View
165
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
This is a single document with the slides (and my notes on them) and the handout for my presentation at Rhetoric Society of America 2016 in Atlanta, GA. The presentation takes place on Sunday, May 29, 2016.
Citation preview
10-12mins?Myname.Preso3tle.TheQRcodeandwebaddressherewilltakeyoutoablogpostwiththeseslidesandthenotesonthemandwiththehandout.
1
READ.Notelaterterminologicaldiscussion.Let’sconsiderasimplifiedexample[NEXT]
2
Photocredit:“smartelectricdrive,”©2012GriinBlog,CCBY-NC-SA2.0,hXps://flic.kr/p/cniKFmImaginethereisanordinance…“Anyonewhooperatesavehicleintheparkisguiltyofamisdemeanor.”Imaginethattheordinancepassedinresponsetopeopledrivingautomobilesoverthecurb,acrosssidewalks,andontoparklawnsduringpicnics,par3es,andevents.Thisseemstobeaverysimplelegalruletoapply,butalmostcertainly,therewillbedifficul3es.Oneimportantques3onis[NEXT]
3
Graphiccredits:“Oldcar,”©2008BogdanSuditu,CCBY2.0.hXps://flic.kr/p/4C84Ra;“Myoldbike,”©2008KeithBarlow,CCBY-NC-SA2.0,hXps://flic.kr/p/5swrWb;“ClassicBri3shMotorcycles–Ariel,”©2015PaulTownsend,CCBY-NC-SA2.0,hXps://flic.kr/p/rcuUej;“motorbike,”©2014krismadden,CCBY-NC-SA2.0,hXps://flic.kr/p/voVS5J(ExampleadaptedfromH.L.A.Hart,pp.126-27.)• Case1:Wehavetheparadigma3cvehicle,thethingeveryonehadinmindwhen
thelawpassed.Nooneevenaskswhethertheruleapplies.• Case2:Courtsaysno.Itmen3onsthatitis“Notself-propelled”thoughsome
dic3onariesincludeunpropelledobjectsinthe“vehicle”category.• Case3:Motorcycle?Yes.Courtonlysays,“It’smorelikeacarthanlikeabicycle.”
Itdoesn’tsayhow.• Thecourthasneveradoptedaruleaboutwhatisandisnotavehicle,butevenifit
did,itcouldnotnecessarilyforeseehowitwouldapplyinfuture.(Andtotheextentthatitgovernscasesunlikethosecurrentlybeforethecourt,therulewouldbedictum—thelegalwayofsayingit’snotbindingonfuturecourts.)
• SonowweareconfrontedwithCase4:Abicyclewithamotor,butwherethemotorwasnotrunningwhenthecita3onwasissued.[CLICKNOW]Inotherwords,theriderwaspedallingit.Isthismorelikethebicycleorthecarormotorcycle,andonwhatbasismightwemakethedetermina3on?Whatsimilari3esaretherebetweenthebicycleandtheobjectsinthepreviouscases?Whichsimilari3esarerelevanttothisdecision?[NEXT]
4
Whyistheques3onofhowexemplaryargumentworksimportant?Well[NEXT](POTsaidonedifferencebetweenanalogyandexampleisthatanalogiesspantwo“spheres.”Forexample:“Awomanneedsamanlikeafishneedsabicycle.”Thisanalogycomparesthingsinwidelydivergentspheres.POTsaidthatifoneisapplyingthesamelegalruletotwositua3ons,oneisusingexemplaryreasoning.Becauselawyersandlegaltheoristssay“analogizing,”I’llprobablyslipandcallitanalogyheresome3mes,too.)
5
• [READSLIDEFIRST]• Makingajudgelayoutanargument(whetheritaccuratelyrepresentsher
reasoningorno)makesthelawsuscep3bletoreviewonappeal,topublicdebate,andtorevisionbystatuteorothermeans.
• Sotheques3onthenis[NEXT]
6
• Dr.ScoXBrewer,professoroflawandphilosophyatHarvard.[READ]Giventheexis3ngcases,whatrulemightbestexplainthem?Inthevehicleexample,ourproponent(theprosecutor)mightabducefromthepreviouscasesthatsomethingonorinwhichahumancanrideisavehicleifitiscapableofself-propulsion.Theproponent/prosecutorthenappliestherule.Bicycleswithmotorsarecapableofself-propulsion.Therefore,bicycleswithmotorsarevehicles.
• Ofcourse,thisshivstheques3ontoabduc3onandhowitworks.Breweressen3allydodgesthisques3on,spendingveryliXle3meexplainingwhatmakesanabduc3onreasonable,otherthantosaythattheproponentmustofferara3onaleforit.Brewerexplainsargumentfromanalogybydoingawaywithit,replacingitwithanunexplainedabduc3onandatrivialdeduc3on.
• Weinreb,alsoaHarvardlawprofessor,takestheintui3veapproach.[READ]Unfortunately,thisleavesexemplaryoranalogicalreasoningwithoutmuchofamodelforcri3calevalua3onorforteachingit.Weneedsomewayofformalizingthistypeofargumentiflawistosa3sfyitsownnorma3vecommitments.[NEXT]
7
• Dr.DougWalton,attheUniversityofWindsor,Canada.(Dis3nguishedResearchFellowoftheCentreforResearchinReasoning,Argumenta3onandRhetoric(CRRAR))
• [READ]• (NotethatWaltonetal.describeotherpossibili3esforwhatlawyerscallanalogical
reasoning,includingreasoningfromclassifica3onandprecedent.Theyareallcloselyconnectedtothisschema,however.)
• Thisismyadapta3onoftheirapproach.Solet’sseewhatitlookslike[NEXT]
8
• ThisisnotWalton’sschemaverba3m,butmyadapta3onofit.• ThiswillsoundpreXyabstract,butbearwithmejustasec• [Readslidefairlyquickly]• NotethatProposi3onAformypurposesissomelegalconclusion.Forexample,
thatthebicyclewithamotorisavehicle.Infact,let’sapplytheschematothatexampletomakeitmoreconcrete.[NEXT]
9
[READ]ButInotedamomentagothatWalton’sschemaisdefeasible,andthatcertaincri3calques3onscandefeattheconclusion.[NEXT]
10
• Thefirstthreeques3onsarereallyaboutwhethertheproponenthascorrectlyunderstoodtheprecedents,theunderlyingpolicies,andthefactsofthiscase.Here,theopponentoftheargumentmightjustcontradictsomeofwhattheproponenthassaid.
• (CQ1:Isittruethatautomobiles,motorcycles,andbicycles+motorsaresimilarinthewaydescribed?Hasthelawyeradvancingtheargumentclaimedasimilaritythatdoesnotexistinthecases?CQ2:Arethesimilari3esdescribedrelevantforassigningthecategory?Whatlegalpolicysurroundingtheassignmentofthevehiclecategorymakesthesesimilari3esrelevant?Werelawmakersconcernedaboutdangersposedbyvehiclespeed?Damagecausedtolawnsbyvehicleweight?Riskofaccidentsinvolvingpedestrians?Noisefromengines?CQ3:Isittruethattheearliercourtdecidedanautomobileandamotorcyclewerevehicles?Hastheproponentoftheargumentmisreadtheearliercases?(Notlikelyinthisexample,butnotunusualinmorecomplicatedsitua3ons.)
• CQ4isinteres3ngbecauseitasksiftherearedissimilari3esbetweentheearliercasesandthisonethatmightberelevantforA?Forexample,whenthebicycle+motorispedaledwithitsengineoff,isitnotmorelikeabicyclethanamotorcycle?
• CQ5:Hasthecourtpreviouslydecidedsomeothercasetheotherwaydespitesimilari3esbeingpresent?Forexample,maybeacourtconcludedthatabicycle+motorwithwasNOTavehicle.
• TakentogethertheschemaandCQsinWalton’smodelpermit[NEXT]
11
• [READ]• (NotethatBrewerwouldprobablybelevuncomfortablebymyelisionofra3onal
withrelevance.)• Giventhemodel,thoughIwondered[NEXT]
12
Thebigques3onhereiswhetherlawyersdothisgenerally.Naturally,Ihadtonarrowthescopetomakethisproblemtractableforresearch.ForreasonsIcanexplainduringQ&A,Ichosetoexamine:• Trialcourtbriefsratherthanappellatebriefs.(Avoidstheselec3onproblemnoted
byPosnerandothers.Only“hardcases”gettotheappealscourts.)• Briefsrela3ngtoonetypeoflegalissue,copyrightsummaryjudgmentmo3ons.(I
wantedtouseonetypeoflaw,becauseIfiguredapaXernmightbeapparentthereevenifitwerenotsharedwithprac33onersinanotherarea.Iknowcopyrightlaw,soI’mmorecomfortablewithit.AndCopyrightandsummaryjudgmentraiseques3onsofhard-to-applystandardsratherthanhavingsimplerules.)
• Allreportedcasesfromapar3cular3meperiod(July2010toJune2015)toavoidthenecessityofrandomsampling.
Theexpectedresultis[NEXT]
13
• Organizingthemintocorporaallowsmetodoquan3ta3ve,quasi-content-analysis.Gatheringcourtopinionswiththeirrelatedbriefsallowsmetodocase-studylikeexamina3onsofindividualdecisions.
[READslide]So,let’slookatwhatI’vefoundsofar[NEXT]• (Sofar,mystudydoesnotnecessarilyincludeallthebriefsforalltheseopinions.
ThecostistoogreattodownloadthemfromtheFederalCourt’sPACERsystem.Outliersincludecaseswherethelawyershavefileddozensofbriefsleadinguptothecourt’sopinion.Idon’twantthedataskewedbythewri3ngofanypar3cularlawfirms.Goingforward,Imaylimiteachopiniontotwobriefsperside.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
Brian N. Larson, JD, PhD, assistant professor of rhetoric and technical communication 686 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA 30332-0165, @rhetoricked
A Unit of the University System of Georgia An Equal Education and Employment Opportunity Institution
Lamêmechose:Lawyers’useofexemplaryreasoningargumentinpersuasivewriting
RhetoricSocietyofAmericaconference,Sunday,May29,2016,AtlantaGA
Presentationandthishandoutavailableathttp://tiny.cc/RSA2016(casesensitiveURL)
Exemplaryargumentschema(EAS)&criticalquestionsSchemaMajorPremise:Case1issimilartoCase2,inthat
bothhavefeaturesf1…fn.RelevantSimilarityPremise:Featuresf1…fnare
relevanttopropositionA.MinorPremise:PropositionAappliestoCase1.Conclusion:PropositionAappliestoCase2.
CriticalquestionsCQ1—CQ3:Arethepremisestrue?CQ4:AretheredissimilaritiesbetweenC1andC2relevanttoA?CQ5:IstheresomeothercaseC3thatisalsosimilartoC1(inthatbothhavef1…fn)exceptthatAisnotappliedinC3?
SummaryofcodingguideforpilotstudyUnitselectionIdentifyasaunitanyreference(citation)toacasefromthetextinreferencetoanissuethecourtmustdeterminerelatedtocopyrightorsummaryjudgment.(Somedefinedexceptionsinfullguide.)
Coding:Foreachcasereference…Y/N:Arefactsfromthecitedcasedescribed?Intextorcitation?(Majorpremise.)Y/N:Arefactsfromcurrentcasecompared/contrastedwithcitedcase?(Majorpremise.)Y/N:Isanyrationaleforcomparing/contrastingthesetwocasesoffered?(RSpremise.)Y/N:Istheoutcomeintheunderlyingcaseexpressedorimplied?(Minorpremise.)(Otheritemscodeddescribedinthefullguide.)
Basicstatistics• 4courtopinions&15briefscoded• 700casereferences(units)coded• Unitspertext—Mean:37,median27,sdev27.5
Summaries• 0caserefsofferedanexpressclaimof
relevance/rationale.(RSpremise,butseequestionsbelow.)
• 76caserefs(x%)statedorimpliedfactsfromthecitedcase.(Majorpremise.)
• 73caserefs(x%)statedorimpliedcomparisonoffactswithcurrentcase.(Majorpremise.)
• 77caserefs(x%)statedorimpliedoutcomein
precedentcase.(Minorpremise.)• 69exhibitedallthreeoftheprecedingfeatures.
(Expressingorimplying2of3premises.)40,or58%ofthose,werefrom3briefsinonecase(B037,B038,andB039).
• 619caserefsexhibitednoneofthethreeprecedingfeatures(neitherexpressingnorimplyinganyofthepremises).
EXAMPLESExamplefromjudge’s/lawyer’stext Larsondiscussion1.Usesofthecopyrightedworkthatstaywithinthescopeofanonexclusivelicenseareimmunizedfrominfringementsuits.JohnG.Danielson,Inc.v.Winchester-ConantProps.,Inc.,322F.3d26,41(1stCir.2003).(DocB005(PR),emphasisinoriginal.)2.Actualdamages…consistof…therevenuethatwouldhaveaccruedtoplaintiffbutfortheinfringement.Seee.g.,DataGeneralv.GrummanSys.SupportCorp.,36F.3d.1147,1171(1st.Cir.1994).(DocB006(PR),emphasisinoriginal.)
1-2.Irefertothistypeasa“borrowedrule”afterMurrayandDeSanctis.Theauthorsprobablyneedastatementof“blackletter”lawforrulestheywillapplylater,sotheychooseauthoritativecourtsandstatetheirarticulationoftherules.Thereisnoindicationofhowtheprecedentcasesturnedout.Theauthorsarenoturgingsimilaroutcomeshere,justthatthesamerulesbeapplied.Thisisthemostcommonpatternamongthecaserefs,anditdoesnotexhibitanycharacteristicsoftheEAS.
3.InDeCastro,ComputerManagementAssistantCo.(CMAC),licensedDeCastrotosellasoftwareproductthenlaterfiledcopyrightinfringementclaimsagainsthimwhenheusedhisexperiencewithCMACtomodifyadifferentcompany’ssoftwareproduct….Thecourtfoundthetwosoftwareprogramssubstantiallydifferent,eventhoughtheyservedthesamepurpose,becausethemodificationsfoundinthedefendant’sproductprovidedadifferentwayofoperatinginasimilarfashionastheoriginalproduct.Infact,eventhoughthenewprogramcontainedportionsofcodethatpotentiallycamedirectlyfromthefirstprogram,thecustomizationandmodificationscreatedadifferencebetweenthetwoproductsshowingthatanyalleged“copyingwasnotsoextensivethatitrenderedtheoffendingandcopyrightedworkssubstantiallysimilar.”…Thefactsofthiscasearenearlyidentical.Theseallegedlycopieditemsmakeupapproximatelyonepercent(1%)ofthe27,313linesofsourcecodeinHarmonix.Theitemsmakeupapproximatelyfourpercent(4%)oftheWorkbenchsourcecode.(Doc.B009(TX),emphasis,exceptunderlining,inoriginal.)
3.Here,theauthoriscomparingthefactsfromtheDeCastrocase,whichaddressedanissue—substantialsimilarity—alsobeforethiscourt.ItsummarizesthefactsinDeCastro(majorpremise)beforepivotingontheoutcomeofDeCastro(underlinedtext,minorpremise)andswitchingtoanexpositionofthefactsinthiscase(majorpremise).Notehowitstartswithspecificnamesoftheparties(DeCastroandCMAC),butthenswitchestogeneralterms(“plaintiff”and“defendant”);thismakesiteasiertoinfertheconclusion:thatthedefendant’scopyinginthiscasedidnotrisetothelevelofsubstantialsimilarity.Theargumentisanenthymemebecauseitomitstheconclusion,thoughitleaveslittledoubt.Andlikealltheexamplesofexemplaryreasoninginthispilotstudy,itisalsoenthymemicinthatitneveraddressestherelevantsimilaritypremise.Italmostseemsagiventhatiftheprecedentrequiredresolutionofthesamelegalissueasthecurrentcase,relevantsimilarityisassumed.IntheEAS,itmightbestberegardedasacriticalquestionratherthanpartoftheschema.
4.Instead,thecourtmustmakeaqualitative…judgmentaboutthecharacteroftheworkasawholeandtheimportanceofthesubstantiallysimilarportionsofthework.WhelanAssociates,Inc.v.JaslowDentalLab.,Inc.,797F.2d1222,1245(3dCir.1986);Atari,Inc.v.NorthAmericanPhillipsConsumerElectronicsCorp.,672F.2d607,618(7thCir.)…;seealsoUniversalPicturesv.HaroldLloydCorp.,162F.2d354(9thCir.1947)(findingcopyrightviolationforcopyingof20%ofplaintiff’sfilm);InrePersonalComputersandComponentsThereof,1983-84CopyrightL.Dec.(CCH)¶25,651at18,931(Int’lTradeComm’nMar.9,1984)(18%-25%identityissufficientforsubstantialsimilarity);ElsmereMusic,Inc.v.NationalBroadcastingCo.,482F.Supp.741,744(S.D.N.Y.),aff’d,623F.2d252(2dCir.1980)(similarityuncontestedbydefendantswherefournotesoutof100measuresandtwowordsoutof45wereidentical).(Doc.B011(TX),emphasisinoriginal.)
4.Muchliketheauthorsinexamples1and2,theauthorhereisseekinga“blackletter”statementofthelaw,butapparentlytheFifthCircuit(whichwouldbebindingprecedentinthisTexascase)couldnotprovidetheanswer.Consequently,theauthorcitestwoothercircuits(3rdand7th)fortheassertion.Notethatthisbriefdiscussesfactsaboutthecurrentcase(majorpremise)intextadjacenttothisexcerpt,butnotprintedhere.Theremainingthreecaserefsrepresentacomplicatedmix.Inthefirst,welearnsomefactsabouttheprecedent(majorpremise)anditsoutcome(“finding…violation,”minorpremise).Thesecondpresentsaproblem;itstatesathreshold(18-25%)thatis“sufficient,”butdoesnotsaywhetherthatcasereachedthethreshold.Theauthormayinadvertentlyhaveomittedthatfact,orshemaytacticallyhaveomitteditifthecase“wentthewrongway.”Thefinalcasereferenceistoonewheresimilaritywasuncontested,butitiscontestedhere;thecaseisinappositeandshouldnotformthebasisofanEAS.
QuestionsA.How“omitting”cananenthymemebe?IntheEAS,iftheminorpremiseisomitted(thatis,ifwedon’tknowtheoutcomeinthecitedcase),canwesaythattheEASisevidencedatall?B.ShouldtheEASberevisedtotreattherelevantsimilaritypremisenotasapremisebutasthegroundsforacriticalquestion?ButnotethepotentiallymisleadinguseoftheEASinexample4.
Recommended