscrimination Policy

Implicit Association Tests are critiqued as being unreliable and mechanisms are laid out by which implicit bias arises in the real world, with examples including jury selection. The authors suggest that jurors’ decisions are significantly influence by biased interpretation and weighting of information about social groups. Insight is especially crucial for developing more target and efficient bias mitigation strategies in jury selection. Rather then attempting to change test scores, the legal system can correct discriminatory practices by focusing on the actual behaviors which are influenced by implicit biases. Yet the implications for jury selection are profound, suggesting a way to bring jury selection closer to theory and more to practice in its application of fairness.

Online Court Proceedings

Through this thesis, Gras examines the evolution of online court proceedings and their reach in access to justice. With digital platforms becoming the norm, narrowing the access and liquidity gap, the trials could itself become fairer and more efficient. But that shift is also leading to questions over whether virtual settings can keep trial processes in tact, such as jury selection. Online courts are not a cure all, argues Gras, but they can be a helpful way to supplement traditional courts, enhance public participation and trust in the judicial process. The adoption of virtual trials is especially germane to the Sixth Amendment since the standard of fair and impartiality of a jury trial must necessarily be preserved by means of adoption of virtual trials.

The Controversy Surrounding Peremptory Challenges

The contentious issue of peremptory challenges in jury selection is discussed by Jolly. He argues that they protect against two arguments that have been made for their abolition, contending that, despite their (ab)use to discriminate, it is protected constitutionally under the Sixth Amendment. Jolly argues that any reform must strike the right balance between the historical right to use peremptory challenges and the practical imperative to purge juries of racial and other biases. His perspective is an important counter to abolitionist calls because he argues that in order to achieve justice, regulation is more viable than eradication.

Systemic Reforms and Racial Discrimination in Jury Trials

Lovell assesses recent jury trial rulings on racial justice issues and continually highlights the requirement of systemic reforms to address racial discrimination within jury selection. Nonetheless, Lovell argues that even at this level of legal progress, much remains to make jury trials free from racial bias as required by the Sixth Amendment. As a result, he proposes a complete strategy that includes legal mandates combined with additional improvements at a broader societal level to decrease the amount of racial prejudice in jury choice. It is a precious discussion that Lovell gives of continuing challenges and multiple solutions, including educational initiatives for legal professionals and public awareness campaigns regarding jury rights and responsibilities.

SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS

• Integrating Insights from Reviewed Articles: Integrate insights, after LSTD 510 5-2 Literature Review, critically analyze each article to complete the integration of insights into a cohesive narrative. Explain how these findings interact and ultimately what their combined implications are for the jury selection process.

• Addressing Constitutional Mandates: Consider ways in which the insights from the articles are in line with or contradict the constitutional mandate, the Sixth Amendment, by mandating a fair and impartial trial. Identify any novel practices, or theories, able to improve the fairness and efficiencies of jury selection.

Example

Through the reviewed literature we explored the jury selection process through technological advancements, psychological insights, and systemic reforms. Taken together, each piece helps us better understand how the various factors that inevitably intersect with constitutional mandates, such as those ensuring fairness and impartiality of juries, may interact with new developments in how we structure our system of justice to meet high standards for justice and fairness. Here, for example, Bloch’s virtual reality analysis contributes to the ability of jurors to empathize and reduce bias, in ways consistent with constitutional mandates to ensure a fair judicial process. In a similar vein, Gawronski, Ledgerwood, and Eastwick further explain how implicit bias of subconscious processes informs jury decision-making. These lessons emphasize the need for practical interventions that surpass simple theoretical analysis, and that psychological research be more sufficiently integrated into the processes of jury selection.

Further, Gras’ analysis of digitalized virtual court proceedings concern the logistical and ethical consequences of online court. He talks about how such breakthroughs could make the justice system more available and convenient; however, they’re something that demands carefully weighing so that jury trials are upheld. Jolly’s constitutional case for keeping the traditional peremptory challenges, but remaking them to get rid of the bias, serves as an argument against the abolition of peremptory challenges.

Lastly, Lovell frames his demand for systemic reform in terms centered on legal changes, but also sweeping changes in society to reform racism. ‘The point of it all is not just legal tinkering, but fixing the deep seated problems in society that lead to inequitable and unjust jury selection and fairness,’ he said. Together, these articles propose a holistic approach to jury selection reform that entails accepting new technological tools; employing new psychological insights; and arguing for all encompassing legal and social reform. As the following documents, the structure of its synthesis points to the complexity associated with coordinating jury selection protocols with ever changing spaces of societal values and technological capabilities, intricately highlighting the sustained challenge of managing fairness and integrity within the judicial system.

CONCLUSION

• Summarize Key Points: Summarize the main findings and the significance of your main findings in concluding your LSTD 510 5-2 Literature Review. Think about how the literature reviewed above advances your understanding of one or more aspects of the jury selection process while at the same time considering whether the process protects the constitutional rights of potential jurors.

• Future Directions: Future research or potential reforms are suggested in the gaps or challenges that are identified in the literature. Discuss the concept of continuing investigation and continual improvement of that process to achieve fairness and integrity in the jury selection process.

Example

An analysis of the insights taken from these scholarly articles in relation to the overall Sixth Amendment landscape yields a complicated landscape in which the legal norm around jury selection is the product of factors ranging from technology and psychology to policy and the constitution. As legal professionals and policymakers continue to navigate these intersections, the primary goal remains clear: to guarantee that all individuals will have their right of constitution to a fair and impartial trial. Collectively, though, the articles make a case for progressive, but measured changes to jury selection procedures that would further fairness, reduce bias, and ensure that the public has faith in the judicial system. What is presented in the literature review is not just a culmination of what research is being done now, but also helps highlight research gaps that still need to be filled in order to continue the process of improving the jury selection process in light of evolving societal and technological environments.

CLOSING

If you follow these LSTD 510 5 2 Literature Review guidelines, you can organize and write your literature review effectively, such that you critically evaluate scholarly contributions to the jury selection process within the context of the Sixth Amendment principles.As we continue in LSTD 510 6-1 CASE BRIEF AND COMMENT ANALYSIS in the next module

REFERENCES

• E. Bloch, Virtual Reality: Prospective Catalyst for Restorative Justice, 58 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 285 (2021).

• Gawronski, A. Ledgerwood & P. W. Eastwick, Implicit Bias, and Antidiscrimination Policy, 7 Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Scis. 99 (2020).

• O. Gras, Online Courts: Bridging the Gap Between Access and Justice, 10 UCLJLJ 24 (2021).

• L. Jolly, The Constitutional Right to Peremptory Challenges in Jury Selection, 77 Vanderbilt L. Rev. (forthcoming 2024), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4743424.

• E. Lovell, “A Fair and Impartial Trial Free from Racial Discrimination Will Require an across-the-Board Approach”: Systemic Reforms Still Needed in Light of the “Other” Racial Justice Jury Trial Rulings in State v. Veal & State v. Williams, 71 Drake L. Rev. Discourse 101 (2021).

LSTD 510 6-1 CASE BRIEF AND COMMENT ANALYSIS

Instructions of LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief And Comment Analysis

W6: Case Brief and Comment Analysis

Instructions

1. For this assignment, you will write a formal legal case brief on either

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) 

or

Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. ___ (2022)

1. If you brief Santa Fe Independent School District, then in your comment section, explain how it compares to Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), which you reviewed in our W6 Discussion.

– What did the dissenting justices opine? Did the Court in Good News Club interpret the Constitution differently than the Court in Santa Fe Independent School District? What was the key Constitutional provision that each case analyzed? How would you have decided each case? Explain.

1. If you review Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), then in your comment section, explain how it compares to Dunn v. Ray, 586 U.S. ___ (2019).

– Why was one prisoner granted his request while another was denied? 

– What did the 11th Circuit conclude in Dunn v. Ray?

– What happened in each case, what was the Court’s decision (why did it reach this conclusion?), and what did the dissenting justices opine? Did the Court in Dunn interpret the Constitution differently than the Court in Ramirez? What was the key Constitutional provision that each case analyzed? Given precedent, how would you have decided each case? Explain.

Do not offer your personal opinion, but explain how your conclusion is supported by the law.

To assist you, I have provided a sample case brief and a handout on how to brief a case. You will be graded in part on following the proper format of a case brief and capturing the essential points of the case as outlined in the handout; please see the Rubric. 

Your brief should be around two pages long. If you quote the case, you need to put in a pinpoint citation. You are not to use other websites; instead, give me your own analysis of the case using the headings provided. 

Please copy and paste into the text box.

document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function() { // Select the container var container = document.getElementById("instruction_container"); // Get all headings (h2, h3, h4, h5) inside the container var headings = container.querySelectorAll("h2, h3, h4, h5"); // Loop through each heading and replace with p>strong headings.forEach(function(heading) { // Create a new p element var p = document.createElement("p"); // Create a strong element and set its text to the heading's text var strong = document.createElement("strong"); strong.textContent = heading.textContent; // Append the strong element to the p element p.appendChild(strong); // Replace the heading with the new p element heading.parentNode.replaceChild(p, heading); }); });

 Introduction to Case Brief and Comment Analysis in LSTD 510 6-1

This is an Owlisdom, LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief and Comment Analysis assignment; which entails writing a formal legal case brief on either Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) or Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. ___ (2022). You will compare your selected case against a related case, analyze the court reasoning, dissents, and constitutional provisions. This guide gives you step-by-step instructions on how to structure your case brief as well as your comment analysis.

For this assignment, you will write a formal legal case brief on either Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) Or Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. ___ (2022)

CASE BRIEF

• Give the complete LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief And Comment Analysis citation of the case.

Case Citation: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).

• Find out the petitioner and respondent of LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief And Comment Analysis.t.

Parties: Petitioner: In the Santa Fe Independent School District

Respondent: Individually and on behalf of her minor children, Doe, et al.

• Summarize the LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief and Comment Analysis essentual facts of the case.

Facts: At Santa Fe High School, a student council chaplain would give a prayer over the public address system before each home varsity football game. But Mormon and Catholic students and their mothers challenged this practice as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In response, school district adopted a new policy, which, while the suit was pending, permitted invocations, including student-led and student-initiated, at football games.

• The procedural history of the case are outlined.

Procedural History: The District Court reformulated the policy to permit only nonsectarian and non-proselytising prayers. They found, however, that even the modified policy was unconstitutional, and the case made its way up to the Supreme Court.

• Then state what is the main legal issue(s) in question..

Issues: The central question was, whether the district policy of allowing student led, student initiated prayer at football games is violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

• State the court’s holdings.

Holdings: The Supreme Court ruled that the policy did violate the Establishment Clause. Because the prayers were given on school property, at an event sponsored by the school, and under the auspices of school administration, the Court decided that the policy constituted a governmental endorsement of religion.

• Explain the court’s reasoning.

Reasoning: According to the Court, the principles set in Lee v. were the anchor of its reasoning.. Where it was held in Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, that government involvement in religion must be strictly circumscribed. The Court held the school district’s policy did not keep itself separate from the religious content of the invocations, and could not truly privatize the speech. The nature of the speech did not change from public to private by conversion of the mechanism of student elections. Moreover, the court adverted to the police use of coercive pressure to participate in religious observance, which is forbidden by the Establishment Clause.

• State the court’s decision.

Decision: Affirmed. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion held that the Santa Fe Independent School District policy permitting student speeches, including prayers, at football games, if initiated and led by students, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by virtue of the coercive environment and the fact that the government is an enthusiastic endorser of religion.

If you brief Santa Fe Independent School District, then in your comment section, explain how it compares to Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), which you reviewed in our W6 Discussion.

COMMENT AND COMPARISON ANALYSIS Comment and Comparison to Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)

• Compare your selected case with the related case and comment on 6-1 Case Brief And Case analysis 510.e.

In Good News Club v. The Supreme Court held that such a religious club could meet on school property after hours if other secular clubs were authorized to do so, as at Milford Central School. Excluding the religious club, this decision made clear, would have amounted to viewpoint discrimination and the First Amendment prohibits exclusion of private, voluntary speech because it is religious.

What did the dissenting justices opine? Did the Court in Good News Club interpret the Constitution differently from the Court in Santa Fe Independent School District? What was the key Constitutional provision that each case analyzed? How would you have decided each case? Explain.

Dissenting Opinion

• Analyse the dissenting opinions of LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief And Comment Analysis in both cases.s.

In a dissent in Santa Fe, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the majority was wrong, finding a skewed adjustment between respecting religious freedoms and expressions in public spaces, in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause facts..

Key Constitutional Provision Analyzed

• Both cases should be identified, analyzed and key constitutional provisions in each should be identified.

Both cases were intensely implicated with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But, their results depended on how they interpreted government endorsement of religion versus protection of private religious expression..

Decision-Making

• How would you have decided each case based on the precedent you had.

My bottom line on this: In Santa Fe, I would agree with the majority that the prayers at school events were too structured and official to be considered a private or personal endorsement of religion, which is constitutionally not a good thing.As in Good News Club, I agree with the Court that the club’s exclusion constituted viewpoint discrimination and that the school offered no sufficient reason to subject religious, but not secular, content to differential treatment in its after school activities.

CLOSING

By following these LSTD-510 6-1 Case Brief And Comment Analysis guidelines, you will be able to effectively brief a legal case, compare it with a related case, and provide a well-supported analysis that demonstrates your understanding of the legal principles involved.In the next module of LSTD 510 7-1 PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

Following these LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief and Comment Analysis guidelines, you can brief a legal case, compare it with another case, and offer a well-supported analysis to demonstrate your understanding of the legal principles dealt with in LSTD 510 7-1 PRESIDENTIAL POWER, etc.

REFERENCES

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

LSTD 510 7-1 PRESIDENTIAL POWER

Instructions of LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power

W7: Presidential Power

Review Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) and Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ___(2020)

In your initial discussion post, discuss:

1. What were the facts and the rulings in each case? What part of the Constitution was at issue in each case?
2. Given these cases, explain (citing the law) whether a U.S. president has absolute immunity from prosecution: (a) while in office, and (b) when no longer in office.
3. Do either or both United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)and/or Clinton v. Jones, 520 US 681 (1997)provide any support to Trump’s claims? Explain.
4. What legal or ethical influence, if any, did misinformation or disinformation have on the judicial analysis of any of these cases? Did they affect the evolution of this area of law? If not (yet), is there risk that it could? If so, how, and can that be avoided?
5. What does your state provide regarding executive privilege for its governor, if anything? How does it compare to what is available for the president? If available, provide data about how the residents of this state feel about gubernatorial executive privilege.
6. What specific language would you add to or change in the federal (or, if appropriate for your state) Constitution so that the issue of executive privilege can be clear and not open to interpretation? 
7. Document how and why you would do so, and articulate how these elements influenced the specific language that you chose for your proposed change.
8. Assess the significance of your proposed change in light of the major debates or developments that you have analyzed in this Discussion. 

 Introduction to Presidential Power in LSTD 510 7-1

LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power assignment: This Owlisdom is about reviewing Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA For today’s Ellen McCarthy Memorial Lecture, LLP, will examine the boundary of presidential power and accountability. In this exercise, you will analyze facts and rulings of these cases, discuss presidential immunity while comparing some other related cases, and evaluate the extent to which misinformation is affecting judicial processes. You will also examine state provisions on executive privilege and propose amendments to clarify the issue.

What were the facts and the rulings in each case? What part of the Constitution was at issue in each case?

FACTS AND RULINGS

Trump v. Vance

• Explain the subpoena of the records of Trump’s businesses by the Manhattan District Attorney and the underlying criminal probe.
• Explain how, in LSTD 510 7- 1 Presidential Power, the Supreme Court concluded that the President does not possess absolute immunity to state criminal inquirie.
• Explain which principles of the Constitution are to be linked with the presidential immunity and state powers.

The case was related to a summons of the Manhattan District Attorney for his account and financial statements for a criminal proceeding. The Court disallowed the claim to absolute immunity for the President of the United States from state criminal subpoenas claiming the constitution do not bar these subpoenas altogether (Trump v. Vance, 2020).

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

• Explain the subpoenas of congress for Trump’s financial records and the legislative background.
• The Ministry of Justice will need to explain how the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that lower federal courts needed to more adequately address the concerns of the separation of powers.
• Identify the constitutional issues of Checks and Balances and roles of congress.

Congress failed to obtain Trump’s financial records in response to congressional subpoenas. Trump v. Lower courts had not adequately considered the separation of powers concerns, and the Court set out quite broad considerations for deciding congressional subpoenas of the President. Mazars USA, LLP, 2020).

Given these cases, explain (citing the law) whether a U.S. president has absolute immunity from prosecution: (a) while in office, and (b) when no longer in office.

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

• Discuss LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power limitations on presidential immunity on Trump v. Vance, United States v. Nixon, and Clinton v. Jones.
• The former Presidents, he argues, are bound to the same legal rules like any other private citizen.

While in office:

Vance fits within the previous examples of whatone such asUnited States v.In Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and Clinton v.th precedents such as United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). These cases prove the principle that the President is not above the law and is not totally immune from criminal inquiry.In Nixon, for instance, the Supreme Court held that the President must abide by the judicial subpoena in connection with a criminal investigation and thus by implication that executive privilege is not absolute

When no longer in office:

 After leaving office a President is no longer immune from the law in the same way as any other private person.The reasoning of Nixon and Clinton implicitly acknowledged this principle, making that reasoning depend on ongoing or possible future litigation against a former president

Do either or both United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) and/or Clinton v. Jones, 520 US 681 (1997) provide any support to Trump’s claims? Explain.

SUPPORT FROM NIXON AND CLINTON CASES

• Analyze LSTD 510 7 1 Presidential Power how the Nixon and Clinton cases undercut assertions of absolute presidential immunity.

Example

Claims of absolute presidential immunity suffer from Nixon and Clinton’s use.Nixon refused to be immune in criminal proceedings, and Clinton agreed with civil litigation against a President while in office for actions before being in office.

What legal or ethical influence, if any, did misinformation or disinformation have on the judicial analysis of any of these cases? Did they affect the evolution of this area of law? If not (yet), is there risk that it could? If so, how, and can that be avoided?

INFLUENCE OF MISINFORMATION

• Assess the potential effect of misinformation on the judicial process, and on public trust in judicial processes, in LSTD 510 7 1 Presidential Power.t.

Example

Misinformation did not affect the judicial end of these cases directly, but it could threaten public confidence in judicial processes. The transparency and public understanding of the process is critical to avoid misleading the judicial precedents and rightly branding judiciary as integrity breathing institution.

What does your state provide regarding executive privilege for its governor, if anything? How does it compare to what is available for the president? If available, provide data about how the residents of this state feel about gubernatorial executive privilege.

STATE PROVISIONS ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

• Take research LSTD 510 7-1 and apply taught analysis to Presidential Power, discuss what your state’s provisions on executive privilege for the governor.

Example

Provisions diverge, some states allowing a little executive discretion as there is in the federal model. It is widely supported by public opinion that prefers transparency and accountability, but whose strength varies according to local political culture.

What specific language would you add to or change in the federal (or, if appropriate for your state) Constitution so that the issue of executive privilege can be clear and not open to interpretation? Document how and why you would do so, and articulate how these elements influenced the specific language that you chose for your proposed change. Assess the significance of your proposed change in light of the major debates or developments that you have analyzed in this Discussion.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

• To define and limit executive privilege we should propose clear language.
• LSTD 510 7 1 Presidential Power evaluate the importance of your proposed changes in relation to continuing debate.

Example

A proposed amendment would explicitly define and limit the scope of executive privilege: “The President shall not be exempt from compliance with judicial subpoenas for executive privilege, in which communications pertaining directly to national security may be protected subject to opinion by a bipartisan congressional panel.”

Amendments are intended to create a balance between the concept of executive confidentiality and accountability, grounding this debate on presidential accountability while resolving legal ambiguities over the executive privilege.

CLOSING

By following LSTD-510 7-1 Presidential Power these guidelines you will be able to examine the constitutional boundaries of president’s power and evaluate relevant case laws and then make sound constitutional changes for the issues of executive privilege. In the next module of covering the Constitutional basis of Search and Seizure in LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion

REFERENCES

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP. (2020). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-715

Trump v. Vance, District Attorney of the County of New York, et al. (2020). Findlaw. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/19-635.html

LSTD 510 8-1 DISCUSSION: SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Instructions of LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: Search And Seizure

W8: Search and Seizure

Our final discussion!

Today, certain cases provide good examples of issues that the framers of our Constitution could not have anticipated. In such cases, courts have had to develop new areas of jurisprudence.

For example, in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ 138 S. Ct. 2206, 201 L. Ed. 2d 507 (2018), the Supreme Court reviewed whether a government needs a warrant to access a person’s cellphone location history. Review this case.

Next, review Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, 2 F.4th 330 (4th Cir. 2021) (en banc). In Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, the Fourth Circuit examined whether a police aerial surveillance program that can record the movements of virtually all of Baltimore’s residents at once violated the Fourth Amendment.

Now, let’s extrapolate what we have learned for use in other contexts. In your initial discussion post, discuss:

1. What are the facts of each of the two cases? Compare the facts.
2. What did the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit decide in these respective cases? What is a geo-fence warrant?
3. Given these cases, how would you advise a client who was concerned about mass searches of electronic devices and the use of DNA given to genealogy sites? What about law enforcement using Forensic Genetic Genealogy Searches to solve crimes; should this be permitted?
4. What major theories or practices from allied fields (e.g., healthcare, public policy, psychology, sciences, sociology, technology, etc.) might relate to this inquiry about DNA and the law? How can such data be used to help courts understand as they work on cases involving this evolving topic?
5. Has your state enacted any laws to stop, or permit, such use of DNA? If available, provide data about how the residents of this state feel about this topic.
6. If you could change the federal or state constitution, how you would alter it to address this matter better? Be sure to identify what exactly you would change, and provide the specific language that you would use. Document how and why you would do so, and articulate how your analysis here influenced the specific language that you chose for your proposed change.

Introduction to LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: Search and Seizure

This Owlisdom, LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: Search And Seizure assignment Involves Analysis Of Two Noteworthy Cases, Carpenter V. U.S. and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, et. Courts regarding questions of digital privacy and Fourth Amendment policing in the context of the Baltimore Police Department. You will dissect these cases for their facts and rulings, talk about the idea of geo-fence warrants and its consequences, counsel clients on privacy issues in relation to the cases and propose changes to the constitution to enhance protection of digital and genetic privacy.

What are the facts of each of the two cases? Compare the facts. What did the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit decide in these respective cases? What is a geo-fence warrant?

FACTS

• Summarize LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: The case regarding Search And Seizure, where law enforcement got Timothy Carpenter’s cell site location information (CSLI) searching a series of robberies without a warrant.
• Discuss the Baltimore Police Department case in which an aerial surveillance program tracked the movements of residents without a warrant.
• Know the common theme of they both cases is warrantless surveillance and the use of technology.
• Tell them the Supreme Court ruled that searching or accessing CSLI without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment search.
• Explain the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that aerial surveillance program violated the Fourth Amendment.
• Next discuss the privacy concerns and the possibility of mass surveillance that arises through the use of geo–fence warrants.

Example

Carpenter v. would, in the end, turn out to be pivotal.v. United States and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggleeaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Assessing digital privacy and surveillance, they underscore the difficulty faced by the judiciary in applying constitutional principles developed under an analogue technology regime. Whether the government has needed a warrant to obtain every single person’s cellphone location history, as involved in Carpenter v. United States’ challenge in adapting constitutional principles to modern technology in the realm of digital privacy and surveillance.

Carpenter v. United States focused on whether the government requires a warrant to access an individual’s cellphone location history (Carpenter v. United States, 2018). We hold that law enforcement’s access to a suspect’s historical CSLI to prosecute a robbery suspect is a Fourth Amendment search, and therefore requires a warrant, because CSLI reveals ‘a wealth of locational information both historic and contemporaneous.’The flip side is that Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v.Leads Beautiful Struggle v served as the plaintiff in that lawsuit, which challenged the Baltimore Police Department’s aerial surveillance program that used a drone to record public movements across Baltimore.constitutional principles to modern technology in the realm of digital privacy and surveillance.

On the contrary, Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. In Baltimore, Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle sued the Baltimore Police Department over its police department’s aerial surveillance program, which recorded movements of the public in the city of Baltimore (Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. (Baltimore Police Department, 2020). The Fourth Circuit found that the Fourth Amendment was violated by this extensive surveillance because, after all, the residents had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In both cases the tension between public safety interests and individual privacy rights to technology driven data gathering by the law enforcement without traditional warrants reflects. Here we come to geo-fence warrant, allowing law enforcement to collect information about devices located within a specified geographic area, at a specified time, something that will raise great privacy concerns.

Given these cases, how would you advise a client who was concerned about mass searches of electronic devices and the use of DNA given to genealogy sites? What about law enforcement using Forensic Genetic Genealogy Searches to solve crimes; should this be permitted?

ADVISING CLIENTS ON DIGITAL PRIVACY AND DNA USAGE

• Inform clients about their LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: This research centers around Search And Seizure, digital privacy rights and the need for warrants when seeking electronic data.
• Examine the possible advantages and privacy hazards of applying genome from the ancestry sites to criminal analysis.

Example

Clients concerned that the police might search their electronic devices, or use DNA-based analyses of the increasing number of publicly accessible genealogy sites, should know that they have the right to digital privacy and legal protections against unneeded searches. Forensic genetic genealogy should be understood, both how it can aid in solving crimes and its privacy ramifications, and what its crime solving potential is.

What major theories or practices from allied fields (e.g., healthcare, public policy, psychology, sciences, sociology, technology, etc.) might relate to this inquiry about DNA and the law? How can such data be used to help courts understand as they work on cases involving this evolving topic?Has your state enacted any laws to stop, or permit, such use of DNA? If available, provide data about how the residents of this state feel about this topic.

RELATED THEORIES AND STATE LAWS

• Discuss LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: Search And Seizure interdisciplinary insights from healthcare and technology that will inform the legal understanding of DNA usage.
• Come to understand about research and summarize your state’s laws on using DNA in law enforcement.
• Please provide data about what people are thinking about these laws if data is available.

Example

As DNA’s role in law enforcement evolves, the insights into healthcare, public policy, and technology need to be interdisciplinary. The ethical considerations in healthcare result in strong DNA data protection (Oosthuizen & Howes, 2022). Technological advances in genetic analysis need adaptive legislative response and public policy guides that evolution. These insights can be used by courts to make sense of complex DNA related cases, so that decisions reflect up to date understandings and societal values. 

Recently legislation has been enforced by law enforcement agencies to monitor DNA. Laws went so far as for the Liberty State Legislature, which passed legislation requiring a court order for law enforcement to obtain DNA DNA samples from genealogy databases and strictly limiting access to genetic information. The bill was passed in response to rising fears about the growing ‘genetic surveillance’ and worry over privacy and ethical issues. A state wide poll was conducted to test public opinion on this proposed law, and 70% of Liberty’s residents said that they agree with this new law as they believe that added privacy protection should be in place. But 30 percent expressed concerns those restrictions also could hamper law enforcement from being able to effectively solve crimes. The public opinion is shaped by nuance, as the majority of whom value their genetic privacy and substantial minority expressing their desire for public safety and crime solving capabilities.

If you could change the federal or state constitution, how you would alter it to address this matter better? Be sure to identify what exactly you would change, and provide the specific language that you would use. Document how and why you would do so, and articulate how your analysis here influenced the specific language that you chose for your proposed change.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

• Write precise language for an amendment that protects us from breaches to digital and genetic privacy.
• Explain LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: In Search And Seizure, analyze cases how and why you propose these changes?
  Example

To enhance constitutional clarity on digital and genetic privacy, I propose an amendment to federal and state constitutions: This Constitution declares that all of a person’s digital data and genetic information is private. No such data can be accessed by any government entity without a warrant based upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the data to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The amendment intends to protect specifically digital and genetic data against government reach not authorized by a warrant, extending previous Fourth Amendment protection to the data of the moment.

REFERENCES

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. (2018). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/

Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, No. 20-1495. (2020). Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/20-1495/20-1495-2020-11-05.html

Oosthuizen, T., & Howes, L. M. (2022). The development of forensic DNA analysis: New debates on the issue of fundamental human rights. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 56, 102606. 

In the next module of LSTD 510 8-2 Research Paper: The Jury Selection Process And Constitutional Law.

LSTD 510 8-2 RESEARCH PAPER: THE JURY SELECTION

Instructions of LSTD 510 8-2 Research Paper

W8: Research Paper

Instructions

Submit a formal research paper (8 pages). Your paper needs to analyze the jury selection process and its relationship to both (a) Constitutional law and (b) an allied field (e.g., education, history, law enforcement, public administration, public policy, psychology, sociology, technology, etc.). 

For this assignment, due in Week 8:

Within your research paper, you must discuss the following:

• Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
• Peremptory challenges
• Challenge for cause
• Whether jurors may testify about their deliberations in the event of possible racial or ethnic bias
• Racial or ethnic bias
• Whether virtual jury trials comply with the fairness and impartiality goals of the Sixth Amendment.
• Also address other subtopics that relate to the allied field requiredcomponent.

Within that context, be sure to critically analyze at least:

1. four cases (three of which must be from 1990 to the present) that show how the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in efforts to achieve the Sixth Amendment’s chief goal. (Make sure that all of your cases are still good law.)
2. five law review or other academic quality journal articles regarding criminal jury selection and the Sixth Amendment.

NOTE 1: At least eight of these resources must support your paper’s thesis statement.

NOTE 2: Additional academic quality resources are welcome for use in your research paper, too.

General Guidelines for the research paper: 

1. Write an introduction, which clearly identifies the topic of your report and the issues that you are illuminating. The introduction should include: (a) the thesis statement (basis of your report), as well as (b) a preview of your major points.
   
   2. The body of your report should be dedicated to supporting your thesis statement with claims gleaned from: (a) your research into what others have written on the topic and data that you have gathered, (b) the course materials and discussions, (c) law, as well as (d) law review and other kinds of scholarly resources.

You must identify the issues associated with your thesis statement and the above-mentioned required components for the research paper. Similarly, you must analyze the arguments on these issues, as well as discuss the current status of the law. You also need to discuss any current pending cases and unresolved legal questions. Finally, you will discuss how the jury selection process should change the law, if at all.

1. Conclude your research paper by recapitulating your thesis and explaining in greater detail the significance of your findings, even if those findings are not what you had originally expected. If you would like, include within your conclusion some questions or recommendations about the jury selection process.
2. Your research paper must be well-organized, grammatically correct, and precisely-written so that your audience (whoever might read it) can easily understand the meaning that you are trying to convey to them. As the research paper’s author, you are the subject matter expert; convey that expertise (which you will gain through your research and analysis) to your audience through your graduate level writing. 

Therefore, be sure to allow plenty of time for the editing phase of your writing process. Give yourself at least twice the amount of time that it took you to write the first draft to conduct the editing phase. Review your work carefully and repeatedly. Please see the rubric so that you know how to earn “Exemplary”.

NOTE 3: Legal Studies students must provide all citations to be in Bluebook style; this means that footnotes (at the bottom of the page) are required. (Non-Legal Studies students may use APA style, which requires endnotes at the end of your report.) 

– Both citation styles require the use of quotation marks and a pinpoint citation to the page on which the quotation can be found in its original source for each quotation that you use.

– Avoid using more than one quotation for roughly every 4 pages of text in the main body your research paper.

NOTE 4: You must approach this research project objectively; let what you learn through your research and analytical efforts guide you to the actual answers to the question(s) raised in or by your thesis statement.

Introduction to the Jury Selection Process and Constitutional Law in LSTD 510 8-2 Research Paper

This Owlisdom, LSTD 510 8-2 Research Paper: The assignment of the Jury Selection Process And Constitutional Law is to research the jury selection process and to relate it to Constitutional law and an allied field such as education, history, law enforcement, public administration, public policy, psychology, sociology, or technology. An eight-page research paper on how the Sixth Amendment guarantees a legal process that ensures a fair trial will be written, specifically on the issue of jury selection. You’ll explore the nature of peremptory challenges, challenges for cause, racial or ethnic bias, and effects of virtual jury trials on diversity.

Write an introduction that clearly identifies the topic of your report and the issues that you are illuminating. The introduction should include (a) the thesis statement (basis of your report), as well as (b) a preview of your major points.

INTRODUCTION

• Start LSTD 510 8-2 Research Paper: In addition, there’s a very brief introduction into the importance of jury selection as it relates to the Sixth Amendment. Decide on what the main issues are.

Example

The jury selection process is fundamental to the principles of justice as reflected in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, and within the complex world of American jurisprudence. In this research paper, we examine the multi faceted details of jury selection and how recent developments in technology, psychology and legislation shape the impartiality and effectiveness of the process. We will also look at the subtleties of peremptory challenges, challenges for cause, and illuminating the very controversial case on racial or ethnic biases. It will also examine the admissibility of jurors’ run of the mill testimonies about deliberations, and the effect virtual jury trials will have on the maintenance of the standards of fairness and impartiality imposed by law. Contemporary challenges affect the efficacy of the jury selection process in protecting the Sixth Amendment’s provision of the right to a fair trial, reflected in this research as to how these components interface with constitutional requirements and social factors to shape the results of judicial process.

Analyze the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PRACTICES

Sixth Amendment Overview

• Provide LSTD 510 8-2 Research Paper: An overview of Sixth Amendment and The Jury Selection Process And Constitutional Law.

Informed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, that, “”in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” it is the duty of law enforcement to be vigilant against suspects who have had no trial. The right means that everybody accused of a crime should have the right to be judged by a jury of his (her) peers in order to avoid government oppression on one’s side and provide him (her) fair trial without bias. It is important that the jury act reasonably impartial without any prejudice, so this is the basis for judicial legitimacy and administering justice and equity in the American legal system.

Evolution of Jury Selection Practices

• The historical development of jury selection practices will be discussed.

Jury selection has gone through some transformations since the development of the American judiciary system. First, jury was made up of men who may be acquainted with the litigants or witnesses and may be inclined to favor either side. In due course, legal conditions prevailed in order to improve the objectiveness and fairness of this process. One of these changes was the U.S Supreme Court ruling in Strauder v. The case of the, West Virginia (1880), wherein formation of colored people denial from jurors was considered unconstitutional. This was important in shaping of more comprehensive jury practices in the future.

Additional evolution happened in the mid of twentieth century as the Court added more discrimination protections. Supreme court’s decision of Kentucky (1986) pointed out that peremptory challenges which were earlier exercised by attorneys to eliminate jurors without any reason, could not eliminate jurors of a particular race solely (Batson v. Kentucky, 1986). This case and others like it have carried forward the guidelines to the selection of juries while preserving the threads of diversified population of the American nation as envisaged by its constitution and the tenets of impartiality.

Modern Jury Selection Techniques

• Explain current methods used to ensure impartial juries.

The history of jury selection practices has been perfected for centuries. These days, this scales to a complicated assemblage of determination of qualified potential jurors on the basis of a review to determine whether they can judge fairly and not with prejudice. Implicit biases—a person is unaware of one’s subconscious prejudices that likely would influence decisions outside a person’s conscious awareness—are one of the most important challenges in today’s jury selection. Gawronski et al. (2020) work shows how implicit biases can sneak their way into the jury’s decisions. They found that well meaning jurors can carry biases that affect perceptions and decisions that they do not recognize.

As such, these biases have increasingly relied on courts to use enhanced voir dire, in which potential jurors are questioned about their background, beliefs and potential biases. Questionnaires might also be given to jurors to uncover deeper prejudices perhaps ones they don’t even know exist. However, legal professionals are taught to read these responses critically in the hope of assembling a jury having deliberated free of such prejudices. In addition, some jurisdictions have made educating jurors about the nature of implicit bias and the responsibility with which they have been vested, an increasingly standard practice in ensuring the fairness of the judicial process.

The rulings of the Supreme Court have yet to finish refining jury selection practices. For example, Peña-Rodriguez v. Is an ongoing commitment to evolving the jury system to be more just and equitable exemplified by two recent examples — which include Colorado (2017), which allows jury verdicts to be challenged based on racial bias expressed during deliberations, and — Louisiana (2015), which outlaws racial exclusion of jurors. These are rulings about what is overt conduct, but also about the underbelly, the more insidious discrimination that can creep into the jury decision making process.

Critically analyze at least four cases (three of which must be from 1990 to the present) that show how the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in efforts to achieve the Sixth Amendment’s chief goal. (Make sure that all of your cases are still good law.)

CRITICAL SUPREME COURT CASES IMPACTING JURY SELECTION

It cannot be doubted that the fair and honest selection of a jury is essential to conforming to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to a fair trial. Several critical Supreme Court cases affecting the principles of jury selection (and, in one case, the admissibility of evidence regarding jurors’ bias) are then explored in this section, which considers discrimination on the basis of race and gender.

Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 

• Summarize the case and its impact on racial discrimination in jury selection.

Kentucky is a prime example of the Supreme Court decision concerning peremptory challenges with regard to color prejudiced. The decision came after James Batson a black man was convicted by a white jurors as the prosecution dismissed all potential black jurors through the peremptory challenge. The Court in this case deemed this practice as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and created the Batson challenge under which it becomes unlawful to dismiss jurors based on the color of their skin and in this case, the motion is allowed if the defendant finds that the peremptory strike was based on racism. All Black potential jurors through peremptory challenges (Batson v. Kentucky, 1986). This precedent alter the face of jury selection across all states of the United States as the court established that justice cannot be defended on racial prejudices by invalidating peremptory challenge based on race.

J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994) 

• Explain how this case extended Batson’s principles to gender discrimination.

In J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., the Supreme Court carried the Batson principle over to sex discrimination.. The trial concerned paternity and child support, in which the state exercised peremptory challenges to strike male jurors (J. E. B. v. Alabama Ex Rel. T. B, 1994). The Court held that neither gender nor race may provide the basis for striking jurors, and emphasized that the Equal Protection Clause forbids discrimination in juror selection on the basis of gender, unless some compelling reason exists. I will focus on the effects of not diversifying the juries on the world by picking any juror, so that the result is based on the person’s sex rather than racism.

Foster v. Chatman (2016) 

• Discuss the case and its reinforcement of Batson’s ruling.

Foster v. Chatman revisited the issues central to Batson when Timothy Foster, a Black defendant, challenged his murder conviction that was decided by an all-white jury. His attorneys later obtained prosecution notes that explicitly highlighted the race of jurors, which were used to exclude Black individuals strategically (Foster v. Chatman, 2016). The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Batson decision, emphasizing that such racial discrimination in jury selection undermines the integrity of the judicial process. This case underscored the ongoing challenges in enforcing Batson rulings and demonstrated the need for vigilant oversight to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017) 

• Analyze how this case addressed racial bias in juror deliberations.

Colorado took on the question of whether comments by jurors during deliberations indicating racial bias could be used to attack convictions.llenge convictions. In Pena-Rodriguez v., two jurors indicated that during deliberations another juror made anti–Hispanic remarks about a Hispanic defendant who was subsequently convicted. Colorado, 2017). The Supreme Court held that once such a juror makes a clear statement that racial stereotypes or animus played a motivating part in his or her vote, the Sixth Amendment demands that the no impeachment rule give way so that the defendant, and through him the public, can show that racial bias infected the jury’s deliberations. The defendant’s constitutional rights in this case lead to confronting racial bias head on, even if post trial.

Peremptory challenges are examined in the constitutional context by Jolly (2024) and racial bias introduced into the jury system has been discussed by Lovell (2021), both of which both add to our understanding of these cases. An examination that Jolly (2024) undertakes offers the reader a fundamental view of why the peremptory challenges albeit controversial are being treated as a fundamental part of the jury selection process with constitutionally protected coverage. However, Lovell’s (2021) work provides evidence that undercuts the claims from these Supreme Court cases that these cases have been able to eliminate racial bias from jury selection, as the same racial biases persist that these cases try to combat.

Discuss whether virtual jury trials comply with the fairness and impartiality goals of the Sixth Amendment.

THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INSIGHTS IN JURY SELECTION

Virtual Reality and Jury Empathy

• Potential of VR in enhancing juror empathy and reducing biases the Jury Selection Process And Constitutional Law.

The Seventh Amendment and the well developed practices of jury trials being applied to crimes carried out on land circumvents the use of virtual reality to the conclusion of our judicial process, in service of our basic understanding of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and the centrality a fair and unbiased jury has always played in realizing that.'” Bloch (2021) explores how VR can help jurors gain more meaningful meaning from what they hear and read by providing them opportunities to experience scenarios from viewpoints other than their own in her 2021 study. This immersive technology can paint a vivid picture of cases, their circumstances, and their attendant emotions, allowing jurors to more fully understand that which is being said and depicted in trial.

According to Bloch in 2021, jurors that can literally ‘step into the shoes’ of the victim, the accused and even witnesses, can increase sign up for levels of empathy, which can lead to more thoughtful deliberations. This technology can help to overlook inherent bias by demonstrating to the jurors views outside their own personal experiences and accords with constitutional mandates of fairness and impartiality. VR could provide empathetic insights that test and break our preconceived notions and subconscious biases and allow us to make decisions not based on stereotypes or stereotypes.

Online Court Proceedings

• Evaluate the LSTD 510 8-2 Research Paper: The project deals with the benefits and challenges of online court proceedings, the Jury Selection process and Constitutional Law.

Gras, already in 2021, already emphasized the transition to online court proceedings as a complete transformation of how judicial processes come into being (p. 13). The digital move came due to COVID-19 pandemic necessitated, and forced courts to rethink how accessible and efficient they can be. Gras (2021) uses the question of how can online proceedings democratise access to justice, by eliminating physical and logistical barriers to take part in the whole judicial process, e.g. because of difficulty travelling or physical disabilities.

Although online trials make trials more accessible, they also complicate the fair and fair operation of trials. For instance, facilitators have to consider problems such as providing reliable internet access for and teaching all participants how to use technology well. In addition, dialog in online setting is flavour impersonal, which may influence the dynamics of witness testimonies, the cohesiveness of jury discussions, or the perceived credibility of testimonies. Whilst online courts have clear benefits, argues Gras (2021), they can only be introduced to maintain the core values of justice, such as the impartiality and thoroughness of the process.

Implications of Implicit Bias

• Discuss the way in which implicit biases influence jury decisions, with reference to how they can be mitigated.

There can be no over stating the impact of the implicit selections of the jury has on trial outcomes, based off of implicit biases. Gawronski, Walther, & Dobson (2020) explore psychological processes in development of implicit biases and how these biases are predicting jurors’ perceptions and decisions unconsciously. However, the authors note that implicit biases are not so much a reflection of personal prejudices, but of the very socially pervasive contexts and stereotypes or ‘implicit attitudes’ to which individuals—which may be you, me, or child—might be unwittingly exposed and reiterate in their own decision making.

They much later go on to list several approaches aimed at reducing such biases, including juror (and general public) education about the presence of bias, both directly and through structured (in time or in form) deliberation that would focus it better, as well as decision-making aids that would get jurors to think about the reasons why holding particular opinions has advantages. Instead, these efforts are intended to help jurors more readily understand unconscious biases and furnish them with practices which they can use during deliberations to minimize or negate them.

Advanced technologies such as virtual reality are being integrated into the judicial system including virtual trials is a big shift away from in courthouses into online court proceedings which presents both challenges as well as opportunities to improve the jury selection and trial process. Advancements in these areas, when coupled with a knowledge of psychological insight into human behavior—specifically implicit biases in situations—can have a tremendous impact on the way justice is administered. In seeking to accomplish the constitutional ideal of a fair and impartial trial, the legal system must improve its ability to address psychological and technological problems. While these technologies and insights continue to grow, they will come to be used in defining how judiciaries perform in the future, becoming more accessible, empathetic and equitable.

You also need to discuss any current pending cases and unresolved legal questions. Finally, you will discuss how the jury selection process should change the law, if at all.

PROPOSED REFORMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Identifying Issues

• Identify LSTD 510 8-2 Research Paper: Challenges in jury selection in The Jury Selection Process And Constitutional Law.

As one of the corner stones for the American legal system, the jury selection procedure remains an area of law that poses basic questions still awaiting answers that may shape the future jurisprudence of the country. Even the great efforts in the fight against discriminations through the landmark decisions still remain problematic with factors like the jurors’ ability to strike out certain jurors, and a relativity approach towards “impartiality ‘.Supreme Court’s recent decision in Georgia (2020) and Mississippi (2019), where the court pointed out that the jury selection was racially discriminating, vibrant the fight to enforce and restart the principles of Batson v. Kentucky. They indicate the need to pursue change to make the existing legal regime easier to identify discriminatory jury selection more efficiently.

Reform Proposals

• Propose actual changes to help jury selection.

Several things should be considered so jury selection is fairer. Second, growing legal and scholarly consensus suggests limiting or abolishing some or all peremptory challenges could limit their potential for abuse. On the other hand, there may be an opportunity to incorporate a standardized ‘Batson report’ (a documented rationale for each peremptory challenge) to shore up what is currently a pre–Batson process lacking accountability and reviewability.

Second, the technology part of this (artificial intelligence) would also be able to identify whether there are biases in the jury pool through analyzing the trends of data, that are related to verdict outcomes and the juror demographics. Such information could help courts better balance juries. Finally, by taking a more transparent and structured form of challenge for cause, implicit biases could be reduced through a need to more specifically justify each challenge. Having it would guarantee that decisions are made from solid facts as opposed to hunch and hate.

Role of Education and Policy

• Highlight the importance of educational initiatives and policy reforms.

There are educational initiatives that reform jury selection processes. Empowerment can come from juror education programs that train jurors on unconscious bias, and on the responsibilities of jurors. Second, continuing legal education (CLE) for attorneys and judges alike about the latest case developments in the law of jury selection is critical to keeping the judiciary as informed as possible with regard to effectively enforcing laws against discrimination.

More importantly, policy reforms should also concentrate on the part of jury selection which remains a far less transparent and accountable process. We can legislatively mandate the recording and publication of the voir dire proceedings, creating an audit trail which if fraud is alleged, can be reviewed. Such policies would discourage discriminatory practices and gain the public’s trust of the judicial process.

Conclude your research paper by recapitulating your thesis and explaining in greater detail the significance of your findings, even if those findings are not what you had originally expected.

CONCLUSION

• Constitutional Law and The Jury Selection Process.For that you can read the complete LSTD-510 modules

The research found that jury selection requires a delicate balancing of the provisions of the Sixth Amendment. Using landmark Supreme Court cases, technological innovations and their impact, as well as psychological insights, it is clear that we have made progress, but that much more remains to be done. Reducing peremptory challenges and integrating technology—and robust educational programs — are all needed to achieve progress toward the goal of fairness in jury selection. However, what needs to ultimately happen is continued review and revision of what needs to be done as part of the practices and policies to make sure every person gets a fair trial, and that we allow the tiers of justice to change and evolve as the people in that society evolve in their diversity.

REFERENCES

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79. (1986). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/

Bloch, K. E. (2021). Virtual reality: Prospective catalyst for restorative justice. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 58, 285.

Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. (2016). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/14-8349/

Gawronski, B., Ledgerwood, A., & Eastwick, P. W. (2020). Implicit Bias and Antidiscrimination Policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 99–106. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732220939128

Gras, I. O. (2021). Online courts: Bridging the gap between access and justice. UCLJLJ, 10, 24.

1. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127. (1994). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/127/

Jolly, R. L. (2024). The Constitutional Right to Peremptory Challenges in Jury Selection. Vanderbilt Law Review, 77. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4743424

Lovell, R. E. (2021). “ A Fair and Impartial Trial Free from Racial Discrimination Will Require an across-the-Board Approach”: Systemic Reforms Still Needed in Light of the” Other” Racial Justice Jury Trial Rulings in State v. Veal & State v. Williams. Drake L. Rev. Discourse, 71, 101.

Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. (2017). Oyez.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-606