Ian Whitcomb, Titanic: Music as Heard on the Fateful Voyage

Liesner v. Wanie

TRIAL RECORD

Phosphorus:Phosphorus: DQ19 (Wanie)

Wanie must have argued:

• L-Boys did not mortally wound wolf

• L-Boys did not continue pursuit

BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?

Phosphorus:Phosphorus: DQ19 (Wanie)Wanie must have argued:

• L-Boys did not mortally wound wolf• L-Boys did not continue pursuit

BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?• Wanie testimony re wound

• Earlier pursuit & shots that hit wolf

OTHER?

ZINC:ZINC: DQ19 (Liesners)

Liesners must have argued:

• L-Boys did mortally wound wolf

• L-Boys did continue pursuit

BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?

DQ20: Trial Judge’s Perspective

• He must believe:

– Abdomen shot was mortal wound (“gut shot”; wolf’s behavior)

– Only evidence of shot that could have made that wound was Liesner shot (bullet/angle)

• Keep in Mind

– Judge probably had experience with guns & hunting

– Judge could see pelt & holes

Why No Ratione Soli?

• Apparently not claimed

• Maybe: Lawyer’s Mistake or Owner Unaware

• Maybe: Unowned or unclaimed land or custom to allow hunt

• Maybe 1st Liesner shot on Liesner land & death on Wanie land

PHOSPHORUS:PHOSPHORUS: DQ21

What relevance do the additional facts found in the trial record have for how you should read the appellate opinion?

Liesner v. Wanie

TRIAL RECORD:Questions?

1902 1908 1914

Brief Musical Interlude

Calcium:

Shaw Brief

Calcium: Shaw Brief

STATEMENT OF THE CASE?

Calcium: Shaw Brief

STATEMENT OF THE CASE?

CRIMINAL CASE

Government always brings the suit• State charged X with [name of crime]

• Criminal action against X for [name of crime]

Relief requested always is incarcera-tion or fines; can leave unstated.

Calcium: Shaw Brief

STATEMENT OF THE CASE?

State charged 3 defendants (including Thomas & Shaw) who removed fish from nets belonging to others with grand larceny.

Calcium: Shaw Brief

PROCEDURAL POSTURE?

Calcium: Shaw Brief

PROCEDURAL POSTURE?

• Thomas was indicted and tried.

• At the close of the state’s evidence, the Court directed a verdict for Thomas.

• The state excepted [appealed].

Calcium: Shaw Brief

FACTSWe’ll do next week!

Calcium: Shaw Brief

ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?

Calcium: Shaw Brief

ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?

Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendant …

Calcium: Shaw Brief

ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?• Directed verdict means state’s

evidence was insufficient to show the crime. –What did Trial Court think was

missing here? –Why did it matter?

Calcium: Shaw Brief

ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?

• Trial Court held that fish caught in nets are not the property of the net-owner if some fish can escape from nets (perfect net rule)

• What does state say is wrong with Trial Court’s position?

Calcium: Shaw Brief

ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?• Trial Court held that fish caught in nets are

not the property of the netowner when some fish can escape from nets (“Perfect Net Rule”)

• State says net need not be perfect to create property rights in net-owners.

Calcium: Shaw Brief

ISSUE: Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendant

on the grounds that defendant did not commit grand larceny because

owners of nets cannot have property rights in fish found in their nets where

the fish can escape from the nets?

Discussions of Shaw Next Week

FOCUS ON “PERFECT NET RULE”• Do our other cases support the rule?• Policy arguments for and against the

rule.• When the Ohio Supreme Court

rejects the rule, what does it leave in its place?

LIESNER PREVAILING RULE:COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES

1. Actual Possession Likely

2. Actual Possession Practically Inevitable

3. Actual Possession Inevitable

COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES

1. Actual Possession Likely

2. Actual Possession Practically Inevitable

3. Actual Possession Inevitable

NEON: DQ17: Policies Supporting Choice of #2?

COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES

1. Actual Possession Likely

2. Actual Possession Practically Inevitable

3. Actual Possession Inevitable

NEON: DQ17: Policies Opposing Choice of #2?