This week’s Discussion Forum for Week One (Aug 26—31), the first in a series of thirteen to be issued on a regular basis over the course of the semester, concerns whether, viewing yourself as a juror seated on the manslaughter trial of defendant Alexander William Holmes (the character played by actor Martin Sheen in the film introduced at our first class meeting) would have dissented from a jury conviction of the defendant, and what your carefully considered reasons would be, either [1] for your decision to dissent, if you so decide that you would dissent, or [2] otherwise for your decision to concur with other jurors in a manslaughter conviction of the defendant, if you so decide that the defendant was in fact guilty of the charges.
In this, my opening post to this Discussion Forum for Week One, I will provide instructions which you must follow in preparing and contributing your post(s) to this particular Discussion Forum, your first classroom activity to be submitted for a grade.
The required reading assignments, in addition to a required viewing the film clip shown in our first meeting (the 20-minute lifeboat scene from 1975 Columbia Pictures Television movie dramatizing a modernized version of the terrible incident on the high seas recorded in the true 1842 federal district case “United States v. Holmes,” embedded herein again in the course of these instructions), include:
two jury instruction rules based on statutes from a state penal code, specifically, from the California Jury Instructions—Criminal (CALCRIM):
[1] the Rule of Court defining the crime of “murder” @
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/520/and
[2] the Rule of Court defining the defense of “justification” @
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/505/
and, in addition, one example of judicial caselaw precedent, the very real, though very old, decision of a Federal District Court in the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania, the true facts from which were adapted the facts comprising the modernized incident dramatized in the 1975 Columbia Pictures Television movie shown in our first meeting— that is, for purposes of this Discussion Forum, you must also study:
[3] my 11-page edited version of the distinguished American lawyer John William Wallace’s report of that case at the following internal link:
[INSTRUCTOR'S EDIT] “United States v. Holmes,“ 1 Wall. Jr. 1., 26 F.Cas. 360 (E.D. Penn., 1842).pdf
The report of the case at the link just above begins with Wallace’s report of the witness testimony taken at the celebrated trial. When lawyers and judges study caselaw precedent such as was preserved in the above reported case, they pay close attention to these facts of the case as reported, assuming that these facts have been proved, either directly by means of unchallenged eyewitness testimony, or indirectly by means of being reasonably inferred circumstantially from either the eyewitness evidence or other evidence shown to the jurors.
For purposes of this, our Discussion Forum for Week One (Aug 26—31), which will remain open for at least several weeks after I release these instructions in this, my opening post to the forum, you must assume as fully authoritative in your decision making the specific items representing law in good standing above, firstly, the two jury instruction rules based on statutes from a state penal code, specifically, from the California Jury Instructions—Criminal (CALCRIM), and secondly, the published judicial opinion above, reported by Wallace for the West publishing company, as “United States v. Holmes,” 1 Wall. Jr. 1., 26 F.Cas. 360 (E.D. Penn., 1842).
In preparing your post(s) to this Discussion Forum, however, you must pay close attention to the facts of the case in the particular matter at hand, which are the ones represented in the 20-minute lifeboat scene from 1975 Columbia Pictures Television movie dramatizing a modernized version of the incident on the high seas recorded in the true above federal district case “United States v. Holmes,” which I am embedding again, right here:
Therefore, START this embedded video and PAN AHEAD TO the 30:00-minute hashmark, and watch just the next 20 minutes of the film, until the 50:00-minute hashmark, and STOP.
Assume that the facts in the above 20-minute lifeboat scene film clip are factually true and fully represent facts that have been proved on a trial that you have been attending as jurors.Assume these facts have been proved by the prosecution either directly by means of unchallenged eyewitness testimony at the trial, or indirectly as capable of being reasonably inferred, circumstantially, from either the eyewitness evidence or other evidence shown to you and your classmates, all sitting as jurors engaged in deliberations in order to reach a verdict, in this very Discussion Forum, in the manslaughter trial of defendant Alexander William Holmes (the character played by actor Martin Sheen in the film).
Additionally, assume that at the end of the trial you have just attended as jurors, the arguments made to you by the respective prosecution and defense counsel are identical to the arguments made by the respective counsel in Wallace’s report of that case, again, at the following internal link:
[INSTRUCTOR'S EDIT] “United States v. Holmes,“ 1 Wall. Jr. 1., 26 F.Cas. 360 (E.D. Penn., 1842).pdf
Therefore, in studying my [INSTRUCTOR’S EDIT] version of the caselaw above, pay strict attention to my partitioning of the various sections of the published report, which begins with the facts of the that particular case, taking up the first three pages of the document:
[GRAND JURY INDICTMENT:] page 4
[PROSECUTION CLOSING STATEMENT ON THE TRIAL:] pages 4—5
[DEFENSE CLOSING STATEMENT ON THE TRIAL:] pages 5—7
[JURY INSTRUCTIONS BY THE COURT:] 7—10
I repeat, since this is important, for purposes of the is Discussion Forum, you must assume that at the end of the trial you have just attended as jurors, the arguments made to you by the respective prosecution and defense counsel are identical to the arguments made by the respective counsel in my [INSTRUCTOR’S EDIT] “United States v. Holmes,” 1 Wall. Jr. 1., 26 F.Cas. 360 (E.D. Penn., 1842).pdf
When you study the above case, you will note that defendant Alexander William Holmes relies on a theory that his actions were justified by “the law of nature.” Holmes’ defense lawyers, in their closing statements to the jury (see page 6 of my Instructor’s Edit above) cite multiple times Thomas Rutherforth’s “Institutes of Natural Law,” 2 vols. Cambridge, U.K., 1754; second American edition, Baltimore, 1832 [the work was subtitled “....Course of Lectures on [Hugo] Grotius[‘s] de Jure Belli et Pacis” (1625; On the Law of War and Peace)].
The prosecution recognizes that the prosecution has the right to make a certain affirmative defense grounded upon the law of self-defense, or general justification. Indeed, our due process “right to life” is traditionally considered to be grounded in what the Declaration of Independence refers to as “laws of nature and of nature’s God” and as “inalienable” (incapable of rational relinquishment). Even Thomas Hobbes, in Chap. XIV of the First Part of Leviathan (1651) referred the right to life as “this fundamental law of nature” which underlies “the right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale,” being “the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.”
But of course, the prosecution must prove that the particular defendant, sailor Holmes, cannot succeed in proving any such self-defense, or general justification defense, in the case at hand, and should therefore be convicted of the manslaughter charges stated in the indictment.
The purpose of this week’s Discussion Forum for Week One (Aug 26—31), your first classroom activity to be submitted for a grade, and which will remain open for at least several weeks after I release these instructions in this, my opening post to the forum, is to provide an exercise, in the form of an asynchronous classroom activity, in which you are asked to apply law in good standing to the facts of a legal matter presented to you for your deliberations and decisions, and to test how well you present and logically defend through your considered reasons for holding the position that you decide to take.
I repeat, you must assume as fully authoritative in your decision making the specific items representing law in good standing above, firstly, the two jury instruction rules based on statutes from a state penal code, specifically, from the California Jury Instructions—Criminal (CALCRIM), and secondly, the published judicial opinion above, reported by Wallace for the West publishing company, as “United States v. Holmes,” 1 Wall. Jr. 1., 26 F.Cas. 360 (E.D. Penn., 1842). Again, the two jury instruction rules based on statutes from a state penal code, specifically, from the California Jury Instructions—Criminal (CALCRIM) are:
[1] the Rule of Court defining the crime of “murder” @
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/520/
and [2] the Rule of Court defining the defense of “justification” @
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/505/
Again, in this week’s Discussion Forum for Week One (Aug 26—31), the first in a series of thirteen to be issued on a regular basis over the course of the semester, you are asked to view yourself as a juror seated on the manslaughter trial of defendant Alexander William Holmes (the character played by actor Martin Sheen in the film introduced at our first class meeting) and determine whether you would have dissented from a jury conviction of the defendant.
You must assert in you contributing post(s) to this Discussion Forum, what your carefully considered reasons would be, either [1] for your decision to dissent from a jury conviction, if you so decide that you would dissent, or [2] otherwise for your decision to concur with other jurors in a manslaughter conviction of the defendant, if you so decide that the defendant was in fact guilty of the charges.
State the grounds (the evidence and reasons) for holding your position CLEARLY AND CAREFULLY. Keep in mind that this is of course your weekly assignment for class, not simply an internet message board. You must answer both the general and specific questions I have presented in this opening post. For EXTRA CREDIT you should go on in your post to debate prior postings by your classmates in THIS THREAD. And (so long as your first post directly deals with the above general and specific questions presented) you may go on to respond with additional posts in reply to successive later posts by your classmates that challenge the position in your initial post. In order to adequately deal with the above issues (for competitive assessment purposes that is, in order to receive an ‘A’ grade rather than a ‘C’ grade, which will be my grading range) I expect that your initial post should be at least 250 words in length but not more than 500 words in length.
Be sure you have studied the INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN ABOVE in this opening post before you proceed. Here are some helpful tutorial links for good luck:
https://www.affordablecollegesonline.org/college-resource-center/online-discussion-boards/
https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/discuss_etiquette.html