Learning Objectives:

1.       Based on the information and understanding gained from Lessons One and Two, the student will generate sound, legal arguments for both sides of the actual case or a hypothetical case;

2.       Based on the oral argument broadcast (or video tape of the oral argument), the student will gain an understanding of the oral argument process and the types of questions that provide the best information to the judges (in cases heard before the district courts of appeal) or justices (in cases heard before the Florida Supreme Court) so that they can decide the case in question; and

3.       Based on the oral argument broadcast (or the video tape of the oral argument) and the background information about the legal aspects of the actual case, the student will role play an oral argument at the Supreme Court level.

Suggested Learning Activities:

1.       Using either the actual case, the hypothetical cases, or all of the cases, brainstorm the strong and weak points of each side’s argument on this issue.

Alternate activity:  Using the actual case, assign a short paper explaining the State's side and a short paper explaining Golphin’s side.  Students can compare their answers to the actual attorneys’ briefs of the actual case to determine if they thought of points that the attorneys overlooked.  In Golphin v. State, the students can review the petitioner’s initial brief (Golphin); the respondent’s answer brief (the State of  Florida); and the petitioner’s reply brief by clicking on the links provided. 

2.       Divide the students into groups and brainstorm the following question:

If you were one of the justices on the Florida Supreme Court, what questions would you ask the parties in this case?

3.       Assign the students to the different roles of the hypothetical case.  These roles include:

a.  Seven justices (one of whom is the Chief Justice);

b.  Attorneys for each side (at least one, up to as many as you feel are appropriate);

c.  One Marshal to keep the time (allow 10 minutes per side). 

Act out the oral argument with the attorneys presenting their side and the justices asking questions.  Encourage the justices to be proactive in their questioning.