Political Science 418 – Syllabus
Dr. Lewis S. Ringel
Political Science 418 — Legal/Judicial Apprenticeship – CSULB — Spring 2007
Office: SPA 336 Office Phone: (562) 985-4708 E-mail: LRingel@csulb.edu
Hours: Office Hours: Mondays and Wednesdays 12:30 – 1:45 and by appointment if available
This course is designed to blend a “hands on” experience in the California judiciary with a theoretical understanding of the judicial process in general. To meet these goals requires interaction between your experiences in the classroom and your experiences in the courthouse in Long Beach. You will be responsible to multiple sets of supervisors at court and on campus. Please note that this is an unusual type of internship. The odds of a judge, lawyer, or official court personnel asking you to perform a task in connection with your internship are fairly slim. If someone at the courthouse requests your assistance with something official, or offers to give you an assignment that will benefit you, such as looking up state code, discussing case law, or learning how to “shep” a case, that is great; but do not count on it. This is an internship in which you will learn more by watching and listening than by doing.
Please remember that you are an ambassador for CSULB, the department of political science, and the Legal/Judicial Apprenticeship Program itself. Remember that you have made a professional commitment. While at court and in performing any tasks or responsibilities connected with the Legal/Judicial Apprenticeship Program, please act, and dress, in a manner that is appropriate to court, and please obey all rules, regulations, and directives of the state, the county, and the court itself. If you are going to be late, or will miss an appointment, connected in any way with the Legal/Judicial Apprenticeship Program, please make every effort to notify the other party. You will likely find that your experiences at court, and in this class, will be improved if you establish a reputation for being reliable. Remember what you observe in some cases or what you hear in class, in some instances, may be confidential–you, without exception, must honor such confidentiality. Mature judgement is expected at all times and in all places. A final evaluation of your field work will come from your supervisor. I will consider this evaluation when evaluating your performance.
An A is a 90-100, a B is a 80-89, a C is a 70-79, a D is a 60-69, and a F is a 0-59.
This class CAN be taken credit-no credit. If you have concerns about earning a letter you might do so.
Required Course Materials:
- Walter Murphy, C. Herman Pritchett, Lee Epstein, and Jack Knight, 2005. Courts, Judges, & Politics. 6th Edition. McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 0-07-297705-1
- Course Packet # 1061 Available at Copy Pro (562) 431 9974
Attendance in Court:
To receive credit for this course you must attend court at the Long Beach Superior Court for at least 72 hours over the course of the semester. This is essentially nine 8 hours days spread over the semester. While you need not attend court the same exact number of hours and minutes every week, it may behoove you to establish some semi-regular hour schedule. Your hours are to be completed by the last day of the semester (5/18/2005). Extensions are possible with my approval. Students seeking an extension must present a compelling reason to me. Attending court does not simply literally mean sitting in a courtroom for all 72 hours. Attending court can include time spent outside of the courtroom itself speaking with lawyers or court administrators on in chambers with your assigned judge. It does not, however, include things such as watching Court TV at home or at court, playing Hac-e-Sac in the court parking lot, or going out for drinks with the court staff. No one who attends fewer than 72 hours will pass this class. The administrating judge(s) and I will set up a system for recording your hours in court.
Assignments and Grade Percentages:
Attendance 20% Class participation: 20%
8 Reading Summaries: 40% Interview Paper: 20%
Seminar Attendance and Lateness:
The seminar for POSC 418 meets SIX times during the semester NOT including our initial introductory meeting. Students are expected to attend ALL of these SIX seminar sessions; however I will excuse ONE absence. Attending each session is worth FOUR points. There are a possible TWENTY attendance points to earn (it is 25% of your grade). Attending all SIX sessions will NOT result in extra credit. If you have a problem attending a specific meeting please contact me ASAP. Our meetings will be about one hour in length so please plan accordingly and, if possible, please do not leave in the midst of a session. Excessive (more than 15-20 minutes) and repeated lateness will jeopardize your chances of passing this class as I may deduct points from your attendance points. For instance, missing half a class session due to lateness would result in losing 2 points for that day.
You are to interview court personnel on a specific topic. This paper is due at our final class meeting. At this meeting you will be asked to summarize for the class what you have learned about this topic. This paper should be about 5 pages. We will discuss appropriate interview tactics and questions later in the term. This syllabus includes several suggested interview topics; you are free to suggest your own topics so long as you clear them with me first. We will assign interview topics by a random drawing. Some slight additional outside research might be needed for this assignment. Incorporation of course materials is encouraged. This will be graded on a scale of 0% to 100%. The latest an interview paper can be accepted/turned in is ONE week from its due date. Late interview papers will lose 50 points. Do NOT email your interview papers unless I tell you to do so. If I grant such approval and cannot open or did not receive your paper I will consider it not submitted or, at best, late. The onus is on you NOT me to ensure that I can open e-mailed papers. Failure to submit this paper will result in failing the class.
You are to prepare a two page summary for EIGHT of the readings that appears in BOLD print on the reading schedule page. DO NOT submit summaries for ALL readings that appear in bold (there is no extra credit for doing so) and DO NOT submit more than TWO at a time (unless you are submitting late work). You choose which EIGHT to summarize. These summaries will be graded check (5 points) or check minus (2 ½ points). A summary that earns a check-minus may NOT be re-submitted NOR can an additional summary be substituted for it. Summaries are to be typed in 12 point font, stapled, spell-grammar checked, double-spaced, and in English. They are due at class. You must satisfactorily summarize EIGHT readings to pass the course. Late summaries will be worth ½ credit (2 ½ points) at the most and, if they would have been a check minus, they will be worth (1 1/4 points). Repeated late or unsatisfactory summaries will jeopardize your grade as and possibly your chances of passing the class. The latest a summary can be is ONE week from its due date. I am NOT responsible for emailed papers that I cannot open or did not receive.
Your summaries should include:
* A short statement of the topic or problem and any solutions offered.
* A summary of the author’s arguments.
* A statement of why these arguments are important.
* A statement as to whether you agree with the author’s conclusions and why.
An * Means that a reading is in the course packet
2/2 Introduction – Please be on time – 9:00 a.m. SHARP
2/9 Judicial Organization – MPEK, Ch. 3 (pp. 77-100):
– Rowland/Carp, “Politics and Judgment …”
- Wyzanski, “Importance of the Trial Judge”
- Kagen, et al, “Evolution of State . . . ”
– Brennan, “Guardians of Our Liberties”
- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (2003)
- MPEK, Ch. 8: (pp. 366-370)
-Kuklinski/Stanga, “Political Participation…”
*Korey, Ch. 8 on California’s Judiciary
2/16 Fact Finding : – MPEK, Ch. 9: (pp. 381-397)
- Norman, “Juror Furor”
- Darrow, “How to Pick a Jury”
- Etzioni, “Science …”
– Saks, “The Limits …”
– Butler, “Black Jurors …”
3/9 Judicial Selection & Retention – MPEK, Ch. 4: (pp. 153-155 & 157-159)
– Walker/Barrow, “Diversification …”
– Marshall, “Comments on Missouri Plan”
- Wold & Culver, “The Defeat . . . CAL Judges”
- MPEK:, Ch. 13: (pp. 665-369)
– Hall, “Constituent Influence in . . . Courts”
*Mathesian, “Bench Press”
4/20 Judges and Judging – MPEK, Ch. 9: (pp. 398-401)
- Frankel, “The Adversary Judge”
- MPEK, Ch. 11 (pp. 507-510)
- Smith v. U.S. (1993)
– United Steel Workers v. Weber (1979)
- Easterbrook, “Statutes’ Domains”
* Frank, “‘Fight’ Theory vs. Truth Theory”
4/27 Lawyers – MPEK, Ch. 5 (pp. 212-219)
- Turow, “One L: An Inside Account …”
– Sarat/Felstiner, “Law & Strategy … Office”
– Blumberg, “The Practice of Law . . . Game”
- Bailey, “The Defense Never Rests”
- O’Connor, “Professionalism”
# “Mr. Bad Example” lyrics [Beach Board]
5/11 Discuss Interview Papers - Discuss Interview Papers which are due in class on 5/11/2007