In my opinion, the first point (that Raleigh is arguing that he has a right to confront the claim before it gets to a jury) seems to be what he is making a bigger deal about. He argues that the fact that he must respond to a claim from an anonymous, secret person is the problem. He must come before a jury and prove his innocence when his guilt is presumed by virtue of an anonymous tip.
is it possible for Prof. Nesson to continue this class session into tomorrow? It seems like this discussion is better suited for a 2-day discussion considering we took a significant amount of time learning the technology.