Alternatively, use the software on the CD that was given you in the first class.
You are members of the (fictitious) Office of the Ombudsman of the State of New York [or -- depending on the investigation topic -- New Jersey]. The statutory mandate of this Office is to "investigate violations of the law, whether civil or criminal, that affect the public interest."
The investigative authority of the Ombudsman's Office encompasses legal violations committed by both governmental and nongovernmental entities and persons.
The Office of the Ombudsman has no subpoena power or any other authority to coerce the production of evidence. For example, the Ombudsman's Office lacks authority to obtain a search warrant.
Peter Tillers and Philip Segal are
your supervisors in the Office of the Ombudsman. They fancy they are your
colleagues. But they are also your bosses. Hence, while Tillers & Segal will often let you use
your judgment and make your own decisions, sometimes they will pull rank and tell
you what do.
Segal & Tillers have just told you that your first task --
effective immediately -- is to start looking for matters that might warrant
further investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. (While this statement by
Segal & Tillers may be an order or directive, their directive plainly leaves a lot
to your discretion and judgment.)
Your assignment
for our first meeting in week 1: go to "Lessons" page of the course's web site on ANGEL and enter at least one comment or suggestion about possible investigation topics.
Both before and after our first class session has been held, present and discuss your thoughts about possible investigation topics on the online "forum" for this course. To do so, surf over to the Google the Law School's Angel web site at
log in, open the web site for the course "Fact Investigation,"
go to the web page "Lessons," and open the folder "Discussion
of Possible Topics." Enter your suggestions and comments there. (You will discover that Tillers, Segal, and some other people have already suggested some possible topics. However, those suggestions may or may not pan out.)
Sometime before our first class on January 25, please go to this web page and download revMedia to your laptop. Please bring that same laptop to our class on January 25. Please don't worry that you will have to learn how to program with revMedia; you won't. But having revMedia on your computer will make it possible for you to run my evidence marshaling software (MarshalPlan) on your computer. (Tillers will show you how to do that on January 25.) You will use MarshalPlan to organize much of the evidence and other material you gather in the course.
If you have trouble downloading revMedia, don't worry. Just bring your laptop to class and Tillers will show you how to do that.
New Assignment
Play with the software application MarshalPlan.
For information and instructions on downloading this software go here.Alternatively, use the software on the CD that was given you in the first class.
If you haven't already done so, please go to this web page and download revMedia to your laptop. Please bring that same laptop to our class on February 1. Please don't worry that you will have to learn how to program with revMedia; you won't. But having revMedia on your computer will make it possible for you to run your CD-resident evidence marshaling software (MarshalPlan) on your computer. (Tillers will show you how to do that.) You will use MarshalPlan to organize much of the evidence and other material you gather in the course.
If you have trouble downloading revMedia, don't worry. Just bring your laptop to class and Tillers will show you how to do that.
&&&
As before, your job is to uncover matters that might warrant further investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman of the State of New York [or -- depending on the investigation topic -- New Jersey]; i.e., be on the lookout for subjects of possible investigation by the Ombudsman's Office.
The entire class will discuss your suggestions of or thoughts about possible investigation topics. Be prepared to describe the specific steps you took in your attempt(s) to identify possible topics for further investigation.
***********************************
Reminder: Discuss possible investigation topics online. To do so, go to the law school's Angel web site at
To receive e-mail messages notifying you of new posts, go to this course's "Communicate" page on ANGEL and under "Discussion Forums" click on "Subscribe."
New & very important:
Recording Evidence & Other Information
As you now begin to gather evidence, it is not too early for you to bear in mind that (i) human memory is imperfect and (ii) people other than a particular investigator -- including other investigators (investigation often and perhaps ordinarily is a "distributed activity" involving multiple actors) --, people other than a particular investigator may need or want to know the evidence that an investigator has acquired, and, even if a particular investigator's memory is perfect (which it is not), a particular investigator may not be readily available to other investigators and decision makers who may need or want to have the evidence that the investigator has found. These are considerations that suggest that it is sometimes important for an investigator to record the evidence and information (s)he finds or acquires. (There are other reasons why keeping records of evidence -- in modern parlance, "evidence databases" -- is important.) In this course we cannot maintain the kinds of records that a real-life investigator would keep. But, to the extent possible, you must make and preserve written records of evidence that you believe may turn out to be important for one reason or another. These written records should be available to your colleagues, your superiors, and your successors. Hence, to the extent possible, preserve the evidence and information you gather by recording it in the appropriate Google Doc [Google Document].
We (the instructors) will discuss, in class and by e-mail, how you and the investigation teams in the course will use Google Docs. If you do not already have a Google account, sign up for one here. (The account is free. You have to have a Google account to access your team's Google Docs.)
for Week 3
1
Study Part
I Section C Subsection 9 in A
Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation
2
P. Tillers, Notes on Legal Marshaling
3
View the "Legal Rules" stack by going here. Follow the download instructions and download the Legal Rules stack. Alternatively, use the software on the CD that was given you earlier in the semester.
View the stack "Evidence of Material Facts" and the stack "Evidence for and against Material Facts" by going to same place, again following the instructions, and then clicking the appropriate buttons (links) on the downloaded Network Manager stack. Alternatively, use the software on the CD that was given to you in class.
&&&
Your job this week is either to launch the investigations of the identified topics or to conduct "pre-investigation investigations" of certain potential topics to determine whether those investigations should be carried forward or not.
More than half of the third class session will be devoted to a discussion inter sese of your investigation topics. In the meantime, of course, you will be discussing your topics online and starting your investigations. The instructors will be issuing online instructions and discussing with you, online, the steps you might or should take.
***********************************
&&&
Note to outsiders & insiders: Tillers recently discovered Google Docs and their many uses. So this semester the members of Fact Investigation will do most of their discussing and will store many of their findings and hypotheses in Google Docs instead of in ANGEL. (ANGEL has its uses. But it is in some ways very clunky. For example, Tillers has found no effective way to do searches of the data entered in an ANGEL web site for a course. For our purposes such an inability to retrieve data spells disaster -- because forgotten and unretrievable evidence and other information might as well not exist.)
&&&
Important reminder:
Recording Evidence & Other Information
As you now begin to gather evidence, it is not too early for you to bear in mind that (i) human memory is imperfect and (ii) people other than a particular investigator -- including other investigators (investigation often and perhaps ordinarily is a "distributed activity" involving multiple actors) --, people other than a particular investigator may need or want to know the evidence that an investigator has acquired, and, even if a particular investigator's memory is perfect (which it is not), a particular investigator may not be readily available to other investigators and decision makers who may need or want to have the evidence that the investigator has found. These are considerations that suggest that it is sometimes important for an investigator to record the evidence and information (s)he finds or acquires. (There are other reasons why keeping records of evidence -- in modern parlance, "evidence databases" -- is important.) In this course we cannot maintain the kinds of records that a real-life investigator would keep. But, to the extent possible, you must make and preserve written records of evidence that you believe may turn out to be important for one reason or another. These written records should be available to your colleagues, your superiors, and your successors. Hence, to the extent possible, preserve the evidence and information you gather by recording it in the appropriate Google Doc [Google Document].
The instructors will discuss, in class and by e-mail, how you and the investigation teams in the course will use Google Docs.
For the benefit of outsiders:
Almost all of the discussion and work in this course take place via e-mail and e-mail attachments and on secure (private) online web sites.
There are now -- February 1, 2010 -- five investigations underway. The topics (very roughly described) are: (i) the financial and political affairs of a powerful Manhattan politician; (ii) certain actvities of an influential New York City clergyman; (iii) certain commercial activities of certain local media; (iv) a double homicide case; and (v) a possible instance of an unusual type of Medicaid fraud. Time will tell whether the number of investigations winnows down as time passes and further investigation occurs. (The members of the course are in part now investigating whether further investigation of certain matters is warranted.)
for Week 4
Assignment: Part A
Investigation Topics
Important reminder:
Recording Evidence & Other Information
As you now begin to gather evidence, it is not too early for you to bear in mind that (i) human memory is imperfect and (ii) people other than a particular investigator -- including other investigators (investigation often and perhaps ordinarily is a "distributed activity" involving multiple actors) --, people other than a particular investigator may need or want to know the evidence that an investigator has acquired, and, even if a particular investigator's memory is perfect (which it is not), a particular investigator may not be readily available to other investigators and decision makers who may need or want to have the evidence that the investigator has found. These are considerations that suggest that it is sometimes important for an investigator to record the evidence and information (s)he finds or acquires. (There are other reasons why keeping records of evidence -- in modern parlance, "evidence databases" -- is important.) In this course we cannot maintain the kinds of records that a real-life investigator would keep. But, to the extent possible, you must make and preserve written records of evidence that you believe may turn out to be important for one reason or another. These written records should be available to your colleagues, your superiors, and your successors. Hence, to the extent possible, preserve the evidence and information you gather by recording it in the appropriate Google Doc [Google Document].
The instructors (Phil & Peter) have discussed, in class and by e-mail, how you and the investigation teams in the course are to use Google Docs.
For the benefit of outsiders:
Almost all of the discussion and work in this course take place via e-mail and e-mail attachments and on secure (private) online web sites.
There are now n investigations underway. The current topics are [TBA].
Assignment: Part B
Read:
Part I Section C Subsection 7 (focus on event chronologies and not on scenarios) in A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation
Part II Section C Subsection 1 in A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation
Peter Tillers, Note on Timelines
for Week 5
Reading Assignment
Peter Tillers, Note on the Suggestive Force of Evidentiary Details
John R. Josephson & Susan G. Josephson, Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology Chapter 1 (Cambridge University Press, 1994)
Recommended: ANALYSIS Chapter 2 Sections A-B at pp. 46-60
&&&
If you are floundering in your attempts to develop a sensible plan of attack on your chosen or assigned topic, perhaps the appropriate procedure in the midst of the bloomin' and buzzin' confusion you are experiencing is ...
for Week 6
Reading Assignment
Part I Section C Subsection 7 in A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation(focus on scenarios)
Part II Section C Subsection 2 in A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation
Peter Tillers, Note on Scenarios
Recommended: ANALYSIS, pp. 153-158 ("Theories, themes, stories, and situation-types")
A Note about Further Assignments
Because of the need for confidentiality many parts of further assignments in this course will not be posted on this particular web page; they will be posted instead on secure web pages that are accessible only to members of this course.
For the benefit of outsiders:
Almost all of the discussion and work in this course take place via e-mail and secure web sites.There are now [n] investigations underway.
for Week 7
Reading Assignment
The academic portion of classroom discussion in this week's class focuses on both (i) gross marshaling of evidence based on the elements of legal claims and defenses and based on the associated ultimate legally-material facts in issue, and on (ii) detailed argument from evidence to ultimate material facts in issue. This means in part that we will begin -- but only begin -- talking about inference networks. In thinking about and working with chains and networks of inference, you will find it useful to use drawing software. (There are other computer applications you may -- or may not -- find useful. Tillers will mention some of those computer programs later.)
Note to outsiders:
Now there are [n] investigations
underway. The investigations focus on [TBA]
for Week 8
Assignment
[At about this point in the course -- the precise timing depends on how much evidence you have gathered and how focused your investigation or investigations have become -- Phil S & Peter T may ask you to construct a small "inference network" that describes and dissect a small part of the evidence you have gathered and just a few of the inferences that your evidence suggests and supports. If we decide to ask you to do this, we will distribute some reading assignments about inference networks. (We may ask to construct a fragment of a modern version of a "Wigmore chart." See, e.g., Terence
Anderson, David Schum & William Twining, ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE (Cambridge U.
Press, 2d ed., 2005).)
for Week 9
Reading Assignment
Part II Section C Subsection 3 & Conclusion in A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation
Look at the "Case Theory" stack by going here and following the downloading instructions. Alternatively, use the software on the CD that was given you at the beginning of the semester.
During the semester investigation teams will effectively create investigation reports online (i) via their work on their Google Docs and (ii) via MarshalPlan. We (the instructors) may also later decide to ask the investigation teams to submit interim reports in a more conventional format. For an example of a formal investigation report see THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: FINAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES (Authorized Edition, Norton & Co., 2004). But see P. Shenon, THE COMMISSION (2008) (sharp critique of the Commission's investigation & report). For a discussion of the distortions allegedly found in most such reports see Edward Tufte, When Evidence is Mediated and Marketed: Does Pitching Out Corrupt Within?