fact investigation -- assignments -- peter tillers

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 is your supervisor in the Office of the Ombudsman. Tillers fancies that he is your colleague. But he is also your boss. Hence, while Tillers will often let you use your judgment and make your own decisions, sometimes he will pull rank and tell you what do.

Tillers has 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 Tillers may be an order or directive, Tillers' directive plainly leaves a lot to your discretion and judgment.)

Your assignment for our first meeting in week 1: be prepared to suggest possible subjects or topics of investigation.

Further Assignment: Once the first class session has been held -- and during the week before the second class session -- please present and discuss your thoughts about possible investigation topics on the online "forum" for this course. To do so, surf over to the Law School's Angel web site at

View the "Legal Rules" stack by going here. (To view an entire network of stacks go here and follow the instructions.)

View the stack "Evidence of Material Facts" and the stack "Evidence for and against Material facts" by going here, following the instructions, and clicking the appropriate buttons (links) on the Network Manager stack. The alternative procedure is simpler but generates less flexible stacks: go here and download the two stacks (the stack "Evidence of Material Facts" and the stack "Evidence for and against Material Facts").

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 again discuss your suggestions of possible topics for more extended investigation. 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

Continue to ponder, discuss (on "Lessons" page, in folder "Discussion of Possible Topics" and elsewhere), and investigate -- yes, investigate -- possible topics for investigation. I say that you should now investigate as well as think about possible topics. This is because, at some point, you want and need to gather some evidence and information to test your tentative hypothesis that some topic or topics are promising topics, ones that merit further investigation, topics whose investigation -- one has reason to believe -- will generate worthwhile results.

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 people, other actors, who may need or want to acquire the evidence that the investigator has found. These are considerations that suggest that it is sometimes important for an investigator to record -- to make records of -- the evidence and information (s)he finds or acquires. (There are, of course, 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 --"depositing" it -- in a "drop-box." To do this, go to the Law School's "Angel web site at https://cardozo.elearning.yu.edu/default.asp, log in, go to the web pages reserved for course "Fact Investigation," click on "go to "Lessons,", and, finally, click either on the drop-box (a folder) "[Your Investigation Topic--] Raw Evidence" or the drop-box "[Your Investigation Topic--] Legal Source Material."

During class in week 3 or week 4 the Ombudsman will settle on [1-3] investigation topics. Each member of the Office [i.e., each class member] will be assigned to a team that will investigate one of those matters or topics.

During class in week 3 or week 4 we will also discuss how the members of the team or teams will work together on their investigations.

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. I will mention some of those computer programs later.)

Note to outsiders: Now -- [later date] -- n investigations are underway. The p investigative teams have merged into n teams.

Assignment No. 7

for Week 7

Assignment

[At about this point in the course -- the timing depends on how much evidence you have gathered and how focused your investigation or investigatios have become -- I 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 I decide to ask you to do this, I will distribute some reading assignments about inference networks. ( I 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).]

Assignment No. 8

for Week 8

Reading Assignment

Look at the "Case Theory" stack by going here and clicking on the appropriate button (link). The alternative procedure is more complicated but it produces but a more flexible and powerful Case Theory stack: flexible stacks: go here and follow the instructions.

Investigation teams will not be required to submit formal investigation reports. However, during the course of the semester investigation teams will effectively create informal investigation reports online. (I will explain later how this will be done. [See "Master Document" folder for "Not-for-Profit" investigation topic on "Lessons" page in ANGEL.])

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). I recommend that you purchase a copy of this report and read it. But see P. Shenon, THE COMMISSION (2008) (sharp critique of the Commission's investigation & report).