The case of People v. Goetz

  Students in group LZ examine the case of People v. Goetz which is found in Chapter 5 beginning on page 171. Students in group AK examine the case of State v. K.R.L. which is found in Chapter 6 beginning on page 224. The form for briefing and a sample brief can be found in Defenses module. “Students will brief said cases according the briefing format given to them by instructor. The text discusses briefing on pages 28-35. These pages can be used for assistance but the format to be used by the student is the format provided by instructor. Each brief will be typewritten with a minimum one and one-half pages in length. This is a writing assignment NOT a copying assignment. Do not simply copy portions of the case especially in the findings and holding section of the brief. Put your understanding of what the court is saying in your own words. You cannot demonstrate understanding of material by copying. Understanding is demonstrated by reading material and then summarizing in your own words. The text portion of the brief will be single spaced and double spaced between sections. Due dates for briefs are in the attached calendar. Brief grades are based on following directions, thoroughness in completing assignment, demonstration of critical thinking/analysis skills and use of acceptable word choice, punctuation, grammar etc. d. Briefs are submitted in assignments and must be in doc, docx, pdf, txt or rtf format. Due 10-9-22.   Sample of how it should be done 1. Case Name Texas v. Johnson 2. Case Citation 109 S.Ct. 2533, 491 U.S. 397, 105 L.Ed. 2d 342, 57 USLW 4770 3. Exact date decided June 21, 1989 4. Judge or Justice writing majority opinion Brennan 5. Procedural facts Defendant was convicted in County Criminal Court 8 in Dallas County, Texas of desecration of venerated object and he appealed. The 5 th Court of Appeals in Dallas affirmed the conviction. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. (This would consist of two or three sentences outlining the history of the courts the case has been through and how each of those courts handled the case and what they did with the case.) 6. Facts of the case pertinent to the issue(s) in the case. During the Republican National Convention held in Dallas in 1984, Johnson participated in a demonstration against the Reagan administration and its policies. After a march through city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while others chanted. No one was injured or threatened with injury though several witnesses were offended by the flag burning. 7. Issue(s) Was flag burning a form of expressive speech protected by the First Amendment? Did the statute meet the goal of preventing breaches of the peace? Was the Texas statute unconstitutional because it violated free speech protected by the First Amendment? (Put the issue(s) in the form of question(s).(Many cases have more than one.) 8. Court’s Decision – Johnson’s conduct constituted expressive, overtly political comment. Johnson’s conduct did not involve “fighting words” nor did it invite an “imminent lawless action” that would be found in a traditional breach of the peace. Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. (How did the court answer the issue questions – this should be more than one word answers.) 9. Court’s Reasoning – Texas did not assert any interest in preventing Johnson’s conduct other than suppression of expression. Therefore the case of United States v. O’Brien did not apply. Speech cannot be prevented simply because others are offended by said speech. Texas’ interest in preserving the flag as a symbol does not justify Johnson’s conviction. The statutory restriction on Johnson’s political expression is content based since the Texas statute is not based on protecting flags under all circumstances but is designed to prohibit intentional and knowing abuse that causes offense to others. Because the restriction is content based it is subject to “the most exacting scrutiny.” The government may not prohibit the expression of an idea just because people do not like it even when the flag is involved. Texas Penal Code Ann. §42.09 (1989) specifically refers to offending one or more persons as did the evidence presented at trial. It is apparent from the foregoing that the statute was not content neutral but aimed at not preventing only a certain physical action but a physical action with a specific message. (What rationale did the court use for making its decision? What cases did the court refer to and what did those cases say? Did the court refer to statutes or Constitutional principles, if so what were they and what did they say?) 10. Disposition – Affirmed. Justice Kennedy concurred and filed an opinion. Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented and filed an opinion in which Justice White and Justice O’Connor joined. Justice Stevens dissented and filed an opinion. (Reversed, Reversed and Remanded, Affirmed are the three choices) 11. Dissent – Rehnquist – Long detailed historical lecture on place of flag in history. Argued that Johnson’s flag burning was designed to incite disturbance of peace. Stevens – Makes an argument similar to Rehnquist that the flag occupies a unique place in American culture. (Were there dissenting opinions? If so briefly state the author(s) of the dissenting opinions and why they dissented.)