Definitely need some clarity on the paper and exam still. I get that he wants to keep it somewhat open-ended, but more concrete guidance would be much appreciated. Maybe Anthony and Gaia can offer there thoughts next class
Can we please not have the paper be a group project? It's a bit late in the semester to have to worry about coordinating with a group with finals approaching and other deadlines coming up. I think it would be nice if we had the option to write the paper alone, at least.
I kind of wish this class had evidence or criminal procedure as a pre-requisite. I feel sort of at a disadvantage to many of my classmates, and this class seems to move with the presumption that we all know basic rules of evidence and crim pro
Separately, office hours don't work for all of our schedules, and a few of us feel we are missing out on benefitting from our classmates' contributions to the conversation by being limited to 1:1 meetings if we can't make office hours. Can there be another option for office hours?
I want to be as respectful as possible, but I think there might be truly something wrong about the theory or the way it's being presented if after over a week, 40 Harvard students are still confused. There has to be a better way of understanding what's going on without making us feel like we're missing a whole class of prior knowledge.
Under Nesson's interpretation of the confrontation clause, would all hearsay be let in and then judged whether the case was sufficient after all the evidence? I'm wondering practically, how his approach would play out versus Scalia? I am still confused as well
second as i understand Nessons theory it’s that we should ask whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a case before a jury even without the testimonial hearsay. if the answer is yes, then there is not any constitutional restriction in its admissibility. if the answer is no, then it should not be brought. 1. is this correct? 2. how would Scalia under his theory walk through this and where would he end up on the child’s testimony?
I also feel like it would be pretty unfair for the exam to be on this sufficiency/admissibility issue that we have focused on this past 2 weeks. Most of the class is still so confused about this topic, and we clearly need a walk through the basics
I think it would be helpful if we could go over other large themes from the class, because this issue remains confusing, and I want to make sure we can write about other topics that are important to Fair Trial
Question for Nesson confrontation clause/sufficiency: Is the way you arrived at this interpretation based solely on fidelity to the text and the history? Because otherwise it feels contrary to other fair trial themes we have touched on throughout the semester, primarily 1) that the jury's power has waned over time and it might be beneficial to re-empower the jury (ie jury nullification and 2) that the american case system in the criminal context is too anti defendant and that defendants could use more protections (ie the way that gideon is celebrated as a prerequisite for due process). I see how the sufficiency requirement may be viewed as pro defendant as another bar for the prosecution to hop over, but prosecutors are skilled at getting desired results and will adapt to find a way to meet these standards, and plus now they will be able to bring boatloads more hearsay into courtrooms against defendants. Not a trade I would like to make. I think it becomes abundantly clear when you leave the extremely unsympathetic defendants in the child abuse context. Would love to chat about this!
Or even access to some outlines students made? They're not posted like they are for other classes, at least from what I have seen. I might just not be tying everything together properly and would love to check what I have against that.
Agreed, and with respect to the confrontation clause topic we've been talking about for a while, I'm concerned that's what we're all going to be pushed to write about, because of the recency. And I'm concerned to write on that because Nesson has such strong views and I feel like I MUST not get it as well as he does. But not sure what else to write about
I think the whole class should write one paper. Same size that each of our individual papers would be. We would each only have to write 2-4 sentences and just put it all together. This is test of our collective strength. He can't P all of us
I loved the class today and don't feel confused about Scalia versus Nesson. I also loved Scalia in his concurrence in the Clark case. It made me think that the Supreme Court engages the same issues that we engage in a nymity or in the discussion space on Canvas: how to speak of each others thoughts and opinions when presenting them to others. This is the art of teaching and engaging in the law. It relates to fair trial in a way as well. What does a jury need in order to fairly represent their duty to the law and the people. Just some thoughts.
Professor nesson you’ve been doing this for like 40 years and you’ve got an impeccable academic record. HLS wouldn’t dare cross you. That being said please give us all Hs. COVID has made life practically hell and you could make it less hellish by taking care of your wonderful students like myself
I am just very confused on Prof. Nesson's take on the sufficiency theory. I am not fully understanding his viewpoint and just getting confused. Can you please explain further. Also would really appreciate more details about the paper ie. length, a more concrete topic discussion, timeline to submit. How the paper and exam are weighted?
Agree with Hochebuz--we all are dealing with massive differences in COVID experiences. We need this to be as simple and clear as possible, if that's okay. It's part of why regular grading right now is already pretty inequitable, but that's another discussion.
Some people are supporting family members by working, some people don't have a quiet work space, some people have to take care if younger family members because of child care issues. Some people have lost or will lose loved ones. Some people have preexisting conditions that make this especially scary, etc. This doesn't even scratch the surface. I think people are justifiably concerned about grading and curves.
Thats great for you, some of us have EIP coming up where grades will be the most determinative factor of whether we get jobs. I cannot focus at home, and just would love clarity on the grading structure so I can do what I have to do and not be surprised with my grade. That is all
And not just grades but about the way we come away from this class, for ourselves. I want to finish it thinking I've learned something about a few main topics. THere's so much confusion and anxiety among this class right now
Yes, Professor Nesson, please take COVID into account when grading exams! It's been really hard for a lot of us and the uncertainty of how this class is going to be graded is really causing a bit more anxiety
Would also prefer a paper only, unless we also have time throughout finals period to write the exam? A timed exam for this class seems off given the discussion/threads/contemplation based structure of the course