HANDOUT: People and the Courts
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
Sandra Day was born on March 26, 1930 in El Paso, Texas. She grew up on a
cattle ranch in Arizona. Her home was remote— she lived with her
grandmother in El Paso during the school year because the family ranch
was too far from any schools.
After high school, Sandra attended Stanford University in California. She
also went to law school there. She was an excellent student, graduating
near the top of her law school class. After law school, she got married to
John O’Connor. But she had trouble finding a job; people would not hire a
woman lawyer. She finally got a job with the county attorney in San Mateo,
California—but only because she said she would work for no pay! The county attorney prosecutes people
accused of crimes, trying to prove their guilt.
When the family moved to Arizona, Sandra became politically active. She worked on Republican political
campaigns and served as an assistant Attorney General of Arizona. She served in the Arizona Senate,
where she was known as someone who could work with all sides. She became a judge in 1974.
In 1981, something remarkable happened. President Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to
become the first woman to serve in the U.S. Supreme Court. She was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on a
vote of 99-0. Her appointment, like all federal judicial appointments, was for life or as long as she chose
to serve. Over time, Justice O’Connor became an important “swing” vote on the Supreme Court. A swing
voter casts the deciding vote. She most often voted with more conservative justices, but sometimes
voted with the more liberal block. Two examples will show you the importance of her vote:
●
●
In the case of Lockyer v. Andrade, the issue was California’s “three strikes” law that a person who
was convicted of their third felony would receive a life sentence no matter what the offense was.
This law was passed to protect public safety. But lawyers for a man named Leandro Andrade
argued that a life sentence for the crime of stealing $150 worth of videos was cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Justice O’Connor voted with the conservatives and
wrote the opinion saying a life sentence was not cruel and unusual.
The case of Lee v. Weisman revolved around whether a prayer at a public school graduation
violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Those who favored such prayers said
they were protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. In this case, Justice
O’Connor voted with the liberals, ruling that religious prayer at graduation forced people to
support or participate in religion, which is not allowed under the First Amendment.
Justice O’Connor retired from the Supreme Court in 2006. After her retirement, she wrote several books.
She also became involved in promoting education that prepares young people to be powerful civic
actors.
HANDOUT: People and the Courts
Bryan Stevenson, Attorney and Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative
Bryan Stevenson was born in Delaware on November 14, 1959. He
grew up in a small rural town, where segregation and
discrimination were common. When he was a teenager, Bryan’s
grandfather was murdered in his home by two robbers.
In high school, Bryan got straight A’s and was the student body
president, known for his public speaking skills. He went to college
in Pennsylvania and then went on to Harvard Law School. As part of
an internship during law school, he worked for the Southern Center
for Human Rights. The center represented people sentenced to
death in Southern states. Bryan knew he wanted to continue this
work.
Bryan graduated from Harvard in 1985 with not only a law degree but a master’s degree in public policy.
He moved to Atlanta, Georgia, to join the Southern Center for Human Rights. His assigned territory was
Alabama. He eventually moved to Montgomery, Alabama, and established the non-profit Equal Justice
Initiative. His new center offered to defend—free of charge—anyone in Alabama who had been
sentenced to death. Alabama did not provide lawyers to people appealing their death sentences.
The Equal Justice Initiative has saved more than 100 people from the death penalty. Some have been
freed because they were wrongly convicted. Others have had their sentences changed to life
imprisonment. Stevenson has argued several cases before the Supreme Court. In one, his argument that
a life without parole sentence for children 17 and under was cruel and unusual convinced the court to
rule in his client’s favor.
While Stevenson’s life has been devoted to the cause of equal justice in the courts, he has also done
other important work. He spearheaded the development of the National Memorial for Peace and Justice,
which honors the nearly 4,000 African Americans lynched in the South, and the Legacy Museum: From
Enslavement to Mass Incarceration, both of which opened in 2018. Both projects aim to show how
history affects the present.
Stevenson wrote a bestselling book: Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. It was recently made
into a movie. He has won many awards, including a MacArthur Genius Grant and a Benjamin Franklin
Award for public service.
Source: Photo: Nick Frontiero/Pacific Standard, https://psmag.com/magazine/bryan-stevenson-ps-interview
HANDOUT: People and the Courts
Audrey Pischl, Juror in a Murder Case
Audrey Pischl wrote this description of what it was like to be a juror in a murder case. A juror is a
member of the jury, the group of people who decide if an accused person is guilty or not guilty.
*****
Being a juror had never been something I was familiar with—very far from it, actually. I had grown up in
Paris, France, and my interests had always been in fashion and the music industry. . . .
But then I got that jury-duty notice . . . So many times, I’d heard people complaining about being called
for jury duty—the inconvenience, the missing out on work and income, and then the advice on how to
get out of it should you be so unlucky to be selected. . . .
I had to fill out a long personal questionnaire about my criminal history, if I knew anyone in law
enforcement or any lawyers, and my view on guns, gangs, etc.
When I walked in, there were 80-plus other people waiting in movie theater-like seats (except they didn’t
recline). Two defendants were present, along with a bailiff maintaining security.
Then, the judge informed us that this was a criminal trial: A murder case.
The questioning of us potential jurors from both the prosecution and the defense took a long time . . .
When they got to me, they asked if I had any feelings about tattoos, and if I understood an
aiding-and-abetting situation, and if I could be impartial.
Not really, yes, and yes, I said. I was picked. And without a doubt, what happened next altered my life
forever.
Here’s what the case was about: A group of five men were drinking beers in a driveway when someone,
or multiple people, came running down the street toward them, shooting a gun. It was early in the
evening. One guy was hit in the head and died instantly.
Surveillance videos showed two people running, with hoodies on, in the dark. The district attorney said
this was an intentional premeditated murder, carried out on behalf of a gang.
My first impressions of the two defendants were neutral: James, the taller one, sat up straight and
seemed confident but not overly so, while Robert was hunched down and, to me, looked like a “deer in
headlights,” as the expression goes. . . .
The main thing the district attorney kept returning to over and over again was the fact that Robert had
gang tattoos, across his arms and hands. The prosecutor kept asking character witnesses if they knew the
meaning of these images. The defense said he’d gotten them to look tougher—not because he’d
“earned” them. . . .
HANDOUT: People and the Courts
My opinion was clear: Robert was not guilty, under the law as it was read to us at the end of the trial. If
you have reasonable doubt, you have to vote not guilty.
Then deliberation time. . . . It ended in a mistrial: 7-5 guilty for James, 7-5 not guilty for Robert.
This could have been the end of it. I would go on with my fashionable life, return to my husband and
being a mother. . . . But something happened for me. . . . I kept in touch with both attorneys. James
followed his counsel’s advice and took a plea deal a few weeks later, taking responsibility for the crime
with a 25-year sentence. Robert did not . . .
[The verdict was] Guilty . . . Murder one, plus four counts of attempted murder. . . .
Sentencing came a few days shy of Christmas. Life without parole: a death sentence with a different
sticker on it. . . .
Robert’s case has made me engage with the world in ways I never thought I would. I keep in touch with
four of my fellow jurors, and we meet up once in awhile.
I’m also getting involved with an organization that works on new state criminal-justice reform bills,
including one that would remove life-without-parole as a possible sentence for someone who has not
directly committed a murder. . . .
I have been told how unusual it is for a juror to become so involved in the case after-the-fact. But I find it
sad that it could ever be unusual to know about what happens to Robert and care.
Source: Audrey Pischl, “I Was a Juror on a Murder Trial, and I Still Can’t Let It Go,” The Marshall Project, February
21, 2019,
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/02/21/i-was-a-juror-on-a-murder-trial-and-i-still-can-t-let-it
-go.
HANDOUT: People and the Courts
Otis McDonald, Plaintiff in a Lawsuit
Otis McDonald was born in 1933 in Louisiana. In
1952, he moved to Chicago. He had a series of
low-paying jobs before getting hired as a janitor at
the University of Chicago. He worked his way up to
become a maintenance engineer. Although he had
dropped out of high school, while working at the
university, he went back to school. He got an
associates degree from Kennedy-King College. He
retired in 1996.
Mr. McDonald and his wife Laura had five children.
In 1971, they bought a home in the Morgan Park
neighborhood. As time passed, he felt the area was becoming much more dangerous. Gangs and drug
dealers broke into homes and made a mess of the neighborhood. Mr. McDonald was a hunter and
owned several shotguns. But he felt he needed a handgun to protect his family. In 1982, Chicago had
placed a ban on handguns in hopes of making the city safer. Mr. McDonald could therefore not legally
buy the handgun he felt he needed for personal protection.
In 2008, Mr. McDonald and three other Chicagoans filed a lawsuit claiming the city’s handgun ban
violated their Second Amendment rights. The people who bring a case are called the plaintiffs. The case
went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the plaintiffs’ lawyers do the talking in the
Supreme Court, Mr. and Mrs. McDonald traveled to Washington to hear the arguments. Mr. McDonald
said as he sat in the Court, he remembered African American people who were not allowed to own guns
in the years after the Civil War. Though they were free, their rights were restricted by Jim Crow laws. He
felt he was fighting for those ancestors.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Mr. McDonald. It said that the Second Amendment
protected the right to own guns for self-defense and applied not just to the federal government, but to
states and cities as well.
Mr. McDonald died in 2014 at the age of 80.
Source: Dahleen Glanton, “Otis McDonald, 1933-2014: Fought Chicago’s Gun Ban,” Chicago Tribune, April 6,
2014,
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2014-04-06-ct-otis-mcdonald-obituary-met-20140406-story.html
Photo: Scott Strazzante, Chicago Tribune.
HANDOUT: People and the Courts
Use this form to take notes as you look at the other groups’ storyboards.
Sandra Day O’Connor
Bryan Stevenson
How was this person involved with the courts?
How was this person involved with the courts?
How did she become involved?
How did he become involved?
Why was her involvement with the courts
important?
Why was his involvement with the courts
important?
What was a conflict Sandra Day O’Connor dealt
with through the courts?
What was a conflict Bryan Stevenson dealt with
through the courts?
Audrey Pischl
Otis McDonald
How was this person involved with the courts?
How was this person involved with the courts?
How did she become involved?
How did he become involved?
Why was her involvement with the courts
important?
Why was his involvement with the courts
important?
What was a conflict Audrey Pischl dealt with
through the courts?
What was a conflict Otis McDonald dealt with
through the courts?
HANDOUT: People and the Courts
VISUAL: Discussion Questions
● How did looking at these case studies help you understand what
courts do and how people can influence the courts?
● Was creating a storyboard a good way to show what you learned?
How did you decide what to include in your storyboard?
● Which of the ways of influencing the judicial branch do you think is
most important? Why? Which do you think you are most likely to
do? What makes you say that?
● Did you notice that the conflicts the courts deal with are conflicts
between two “goods”--for example, a conflict between two rights or
between a right and another societal value like safety. What two
goods were in conflict in your case study?
● Based on what you have learned about how people interact with
the judicial branch, do you think you will have more power by
interacting with the court system or by focusing on influencing
policymakers in the legislative and executive branches? Why?
● What questions do you have about how people interact with the
judicial branch?