More re Gunners and Haters

Here is an email that circulated from our upperclass mentors:

Unfortunately, this is not an email from your PAs that is telling you
about the next sweet law school party (that will come later this week,
but there's some pretty big stuff brewing for this weekend).

It has come to our attention that there is a facebook group called the
UVA Fantasy Gunner League - 1L Division, of which some of you are
members.  As humorous as it is, and honestly, I would probably have
been a member if anyone in my class had been clever enough to think of
it, it has offended some of your fellow classmates.

In addition to it not being cool to make fun of your classmates
(especially publicly), this group has disrupted classes by making some
students extremely reluctant to participate.  While jokes about
gunners are standard law school fair, the jokes go too far when they
disrupt the academic environment.  If this group comes to the
attention of professors, which it eventually will, some professors may
look down on those that are involved.

For those of you involved, it would be prudent to disassociate
yourselves before this becomes a bigger issue than it is or should be,
and all of you should refrain from similar activities that publicly
alienate any of your classmates.

Peace out,

Your PAs

Gunners and Haters

And they're gonna be lawyers?
There is a girl in my civil procedure class who is talked about as a "gunner." In elementary school, these students were known as "teacher's pet." You know the type-- raising their hand all the time, reading weeks in advance, etc. This particular gunner seems very comfortable in civ pro (a class of 60+ people), frequently just calling out questions and answers without the formality of actually being called on. I, personally, do not have a problem with this; (although, I try to make it a point to raise my hand before telling everyone how I feel about res judicata). However, I have heard at least four other students complain about her.

Well, today, I heard that someone actually wrote her an anonymous letter and told her that she was "taking up too much class time." That sentiment alone does not offend me. If other students want her to pipe down, they are perfectly within their rights to tell her their desires. I do think it is shady that the author of the letter did not have the guts to tell this girl to her face. It seems to me that opportunities to confront and offend people are only going to become more and more numerous as our legal careers progress. If the idea of asking someone to be quiet scares the crap outta you, then I sure don't want you standing in court, trying to make any sort of argument on my behalf. I'll pick a lawyer with a little more courage.

Typical Class Discussion in Contracts

This conversation was from my contracts class yesterday. We started discussing whether a house seller must disclose all defects of the house to a buyer. Jeff made an argument that it is up to the buyer to get a home inspection...

Prof: You are an inspector's dream. Here comes Jeff --What did you do for lunch??

Jeff: I had a sandwich. I just brought it with me-

Prof: I went to Guadalajara. *pause-class laughs* I did not ask about the beans.

Jeff: You don’t expect beans—

Prof: You don’t expect a house to be sold to me where you can’t drink the water

Jeff: There was a clause that said the house was sold as is…

Lara: I think there is a difference between a taco and a house.

Prof: (sarcastically) Well, thank you.

Lara: Houses can have lots of problems that are not known to the homeowner. The opportunity to inspect a house is key.

Prof: Who has experience with this? Who has bought a house or saw their parents buy a house.

Annaka: I have bought and sold a house.

Prof: Did you inspect the water?

Annaka: Uuuummmmmm…..I don't-

Prof: Thank you. No one does that. Did you test for radon? Does anyone do this? I don’t think so. My house has a radon problem. What do you advise me to do?

Jeff: It’s going to make you retarded. *class laughs*

Prof: I can’t hear you so well… what do I do? I sell the house and keep my mouth shut and hope it doesn’t kill poor little honey. No one thinks I have the ethical right to keep my mouth shut and sell it to Molly. At least I hope you don’t think that.

Paul: When you buy a used car it is up to you to make sure it is what you want. No one thinks a used car dealer is going to tell you everything.

Prof: You are—let me be pleasant—out of your mind. Let’s say you go and buy an Impala from a used car salesman. You test drive and it looks great. Then you get home and park it in your drive way. The next day, you discover that the car does not run in reverse. And now you are going to say-rugged individualist that you are- tough noogies. What do you say to that?

Paul: Uh..I..

Prof: They cheated you.

Paul: I don’t know ---it could go both ways.

Prof: Not in my court. In my court, we put the contract aside and put the seller in jail. That is criminal.

Paul: He should have taken it to a mechanic.

Prof: Why should he take it to a mechanic to see if it has a reverse. There are some things they have to tell me. They are the least cost avoider.

Melissa: In our case, the plaintiff is the least cost avoider

Prof: NO!

Melissa: But he knew what he was looking for.

Prof: NO! He knew what he was looking for.

*Laughs.*

Everybody plays the fool

Contracts
I like my contracts professor. Despite his heckling, taunting, and general condescending attitude, I really do like him. This is the only class I am taking right now that bases 1/2 of my grade on participation, so I feel the need to say something everyday. So far, I think I have sounded pretty smart. I have read the cases in advance, taken notes and prepared a statement to rattle off in class. Today, however, my statement didn't sound so hot, and when pressed by my professor, finally ended in a confession of confusion.

I thought I could make it up if I raised my hand and then said something brilliant. I tried this three times today in Contracts class and each time just managed to sound dumber and dumber. :( Oh well. Maybe tommorrow I will sound smarter.

People are watching your hand motions and

Everyone will talk about you behind your back...
Today in Tort Class, this guy, Paul, who is quite friendly actually, went toe-to-toe with Professor Abraham. Abraham was in the middle of one of his extra long speeches about causation. I can't give you the full details of his argument because I was reading a LOST blog at the time, but here is the gist, Abraham says that in Zuchowicz v US, even though the plaintiff was pretty much healthy (except for her endometriosis) when she started taking the drug Danocrine, she should not be entitled to $1M in damages after getting a fatal heart disease and dropping dead after the pharmacist put the wrong dose on her pill bottle because we don't really know if the abnormally high dose of drug is what really killed her. Well, speaking as a scientist we can't really know anything, but we can make a pretty good guess. My guess is that the drug killed her, but more on that in another post.

Ok, so back to Paul. This guy starts by saying, "Sir!" and then esposes three minutes of "blah blah. I love hearing myself talk. blah." (I wished I paid more attention, but I wanted to know about the "Others"). And then he goes to say, "We can't go around sprinkling generalities (he is using his fingers to make sprinkling motions in the air and I look at the girl sitting next to me and we are both laughing) over the entire argument come CROOK or NOOK." (and everyone is looking all puzzled wondering what the hell crooks and nooks are).

The next period before class started, everyone, ~ 30 people, was talking about Paul behind his back. Wait, they weren't talking about him, they were making fun of fun. Sprinkling hand motions and the phrase "crook and nook" abounded. Hilarious!!!

But now I wonder if everyone has been making fun of me behind my back when I say something stupid in class....

When lawyers think they're doctors

Today in Tort Class, we were talking about Zuchowicz v. United States. In this case, a woman, who was diagnosed with endometriosis, was taking a drug called Danocrine aka Danazol. This drug can have a number of side effects even at recommended doses. Zuchowicz's prescription label was printed incorrectly and told her to take twice the recommended dose. Thereafter, she experienced a long list of maladies, including weight gain, increased heart rate, headaches, and high blood pressure. She was then diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension. This condition is both rare and fatal. Zuchowicz was on the waiting list to receive a heart-lung transplant when she got pregnant. Her pregnancy made her ineligible to receive any kind of transplant. She gave birth and died a month later.

So sad! This case sounds just horrible! Who doesn't think her husband deserves at least $1M?

And then Professor Abraham says that we don't know if it was really the overdose of Danocrine that caused all her freakish medical problems. He said that there is not enough experimental data on Danocrine at such high doses to know if high doses can cause these side effects.
Well, let's take it like this: instead of comparing Zuchowicz to other women who have taken high doses, let's compare her to woman who have not taken any Danocrine at all. To use scientific terms, let's compare Zuchowicz, not to the positive control (because it doesn't exist), but to the negative control. Do women with endometriosis, who are the same age as Zuchowicz, ever get primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH)? If so, at what rate? If other women of Zuchowicz's age and medical background never get PPH, then I would feel perfectly comfortable blaming Danocrine and telling the pharmacist to fork over the cash!

Date Rape

Date Rape: The Role of the Victim
Here are some notes I took in my criminal law class the other day when we were talking about rape:

Date rape and stranger rape are talked about as two different crimes. In the eyes of law enforcement, they ARE two different crimes. In date rape, there is no doubt about who the defendant is, or that intercourse occurred. What you don'’t know about is the dynamic between the two individuals. You only have two witnesses who disagree. Both people are self interested. It is rare that there were other people around to witness the crime.

What makes date rape even more tricky, is that the criminal activity is right next door to activity that is normal. Our professor, J.C. Jeffries, went on to make a point that it is a "right" to express yourself sexually. This is different from when the law of rape arose, because historically consensual sexual intercourse outside of marriage was always a crime. Compare this to homicide-—this is not right next door to any behavior we want to preserve.

Historically resistance required as element of rape case (utmost resistance). It was required that the woman fight back. In this way, the acts of the victim define the substantive elements of the crime. Now, the resistance requirement is pretty much gone because it is unacceptable normatively. The big point is that saying that the victim must resist assaultive behavior puts the victim on trial. It is like saying that this person raped you, but since you weren't a robust victim, he gets off. It shouldn't be true that the victim has to be perfect. If you don't lock your house, and someone steals from you, then you were stupid, but the person who stole is still guilty of larceny.

Criminal Law Class

When to keep your mouth shut

In criminal law, we had to go over these assigned problems out-loud, during class. There were 6 problems and our professor, who is also the dean of the law school, called on different people each time and questioned (harrassed) them. Everyone was very nervous. Anyway, he skipped one problem without realizing it and was going to let us out of class early, when some dude raised his hand and said "Oh we didnt do one problem."
Everyone was pissed! But at least the professor made that guy answer it .. he didnt even know the answer either........