Table of Contents

Breaking Bad in the Classroom

Max Minzner, University of New Mexico School of Law

Models of Invisibility: Rendering Domestic and other Gendered Violence Visible to Students through Clinical Law Teaching

Elizabeth L. MacDowell, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Ann Cammett, CUNY School of Law

Statutory Interpretation: Yates v. United States

Corey Ciocchetti, University of Denver - Daniels College of Business - Department of Business Ethics & Legal Studies

The Virginia and Federal Rules of Evidence: A Concise Comparison with Commentary (Introduction and Selected Excerpts)

Jeffrey Bellin, William & Mary Law School

Teaching Merger Law Through In-Class Simulations

Spencer Weber Waller, Loyola University of Chicago, School of Law - Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies


LAW EDUCATOR: COURSES, MATERIALS & TEACHING eJOURNAL

"Breaking Bad in the Classroom" Free Download
New Mexico Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2015
UNM School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-12

MAX MINZNER, University of New Mexico School of Law
Email:

Breaking Bad is often described as the transformation of Walter White — Mr. Chips becomes Scarface. Equally significant, though, are the journeys of Hank Schrader, his DEA pursuer, and Hank’s colleagues. The show is a study of law enforcement investigation in action. As a result, Breaking Bad can serve as a tool of pedagogy in criminal procedure.

This Essay seeks to serve two ends. First, it provides a map for the use of the Breaking Bad series in the core constitutional criminal procedure course focusing on the limits on police investigation arising from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Video is a powerful mechanism for presenting hypotheticals to students. Recent work on other shows such as The Wire has recognized the value of television as an alternative pedagogical technique in the law school curriculum. Breaking Bad deserves to take its place as a teaching aid in a criminal procedure classroom. The first part of this Essay identifies usable scenes for both faculty and students, and provides a preliminary analysis of the doctrine.

The second goal of this Essay is to expand the focus of the traditional course beyond the United States Constitution. Breaking Bad is more than a show about cops and criminals. It is a show about New Mexico. As a result, for those of us training New Mexico’s future prosecutors and defense lawyers, it provides a mechanism to introduce students to state criminal procedure. As is true in many states, the New Mexico Constitution contains parallel protections to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments that have been interpreted more broadly than their restrictive federal counterparts. This Essay is a call to law school faculty to incorporate state constitutions into the criminal procedure class. Because criminal law is fundamentally state law, these are the provisions our students will implement in practice. As a result, they deserve significant time in the criminal procedure course.

As legal education changes, law school faculty members teaching doctrinal classes are increasingly called on to make traditional law school courses more practical. The central goal of these efforts is to make our graduates more practice-ready and to increase the realism of legal education. The constitutional criminal procedure course is perhaps the best place to start. The core of the course is practice-oriented and will be implemented by our graduates as soon as they begin a career in criminal law. Breaking Bad is one mechanism for faculty members to use. In this way, the use of fiction can make criminal procedure more realistic.

"Models of Invisibility: Rendering Domestic and other Gendered Violence Visible to Students through Clinical Law Teaching" Free Download
Violence Against Women, 2016, Forthcoming

ELIZABETH L. MACDOWELL, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Email:
ANN CAMMETT, CUNY School of Law
Email:

The proliferation of university courses about domestic violence includes clinical courses in law schools in which students represent victims in their legal cases. This essay advocates for a broader approach to teaching about the problem. Using examples from their clinic cases, the authors show how teachers can overcome pedagogical challenges and render domestic and other forms of gendered violence, including state and community violence, more visible to students by intentionally raising and placing it within larger frameworks of structural inequality. In this way, students learn to identify and address gendered violence even when it is not the presenting problem.

"Statutory Interpretation: Yates v. United States" Free Download

COREY CIOCCHETTI, University of Denver - Daniels College of Business - Department of Business Ethics & Legal Studies
Email:

This teaching tool evaluates statutory interpretation using the recent Supreme Court case of Yates v. United States as a guide. Tools analyzed include textual analysis, context, legislative history, noscitur a sociis, and ejusdem generis. Also discussed is the plurality's reliance on titles of legal provisions and a provision's placement in the larger statutory context. This project also evaluates the concurrence and dissent in the case.

"The Virginia and Federal Rules of Evidence: A Concise Comparison with Commentary (Introduction and Selected Excerpts)" Free Download
The Virginia and Federal Rules of Evidence: A Concise Comparison with Commentary, CreateSpace Independent Publishing, 2015
William & Mary Law School Research Paper No. 09-308

JEFFREY BELLIN, William & Mary Law School
Email:

Comparisons of federal and state evidence rules can be immensely helpful to attorneys, judges, and law students who are often well versed in one set of rules, but not the other. As a result, book-length federal-to-state rule comparisons exist for most major United States jurisdictions. Virginia has until now been a notable exception. For each rule of evidence, this book sets out the full text of the federal and corresponding Virginia rule, followed by a “Comparison and Commentary? section that (1) analyzes salient distinctions between the text of the federal and Virginia rule; (2) describes how those differences operate in application; and (3) highlights distinctions between the rules in application that may not be apparent from the rules’ text. The “Comparison and Commentary? section also flags areas where the Virginia codifiers arguably went beyond Virginia case law in creating the codified rules, creating uncertainty as to the controlling evidence rule. Finally, the “Comparison and Commentary? sections reference (and reprint) a number of Virginia statutes that touch on evidentiary principles, but are either not completely captured within the relevant evidence rule or are not referenced at all in the Virginia evidence codification.

Apart from its more obvious utility, the book's exploration of distinctions between two longstanding, deeply considered evidence codes also highlights important policy choices made by the evidence rule makers in the respective jurisdictions.

"Teaching Merger Law Through In-Class Simulations" Free Download
Competition Policy International Antitrust Chronicle (June 2015), Forthcoming

SPENCER WEBER WALLER, Loyola University of Chicago, School of Law - Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies
Email:

This essay outlines how I have taught the mergers and acquisitions section of my basic antitrust law course for the past five years. Instead of relying on casebooks, the black letter law, and merger guidelines, I use an in-class simulation that moves the students from passive to active learning over a two to three week period. Having experimented with various formats for the simulation, I am convinced that adding such an exercise better conveys the content and process of modern merger practice and gives the students a taste of what the practice world holds in store for them.

In this article, I describe my general approach to teaching antitrust law and then discuss the process for the annual merger simulation. I follow with a description of the excellent argument students presented this year based on the now abandoned National Cine-Media (NCM) acquisition of Screenvision. As fate would have it, our simulation concluded two days after the parties announced they had abandoned the transaction in the face of the complaint filed by the Justice Department. This did not deter the students who pressed on with a spirited in-class hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction. I conclude with brief thoughts about the value of such simulations in a rapidly changing environment for legal education.

^top

About this eJournal

This eJournal is designed to offer a vehicle for law teachers to share information and materials about teaching. All materials related to law teaching are encouraged. This includes casebooks, reviews of casebooks, supplementary materials (for your own or someone else's book), lecture notes, class summaries, outlines, syllabi, problems and other teaching materials. It also includes scholarship about teaching. We hope that Law Educator will grow in future years to include a full range of teaching materials, including PowerPoint slides, Excel spreadsheets, video content and other material.

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LSN SUBJECT MATTER EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Law Educator: Courses, Materials & Teaching eJournal

CRAIG H. ALLEN
Judson Falknor Professor of Law, University of Washington - School of Law, Interim Director, UW Arctic Law and Policy Institute

DOROTHY ANDREA BROWN
Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law

JOHN S. DZIENKOWSKI
University of Texas - School of Law, The Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Energy, Law, and Business

HEATHER GERKEN
J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law, Yale University - Law School

JAMES RUSSELL GORDLEY
W.R. Irby Chair in Law, Tulane University Law School

GERALD HESS
Professor of Law, Gonzaga University - School of Law

CYNTHIA LEE
Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School

HOWARD LESNICK
Jefferson B. Fordham Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School

DAVID I. LEVINE
Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law

GRANT S. NELSON
Pepperdine University - School of Law

ROGER E. SCHECHTER
affiliation not provided to SSRN

JOAN M. SHAUGHNESSY
Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University - School of Law

ELAINE W. SHOBEN
Judge Jack & Lulu Lehman Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law

STEPHANIE M. WILDMAN
John A. and Elizabeth H. Sutro Professor of Law, Santa Clara University - School of Law