MUSIC: CLAUDE DEBUSSY,
Afternoon of a Faun (1894);
Nocturnes (1900); The Sea (1905)
ORCHESTRE de la Suisse Romande
(1988/1990)
conductOR: ARMIN JORDAN
B2 LUNCH TODAY (Friday): Meet on Bricks @ 12:05
Baros; Binko; Burns; Coupet;
Fenton; Woodby
Liesner Trial Transcript: DQ20
Oxygen
TRIAL COURT CORRECT DIRECTING
VERDICT? WHY OR WHY NOT?
Liesner Trial Transcript: DQ20
Trial Judge’s Perspective
• He must believe:
– Abdomen shot was mortal wound (location of shot;
wolf’s behavior)
– Only evidence of shot that could have made that wound
was Liesner shot (bullet/angle)
• Keep in Mind
– Judge might have experience with guns/hunting
– Judge could see pelt & holes (e.g., might have thought
dog bite theory of hole in side impossible)
Liesner Trial Transcript: DQ21
Oxygen
What relevance do the additional
facts found in the trial record have
for how you should read the
appellate opinion?
Liesner Trial Transcript: DQ21 Oxygen
Relevance of additional facts found in trial record
have for how you should read the appellate opinion?
• Helps to understand what happened BUT
normally unavailable to lawyers
• Meaning of written opinion:
– Determined by what Wisc SCt chooses to include
– What doesn’t go into opinion isn’t part of
opinion
Liesner Trial Transcript
QUESTIONS?
LOGISTICS: CLASS #8
• Dean’s Fellow Sessions
– Make-up Today 1:30-2:20 (F109) Note Room Change
from Original Posting
– 9/10: First Monday Session 6:00-6:50 pm (A110)
• I Will Post on Course Page by Tuesday after Class:
– IM#3 (Group Assignment #1; Shaw Brief)
– Next Set of Course Materials
• Note re Life & Law School: Just Because ESPN
Broadcasts 6.5 Hours of MNF … 
EXERCISE FOR MONDAY/TUESDAY
Which of These Things Is Not Like
the Others (and Why)?
LION
FISH
BULL
FOX
Musical Interlude
Shaw-1902
 1908 1914-Liesner
The Most Performed Waltz
in American Popular Music
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
STATEMENT OF THE CASE?
CRIMINAL CASE
Government always brings the suit, so can say:
State (or U.S.) charged X with [name of crime]. -ORCriminal action against X for [name of crime].
Relief requested always is incarceration or fines;
can leave unstated.
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
STATEMENT OF THE CASE?
• “State charged [names?],
• [relevant description?],
• with [name of crime?].
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
STATEMENT OF THE CASE?
• “State charged
o
o
Shaw, Thomas and another (or)
Three defendants including Shaw and Thomas
o Shaw to tie to name of case
o Thomas because his trial is the one that is
appealed
• [relevant description?],
• with [name of crime?].
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
STATEMENT OF THE CASE?
•
“State charged Shaw, Thomas and another, who
removed fish from nets belonging to others
•
Can’t say “stole” or that fish “belonged to others”
b/c that’s what’s at issue
• with [name of crime?].
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
STATEMENT OF THE CASE?
• “State charged Shaw, Thomas and another,
who removed fish from nets belonging to
others with [grand larceny].
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
PROCEDURAL POSTURE?
Note that indictment is method by
which State charged Ds, so don’t need
here (already in Statement of Case)
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
PROCEDURAL POSTURE?
•
•
•
Thomas was tried separately.
At the close of the state’s evidence, the
trial court directed a verdict for Thomas.
The state excepted [appealed].
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
Return to FACTS After ISSUE
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?
Did the trial court err in directing a
verdict for the defendant …
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?
• To prove “grand larceny” state must show that
defendants took property belonging to other people.
• Directed verdict means state’s evidence was insufficient
to show the crime.
• Why did Trial Court think state’s evidence was
insufficient here?
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?
• To prove “grand larceny” state must show that
defendants took property belonging to other
people.
• Trial Court held fish at issue were not property of
net-owners because nets do not create property
rights when some fish can escape from nets
(“Perfect Net Rule”)
• What does state say is wrong with Trial Court’s
position?
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?
• Trial Court held fish at issue were not property of
net-owners because nets do not create property
rights when some fish can escape from nets
(“Perfect Net Rule”)
• State says net need not be perfect to create
property rights in net-owners.
STATE v. SHAW Brief: Krypton
ISSUE: Did the trial court err in directing a
verdict for the defendant on the grounds
that defendant did not commit grand
larceny because net-owners do not have
property rights in fish found in their nets
where the fish can escape from the nets?
STATE v. SHAW
Discussions of Shaw: Focus On “Perfect Net Rule”
• Do our other cases support the rule?
• Policy arguments for and against the rule.
• When Ohio Supreme Court rejects the rule, what
does it leave in its place?
FIRST: BACK TO THE FACTS
STATE v. SHAW: FACTS
Significance of Indictment
• Issued by Grand Jury after viewing evidence
presented by Prosecution (but not by
defense).
• Particular charges included if Grand Jury
believes it saw evidence sufficient to
support going forward with them.
STATE v. SHAW: FACTS
Significance of Indictment
• Phrase “with force and arms” in indictment:
• Boilerplate language traditionally used in
conjunction with any criminal charge
• Does not mean that evidence showed guns
were actually used in this case.
STATE v. SHAW: FACTS
Significance of Indictment
• Once trial begins, trial court only looks at
evidence actually presented by parties.
• Claims in indictment then effectively become
irrelevant for most purposes
• Same thing happens to complaint in a civil case
(unless claim on appeal is that complaint
should have been dismissed before trial)
STATE v. SHAW: FACTS
Ohio S.Ct. Treats State’s Evidence as
“Facts” for Purposes of Appeal
• Directed Verdict means that Trial Court
believed that, even looking at all the
evidence “in the light most favorable” to
the State, State cannot win.
STATE v. SHAW: FACTS
Ohio S.Ct. Treats State’s Evidence as “Facts”
•
•
Directed Verdict = even looking at all the
evidence “in the light most favorable” to the
State, State cannot win.
To review Directed Verdict, appellate court must:
•
•
Treat all of state’s evidence as true
Make all reasonable inferences from the evidence in
favor of the State
STATE v. SHAW: FACTS
Ohio S.Ct. Treats State’s Evidence as “Facts”
• Common to treat information from a
particular source as true for purposes of
appeal
• E.g., allegations in declaration in Pierson
STATE v. SHAW: FACTS
NOW TO WHITE BOARD FOR
“FACTS” FOR PURPOSES OF BRIEF