Description
List of Topics and Sub-Modules for BACKGROUND and INTRODUCTION: LGST 200
Throughout this course, you will play the role of one of several paralegals employed with Legal Consultants & Associates (LCA), a large litigation consulting firm that conducts legal research for trial and appellate cases for law firms and corporations.
Your supervising attorneys are Joe Martinez, Esq. and Alicia Chang, Esq. As part of the paralegal team for Martinez and Chang, you will complete research assignments for trial and appellate cases. You will be required to complete research and analysis, most often using Westlaw. You will also write summaries, reports, and make recommendations to assist Martinez and Chang.
You also may be participating in LCA educational and professional development seminars for other paralegals and legal assistants within the firm. These seminars will require research, analysis, writing, and discussion with other paralegals and legal assistants.
READ the module BACKGROUND and INTRODUCTION: LGST 200 in Content before beginning the Week 1 Learning Activity.
General Instructions for Learning Activities
- Read/Watch all assigned materials listed for the week in Overview.
- Refer to assigned course materials, cases, and/or statutes to support conclusions.
- Review the grading rubric.
- Put your name on your file.
- Save your work in Word (.doc or .docx), RTF, or PDF format.
- Submit your work to the correct weeks Learning Activity link in the Assignment Folder.
Learning Activity due 11:59 pm ET Saturday
Background: Martinez has asked you to evaluate materials that might be useful in representing LCA clients.
Instructions:
Questions 1?5 give examples of different legal authorities. Determine whether the materials are primary or secondary authorities.
Number each answer and identify each source as primary authority or secondary authority. (No additional explanation required.)
1. An article on lethal injection in the legal encyclopedia, American Jurisprudence, 2d.
2. The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
3. Section 3592 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 3592), a U.S. federal statute.
4. Lyle Dennistons 2016 article, Court reopens race and death penalty issues on SCOTUSBlog.com.
5. Oken v. State, 835 A.2d 1105 (Md. 2003), an opinion issued by the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Questions 6?17 list court opinions Martinez is reviewing for two LCA clients, Mr. Adams and Ms. Young. Martinez asks you to determine whether each opinion is probably mandatory or definitely persuasive authority.
Number each answer and clearly identify each opinion as mandatory or persuasive in the provided scenarios. Next, draw on what you learned from this week’s Read/Watch materials and explain each of your answers using complete sentences.
Mr. Adams is being tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, a federal trial court. The issue being researched only concerns U.S. federal law. The court opinions listed in Questions 6 through 10 are published and relevant to Adams case.
6. An opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court.
7. An opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
8. An opinion from the Maryland Court of Appeals.
9. An opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
10. An opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Ms. Young is being tried in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, a state trial court. The issue being researched only concerns Maryland state law. The court opinions listed in Questions 11 through 15 are published and relevant to Young’s case.
11. An opinion from the Maryland Court of Appeals.
12. An opinion from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.
13. An opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
14. An opinion from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
15. An opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Ms. Young lost at trial, and her appeal is being heard in the Maryland Court of Appeals. The issue on appeal only concerns Maryland state law. The court opinions listed in Questions 16 and 17 are published and relevant to Young’s case.
16. An opinion from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.
17. An opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court.
