Unit(s): Impromptu Speaking and Decision Making
Purpose:
The purposes of this activity are to help the students learn to present specific and detailed information in an effective manner and to give student experience in impromptu speaking in a way designed to lessen anxiety. This activity also provides an exercise in decision making. This exercise should be used after a class discussion on message organization and language clarity.
Objectives:
Students will understand the importance of message organization and language clarity in oral communication.
Students will apply critical thinking skills in decision making.
Students will demonstrate appropriate impromptu speaking skills.
Materials:
- Hand-out on the Constitutional Amendments relevant to the selected court cases.
- Summaries of actual court cases and the court decisions.
- Critique sheet for listeners.
Procedure:
- On the day of the impromptu speeches, give each student a description of a court case.
- Give students instruction such as the following:
You have a brief summary of an actual court case. You have the facts of the case, but you do not have the final decision of the judges. I will give you that at the end of the class. Today you are to assume you are the judge. You are to read the information you have and then explain in your own words the case to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for the decision. In absolutely no circumstances may you read the description to the class. Your assignment is to tell them about the case so that they can understand it and the decision you would make.
- Give the students five to ten minutes to study the case summaries before speeches begin. The time allowed for each speech can vary, depending on the number in class.
- After the speeches, give the court decisions and discuss techniques used to help the listeners to understand.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....
Amendment 5
No person shall....be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....
Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required,...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment 14
....Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....
A note on Right to Privacy
Although "privacy" is not mentioned in the Constitution by name, the Supreme Court considers privacy as a constitutional right. The first eight amendments and the Fourteenth Amendment provide protection against unreasonable search and seizure and provide for due process of law. These amendments along with The Declaration of Independence's provision of the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are understood to guarantee some rights of privacy.
1. Kelly Chapman and Richard Jaworski were inmates at a
maximum
security state prison and were housed in the same cell at the
prison--a practice called "double celling." The two prisoners
filed a suit against state officials arguing that "double
celling" violated their constitutional rights because it was
cruel and unusual punishment (Amendment 8). Some facts you
should know are:
inmates at the maximum
security prison serve long terms of
imprisonment;
the prison had 38% more
inmates than it was built to house;
inmates spent the
majority of the time in their cells;
each cell was 63 square
feet;
prison violence had
increased over the last few years.
The two prisoners filing the suit charged that "double
celling" caused the increase in violence, but state
prison officials argued that the increase in prison violence was
caused by the increase in the prison population.
The District Court ruled that "double celling" was indeed
cruel and unusual punishment. The state appealed the decision to
the Supreme Court. Assume you are a judge on the Supreme Court.
How would you vote? Why? Explain in your own words the above
situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would
make and the reason for it.
2. A large privately-owned shopping center had a policy not to permit anyone to circulate petitions to the public in the shopping center. This policy was strictly enforced. Some local high school students sought to get signatures on a petition opposing a certain United Nations' action. On a Saturday, these students set up a card table in the courtyard of the shopping center. They passed out pamphlets and asked shoppers to sign petitions. Before long a security guard informed them of the regulation against circulating petitions and told them they would have to leave. The guard told them that they could set up their table on the public sidewalk at the edge of the shopping center. The students immediately left the shopping center and later filed suit against the owners of the shopping center for denying access to the center and for limiting their right to petition (Amendment 1). A state court held that the students were not guaranteed the right to petition in the shopping center and that there were other effective ways for them to circulate their petitions. The students appealed this decision. The next higher court reversed the lower court decision, pointing out that the State Constitution specifically protects the right to "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned." The owner of the shopping center now appealed this decision arguing that his property rights were being violated. As a private property owner, he had the right to set certain regulations that he believed to be in the best interest of his business. He argued that he should not be forced to have his property used as a forum for the petitions or others. Assume you are a judge on the Supreme Court. How would you vote? Do the students have the right to petition in the shopping center? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
3. Four prisoners at a federal prison escaped by crawling through a window. All were recaptured over a period of time ranging from one month to three months. At their trial for escaping from prison (an offense which could add five years to their prison terms), all four argued that they had to escape from the brutal conditions at the prison. They said that they had been threatened and beaten by other prisoners and guards. Although there was no conclusive proof of this, other prisoners did testify that the four men had been beaten. There was proof of frequent fires in the maximum-security cellblock where the four escapees were housed. The prisoners argued that the guards made no attempt to put out the fires and that they feared for their lives. One of the four prisoners also claimed he was receiving inadequate medical attention to control his epileptic seizures. All four escapees said they intended to turn themselves in to the F.B.I. after their escape, but they received word from "their sources" that F.B.I. agents said they were going to kill them. One said he called the F.B.I., and the agent said he would be sent back to the same prison if he surrendered. There was no record of this call. The prison officials maintained that there was no evidence that the escapees attempted to surrender after their escape or to make contact with the authorities. The trial judge instructed the jury to disregard any evidence of conditions in the prison. The four men were found guilty of unlawfully leaving prison. The four appealed the case to the Supreme Court asking for a new trial. They maintained that the conditions at the prison were a legitimate part of their defense and that the jury should not have been instructed to disregard them. Assume you are a judge. Should the four prisoners receive a new trial in which evidence of prison conditions could be introduced? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
4. A 15-year-old student was shot and killed at a junior high school. The alleged murderer, a 14-year-old classmate, was identified by seven eyewitnesses and was arrested by police shortly after the murder. Local newspaper reporters learned of the shooting by monitoring the police band radio. Reporters arrived at the junior high school and interviewed several of the eyewitnesses. They learned the name of the person arrested for the murder from the witnesses and the police. When the story ran in the newspaper, the name of the person arrested was given even though he was a juvenile and a state law made it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without court approval, the name of any juvenile offender. The newspaper was indicted for breaking this law. The newspaper then filed a petition with the court to stop the indictment. The newspaper contended that they had lawfully obtained accurate information about a matter of public interest and that this law was needed to protect the privacy of juvenile offenders to increase the chance that they could be rehabilitated. Assume you are the judge. Is this law prohibiting the publication of the name of a juvenile offender constitutional? How would you vote? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
5. The wife of Mr. Wengler died in a work-related accident while she was working for a prescription drug company. Mr. Wengler filed a claim for death benefits. A state law declared that if a work-related accident caused death, the employer was to pay death benefits (in the form of burial expenses and monthly payments based on the employee's salary) to the dependent of the deceased. However, this law prohibited a husband from receiving these death benefits unless he could prove that he was mentally or physically unable to earn his own living. In contrast, a wife automatically qualified for death benefits based on her husband's wages. Even though Mr. Wengler was able to earn his own income, he contended that he should be paid death benefits. He argued that this law clearly treated husbands and wives differently; thus, it was discriminatory and was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (Amendment 14) When Mr. Wengler's claim for benefits was denied, he took his case to court. The Circuit Court sided with Mr. Wengler and ordered the employer to pay him the benefits. The employer appealed to the State Supreme Court: they overruled the lower court maintaining the law was constitutional. The court indicated that because traditionally women had been more dependent on the husband's income, the law reflected the different "economic standing" of men and women. Mr. Wengler appealed this decision, again arguing that it was discrimination for a wife to receive death benefits even if she was not dependent on her husband's income when a husband could not receive such benefits. Assume you are the judge. Is this law constitutional? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
6. A newspaper ran a story of Mafia Activities on Grand Bahama Island alleging that Americans who were part of the organized crime activities of the Mafia were illegally involved in the gambling operations on the island. Included with the story was a photograph of a group of people gambling at one of the casinos. A Mr. Holmes was in the center of this photograph and was easily recognizable even though he was not named. The caption under the photograph referred to "High Rollers" at the casino and contained the information that the casino had a profit of $20 million a year with a third "skimmed off for the American Mafia 'families'." Mr. Holmes who was in no way connected with the Mafia and who had not given his permission to have his picture taken sued the newspaper for libel, that is for damaging his reputation. Holmes contended that the photograph, caption, and accompanying story implied that he was involved with the Mafia. The newspaper argued that the caption only labeled the people in the picture as gamblers at the casino (no names were used) and that the caption did not imply that he was part of the Mafia. Assume you are a judge. Was Mr. Holmes libeled by the newspaper? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
7. A Boston magazine published an article titled "Best and Worst Sports" which contained a listing of the best and worst in many sports related categories such as "sports announcers," "local ski slopes," and "sexy athletes." Under "sports announcers," the best was named and complimented. Then this statement appeared: "Worst, Jimmy Myers, Channel 4. The only newscaster in town who is enrolled in a course for remedial speaking." Myers sued for defamation (attack on his reputation). He pointed out that the article stated that he "is enrolled" in a remedial speech course which was not true. By stating this as a fact, the magazine had hurt his reputation as a sports announcer. The magazine owners maintained that the article was written in jest and that readers understood that exaggerations were part of the article. Cartoons, humor, and outlandish statements were used throughout the article, and the owners contended that readers would know that what was written was not presented as fact. Assume you are the judge. Should Myers win the case? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
8. John Doe was convicted of attempted murder. He was first committed to a state mental hospital where he was classified as a "Mentally Disordered Offender" who would not benefit from treatment. He was then sentenced to serve a twenty year term of imprisonment, with a recommendation that he not be paroled. However, after he served five years, the state parole board did parole him and placed him in the care of his mother. The parole board was fully informed about his previous crime and of the report from the State Mental Hospital containing the statement that he was likely to commit another violent crime. Five months after his release, he tortured and killed a fifteen-year-old girl. The girl's parents filed a suit against the state asking for damages of two million dollars for the harm caused by the state parole officials. The parents argued that the board's action was reckless and negligent and that the board should have known that the release of John Doe would create a clear and present danger. However, a state law clearly specified that parole board officials are not liable (legally responsible) for any injuries caused by a released prisoner. The parents of the murder victim argued that this law was unconstitutional and deprived their daughter of "due process of law" (Amendment 14). Assume you are a judge on the Supreme Court. Is the law constitutional? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
9. Ten year old Eleanor was involved in a minor car accident
when she was walking across the street and was hit and knocked
down by a careless motorist. A news photographer just happened
to see the accident and took a picture of a woman helping Eleanor
to her feet. This photo was published in a local newspaper the
day after the accident.
Twenty months after Eleanor was hit by the car, a national
magazine used this same photograph to illustrate an article
headlined "They Ask to be Killed." The little girl's picture had
this statement underneath it: "Safety education in schools has
reduced child accidents measurably, but unpredictable darting
through traffic still takes its sobering toll." In a box by the
picture, there were these words: "Do you invite massacre by
your own carelessness? Here's how to keep them alive."
Eleanor's parents filed suit because their daughter's right
to privacy had been violated. Their daughter had become a
frightful example of the carelessness of children. This was not
only done without her permission, but this was inaccurate. They
asked for payment to compensate Eleanor for this invasion of
privacy. Assume you are the judge. Was Eleanor's constitutional
right of privacy violated? Should she be compensated? Why?
Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates
and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
10. William Sidis was a mathematical genius who graduated from Harvard at sixteen and received a great deal of local and national publicity. Twenty years after his graduation from Harvard, a magazine ran a story about Sidis and other people who were touted as being geniuses as children. The article contained a cartoon with the caption "Where Are They Now?" and "April Fool." The article related how Sidis now lived in a shabby rented apartment, worked in a routine clerical job, and as a hobby studied the history of American Indians. Sidis sued the magazine for invasion of privacy. The magazine owners maintained that Sidis was a public figure and , as such, they had the right to write about his life. No false information was in the article. Was Sidis deprived of his right to privacy? Did the magazine have the right to publish such an article? Assume you are a judge. How would you vote? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
11. A local television station was doing a story on some restaurants that were cited for health-code violations. As part of the story, a camera crew--with lights on and camera rolling-- went into a public and famous restaurant in the area. Their arrival was unannounced. As they filmed the customers dining in the restaurant, there was much confusion and dismay. Reportedly many customers did not wish to be seen on film for various reasons (such as being with a person other than their spouses). The restaurant owners sued the television station for invading their privacy and for trespassing. They did not know the television crew was coming and did not give them permission. The television station owners maintained that the restaurant was a public place and that if you can see something in a public place, you can photograph it. Assume you are the judge. Should the restaurant owners win the suit? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
12. Albert Glines was a captain in the Air Force Reserves. While on active duty at an Air Force Base, he wrote some petitions to several members of Congress and to the Secretary of Defense complaining about the Air Force's grooming standards and asking that they be changed. Captain Glines knew about a policy that required him to obtain the approval of his commander before he could collect signatures on the petition on the Air Force Base. Glines, at first, circulated the petition off the base. However, later he gave the petition to a sergeant while on base and without seeking permission to circulate the petition. The sergeant gathered eight signatures on the petition before military authorities seized the petition. Glines' commander immediately removed him from active duty for his part in the unauthorized petition. Glines brought suit claiming that the regulation requiring approval before circulating petitions violated his constitutional right to free speech. (Amendment 1). The Air Force contended that the regulation requiring permission was not intended to suppress free speech but was needed to maintain a respect for duty and discipline which are vital in the operation of the military. The Air Force pointed out that regulations prohibit commanders from stopping the circulations of petitions that merely criticize the Air Force or government. But they argued that commanders must have the right to approve petitions so they could stop any that could adversely affect the troops' ability to carry out their duty. Assume you are the judge. Does this regulation violate Captain Glines' right to free speech? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reason for it.
13. The Medicaid program provides federal financial assistance to states to reimburse the poor in the states for certain medical treatment costs. Since 1976, Congress has prohibited the use of any federal funds to pay for the cost of obtaining an abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered by the pregnancy and except in cases of reported rape or incest. In New York, a welfare and Medicaid recipient who was two months pregnant wished to have an abortion, but she could not afford one and Medicaid would not pay for her to have one. She contended that this restriction on abortion violated her constitutional rights. It was argued that a woman's decision to seek an abortion may be based on her religious beliefs which vary greatly throughout the state and that this restriction on abortion was making all poor women subject to someone else's religious beliefs. Thus it violated her right to religious freedom (Amendment 1). It was also argued that in New York, abortions for women who could pay were legal and that the state was discriminating against the poor and violating the due process of the Fifth Amendment. Since Medicaid would pay for the cost of the pregnancy and child- related medical costs, it was argued that the abortion costs should also be covered for the poor. The State maintained that Medicaid was designed to pay for "medically necessary services" and not to assume the full costs of providing any health services to its recipients. The State also contended that although the government could not "place obstacles in the path of a woman's exercise of her freedom of choice, it need not remove those not of its own creation," and poverty was not of its own creation. The District Court ruled that this restriction on abortions did violate the Medicaid recipient's constitutional rights. The State appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. Assume you are a judge on this Court. How would you vote? Explain in your own words the above situation to you classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
14. The Federal Government provides financial support to needy children under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. One part of this program provides assistance to a needy child who has "been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the unemployment...of his father." A couple with an infant son applied to receive assistance under this program. The father was unable to work and the mother was unemployed. The mother was the family breadwinner until her recent unemployment. The couple was told that they could not receive assistance because the guidelines for the program specifically required that the father--and not the mother--must be unemployed. The couple filed suit alleging that the program discriminated on the basis of sex and was in violation of the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution (Amendment 14). If the father had been the family breadwinner and had lost his job, the family would have been eligible for benefits. In defending its policies, the Government maintained that although the program did make a difference based on sex, this policy was not sex-biased. Assume you are the judge. Is this regulation constitutional? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
15. Frank Snepp was an agent for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who was in Vietnam for several years. After he quit working for the CIA, Snepp wrote a book about CIA activities in Vietnam. Snepp did not submit his writings to the CIA for approval before the book was published as he was supposed to do. When agents are hired by the CIA, they have to sign an agreement promising that they will not publish any material about the CIA even after their employment ends without the approval of the CIA. This promise is obtained for all agents primarily to be sure no classified material will be revealed. There was no doubt that Snepp's broke his agreement with the CIA since he did not submit his book for approval before it was published. After Snepp's book was published, the CIA brought a suit against Snepp asking for a declaration that Snepp had broken his agreement and for an order requiring Snepp to submit any future writing for approval. The CIA also asked that Snepp not receive any profits from the sale of the book and that all profits go to the government. This District Court agreed with the CIA. Snepp protested pointing out that even the government agreed that his book contained no classified information. Thus he had not broken his promise to protect classified information. It was agreed that the CIA had no right to require such an agreement and that the punishment of taking away royalties was unfair. Snepp appealed to the Supreme Court. Assume you are a judge on the Supreme Court. How would you vote? Why? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
16. A journalist, Farber, wrote numerous articles about some "suspicious" deaths at a certain hospital and suggested that these deaths were a result of misuse of drugs. As a result of the articles, a grand jury investigated the matter and charged a doctor working at the hospital with murder. When the doctor came to trial, the journalist was subpoenaed (required by the judge) to bring to the court for inspection all of the notes and records he obtained while writing the articles. Farber refused because he maintained he was protected against disclosing the information under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. The judge disagreed and said he would have to examine all the documents to see if they were protected against disclosure. The journalist argued that he had received certain information only because he told his sources they would remain anonymous. Farber contended that if journalists can be made to reveal their sources, then they are restricted in the information they can receive, and freedom of the press is restricted. Opponents argued that the career and life of the man on trial for murder was at stake, and one's obligation to appear at a criminal trial and provide evidence was not protected by the First Amendment. Farber refused to return the requested material over to the court, and he was declared in contempt of court. He was ordered to be jailed until he turned over the papers. He appealed this contempt citation. Assume you are the judge. Should Farber be made to turn over his notes to the court? Explain the above situation in your own words to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
17. Mr. and Mrs. Ginsberg owned and managed a magazine shop. One day, a mother sent her sixteen-year-old son to the shop to buy two "girlie" magazines similar to Playboy and Hustler. The boy was allowed to purchase the magazines and walked out of the shop. He was stopped by the police, and the Ginsbergs were charged with willfully selling to a minor. A state law prohibited selling to anyone under 17 any pictures which contained nudity. Both magazines contained pictures of women in the nude. (Under State law, it was permissible to sell the magazines to persons 17 years of age or older.) The Ginsbergs were convicted of selling obscene material to a minor and appealed their case. They claimed that if material was not obscene for adults, they should not be made obscene for minors. Should minors be treated differently under the law? Assume you are the judge. How would you vote? Why? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
18. A state police official and three federal agents searched the home of Robert Stanley. They had a search warrant and had cause to believe Mr. Stanley was involved in illegal gambling activities. The search did not yield any records of gambling operations, but three reels of film and a projector were found. The searchers watched some of the films and judged them to be obscene. Mr. Stanley was then charged with possession of obscene material. Mr. Stanley argued that he had a right of privacy to have this material in his own home. He was not showing the material in public and was not sending it through the mail. The law enforcement officials argued that the material was "hardcore pornography" which was illegal to make or sell in the United States. If Mr. Stanley had the films in his home, then he must have received the material from somewhere else. Assume you are the judge. Does Mr. Stanley have the right to have what the court considers obscene material in his home? Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
19. Mr. Henry was arrested for robbery and was in jail awaiting his trial. While in jail and before his trial, he was in the same cell with a former paid government informant who was serving a sentence on a local forgery charge. Government agents asked this informant to listen for any comments that Mr. Henry might make as to his guilt. Later at Henry's trial, this informant did testify that Henry had revealed his guilt to him. The jury was not informed that this person was a paid informant; they only knew that he was a cell-mate of the defendant. Henry was convicted of bank robbery and appealed his conviction. He maintained that the informant's testimony should not have been introduced at his trial because it violated his constitutional right to have the assistance of a lawyer before being questioned. The Government contended that Henry wasn't questioned, but rather volunteered information to a fellow prisoner. Thus, they argued, the Government did not interfere with his right to counsel. Henry countered that the Government had taken deliberate steps to get incriminating information and that he had been denied the right to a lawyer before this information was solicited. The District Court ruled that Henry's rights were not violated. A higher court reversed the decision. The case is now before the Supreme Court. Assume you are the judge. How would vote? (Remember that the right to counsel is guaranteed under the law.) Explain in your own words the above situation to your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the reasons for it.
20. Women who were employed as guards in the female
section of a county jail filed suit for back pay and other compensation
arguing that they had been paid lower wages than male guards in
the male section of the jail. They maintained that this was
intentional sex discrimination since the county set the pay scale
for female guards lower than for male guards. The women argued
that the duties of the male and female guards were basically
the same--the main responsibility was to guard prisoners. The
County argued that male guards had to supervise ten times more
prisoners because there were more male inmates and that the male
inmates tended to be more dangerous. Thus the guards' work in
the male section was more demanding and hazardous.
The law requires that if male and female guards do "equal
work" they must be paid equal amounts. Assume you are a judge on
the Supreme Court. Should the female guards be paid the same as
male guards? Explain in your own words the above situation to
your classmates and discuss the decision you would make and the
reasons for it.
All the preceding descriptions are based on actual court cases. In many instances I had to simplify the case, but the primary facts surrounding each one have not been altered. Below I have given the decision and the reference for each case. Students usually want to know how the court ruled; and when I give them the decision, I point out that if they disagreed with the court they are not wrong. They just did not agree with the opinions of the majority of judges on a particular court at a particular time.
STUDENT CRITIC___________________________________
SPEAKER'S NAME_______________________________________
SPEAKER'S NAME_______________________________________
SPEAKER'S NAME_______________________________________