| |
Judges in the Classroom
Judges in the Classroom Lesson Plan
Making An Appeal
Supreme Justice Curriculum - Elementary Level
WASHINGTON SUPREME JUSTICE SERIES
Lesson Two Making An Appeal
Staff at the Washington State Office of the Administrator for the Courts (OAC) authored the lesson. For more information, contact OAC Judicial Education, 1206 South Quince Street, PO Box 41170, Olympia, Washington 98504-1170.
- Students will be able to argue an appellate case.
- Students will analyze public policy conflicts.
- Students will be given three characteristics of the Washington Supreme Court.
While this lesson can positively address several of the Essential Academic Learning Requirements in Social Studies and Language Arts, the lesson plan indicates only those Learning Requirements most directly applicable.
As a result of this lesson, students will gain competence in the following Learning Requirements as approved February 26, 1997:
- Understand and explain the purpose and organization of the United States government: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at, and among, the local, state, and federal levels of government. (Civics, EL 2, Bench 2.1)
- Understand the function and effect of law. (Civics, EL 2, Bench 2.2)
Grades 3-6.
Two class periods (approximately 50 minutes each).
Handout 1 - Bringing a Gun to School (one per student).
Handout 2 - Arguments for Jeffrey and his parents (one for half the students).
Handout 3 - Arguments for the principal (one for half the students).
Handout 4 - Questions While Watching the Video (one per student).
Video: Supreme Justice, a TVW production developed in part with a grant to OAC from the State Justice Institute, and available from the OAC and in Real Audio format on the Internet at www.tvw.org.
- Inform students that today they are going to get to argue an appeal. Write appeal on the board and get students to review what an appeal is.
- Pass out Handout 1. Have students read the facts.
- Clarify the facts.
- Ask students about what the school district's rule stated: Anyone bringing a weapon, including a toy weapon, onto school property will be expelled for one year.
- Ask students what Jeffrey and his parents want: They want to have Jeffrey reinstated in school, not to have criminal charges brought, and to have his school record cleared of this incident.
- Ask students what the principal wants: The principal wants a safe school without weapons, and to have her authority to enforce the rules supported.
- Ask students to identify the problem that must be decided on appeal: Whether Jeffrey should be expelled for one year from the school district for bringing a 1-inch toy gun onto school property in violation of the no-weapons rule.
- Divide the class into two equal groups, assigning one side to argue for Jeffrey and one side to argue for the principal. You can explain that since Jeffrey and his parents are filing the appeal, they are called appellants. The principal is the appellee.
- Further divide each half of the room into small groups of up to five students. Pass out Handout 2 to Jeffrey's side and pass out Handout 3 to the principal's side.
- Ask each group to pick someone to be the lead attorney to make arguments for their group. Give the class ten minutes for each group to write out all the arguments that support their side. Have them think about the other side's arguments and how they will respond to those arguments.
- Ask the lead attorney from one group of appellants (Jeffrey and parents) to give one argument for not expelling Jeffrey for one year. Ask the lead attorney from an appellee group (principal) to give one argument to support the principal. Rotate among all the groups, getting out all the arguments.
- Arguments are many and may include:
- For Jeffrey (appellants): The purpose of the no-weapons rule is to make the school a safe place for students. Having a 1-inch toy gun, which could not be mistaken for an actual gun, is not a violation of the rule. The administrators need to look at the circumstances and use their judgment. Expelling students for this type of rule-breaking is a wrong decision. Students should get more school time, not less school time, for minor misconduct.
- For principal: The district has a zero-tolerance rule on weapons. Jeffrey knew of the rule and disregarded it. The principal is behaving responsibly by enforcing the no-weapons rule. The principal should err on the side of caution in interpreting this rule so that no one gets hurt. Guns in school are a serious problem and the district is using what means it has to provide a safe school for its students.
- After the students have made all the arguments, ask them to become judges and decide how they would decide the appeal. Depending upon how much time you would want to spend on this activity, you could have students actually write out their decision.
- In the actual case, the school officials agreed to reduce the seriousness of the infraction; allowed Jeffrey back into school after a three-day suspension; and agreed to clear his record at the end of the school year, providing there were no further serious weapons incidents.
- Students may be interested to know that the G.I. Joe Collectors Club of America presented Jeffrey with five of the action figures, a special medal, and a certificate of "valor." The collectors said they thought he and his parents put up a good fight after the boy was expelled. Ask students what impact that might have on Jeffrey.
- Tell students that this appeals activity was to help them understand the next case they are about to see on video. This video teaches about the highest appeals court in Washington State, the Washington State Supreme Court in Olympia, Washington.
- Pass out Handout 4 before the video is started and review the questions with students. Tell students that they should find the answers in the video and write them down. Show the video.
- After the video, give students a few minutes to write their answers down. Then review the answers with students.
Answers:
- What happened to Mr. Kevin Gardner? Kevin Gardner lost his job after he violated a rule at work that said drivers could not leave their vehicles under any circumstances.
- Who was Loomis Armored Inc.? Kevin Gardner worked for Loomis Armored Inc., a company that transported large amounts of money in its armored trucks.
- What rule did Loomis have about drivers getting out of their armored trucks? Loomis had a rule that drivers could not leave their armored trucks unattended under any circumstances.
- Why did Loomis have this rule? Loomis had this rule in order to keep its drivers safe. The law requires that employers provide a safe and healthy place to work. Transporting large amounts of money is dangerous, and criminals use ruses or tricks to lure drivers out of their trucks in order to steal money.
- What court made this decision? The Washington State Supreme Court made the decision in this case and then sent its answer to the United States District Court.
- What did the Washington State Supreme Court decide? The Washington State Supreme Court decided that Mr. Gardner should not lose his job for disobeying the work rule in order to help another citizen who was in danger of death.
- Discuss with students whether they agree or disagree with the Court's decision. You might tell them, if they did not remember from the video, that eight of the nine justices agreed with Kevin Gardner--leaving one in agreement with the company.
- As an extension activity, you could have students write their own opinion about the case.
- Conclude with a brainstorm and review of how the Washington State Supreme Court works. Be sure to include these elements:
- The Court can decide which cases it wants to hear.
- A panel of nine judges (called justices) decides the case, majority wins.
- No witnesses or evidence are presented.
- Lawyers for each side are allowed 30 minutes to argue.
- The decisions of the Supreme Court govern all the state courts in Washington.
- Judges write written opinions of their decisions.
On January 5, 1997, ten-year-old Jeffrey Parks brought a 1-inch plastic handgun to his elementary school. The gun was a pistol that comes with the "G.I. Joe" action figure. The gun did not fire bullets and had no moving parts.
The school district has a "zero-tolerance rule on weapons." The rule clearly states that toys that appear to be weapons cannot be brought to school. Anyone bringing a real or toy weapon to school will be expelled from the school district for one year. The principal expelled Jeffrey from school for one year.
Jeffrey says the gun was in his pocket by mistake. He said that a friend saw it when he was getting his lunch money out of his pocket. Jeffrey has never been reprimanded at school for aggressive behavior. His father says he is a "typical ten year old."
The principal states that the rule is clear and there is a very important reason for the rule--to keep students safe. At the start of the school year, she went to each classroom. She told all the students not to bring weapons, including toy weapons, to school or there would be consequences. The principal also said that Jeffrey's previous behavior record was a factor in the decision to expel him, and claimed that Jeffrey pointed the gun at another student.
Jeffrey and his parents appeal the principal's decision to expel him from school.
- What are the most important facts?
- What is the school rule on weapons?
- What do Jeffrey and his parents want?
- What does the principal want?
- What is the problem that must be decided on appeal?
|
Group Members:
|
________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________
|
Your group needs to make a list of all the arguments you can think of for Jeffrey and his parents. Think about what the principal will argue and what response you can make. Select one of your group to be the lead attorney who will present arguments from your group.
List your arguments here:
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
|
Group Members:
|
________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________
|
Your group needs to make a list of all the arguments you can think of for the principal. Think about what Jeffrey and his parents will argue and what response you can make. Select one of your group to be the lead attorney who will present arguments from your group.
List your arguments here:
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Directions: Find answers to these questions while watching the video:
- What happened to Mr. Kevin Gardner?
- Who was Loomis Armored Inc.?
- What rule did Loomis have about drivers getting out of their armored trucks?
- Why did Loomis have this rule?
- What court made this decision?
- What did the Washington State Supreme Court decide?
JITC99/supremecourt/spjtele2
11/99
|
|
