|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Videos of Society Programs |
|
|
|
| |
| |
Timeless Elements of a Great Closing Argument: Lessons from the Teapot Dome Trials
Almost 200 people listened intently on July 23 as Roger M. Adelman and William D. Nussbaum made closing arguments drawn directly from the transcripts of two of the Teapot Dome trials (United States v. Albert Fall and United States v. Edward Doheny), arguments that were actually made by defense counsel Frank Hogan and Special Prosecutor and future Supreme Court Justice Owen J.Roberts years ago.
David C. Frederick introduced the program with an historical account of the Teapot Dome scandal and prosecutions after which Roger Adelman and William Nussbaum presented their mock closing arguments. They then joined Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, Timothy G. Lynch and Jacob A. Stein for a discussion on the challenges and requirements of a good closing argument.
Federal Judicial Center staff videotaped the program. You may watch the entire video or a particular segment: the introduction, background information, the beginning of the trial, and the historical postscript and discussion with judges using Windows Media Player.
| | |
| |
Technology in the Courtroom: Could it Change the Course of History?
On July 31, 2008, the Historical Society sponsored "Technology in the Courtroom: Could it Change the Course of History?" The program explored the relative advantages and disadvantages of the use of technology to present evidence and arguments in a jury trial. Two mock closing arguments were presented from the historic District of Columbia trial of Charles Guiteau, the assassin of President James Garfield, one by David Kendall of Williams & Connolly LLP drawn directly from the original closing argument of the prosecution in the historic trial, and another presented by Judge James Boasberg of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia supported with a variety of technological images and animations. The mock arguments were followed by a panel discussion moderated by Eva Petko Esber of Williams & Connolly LLP that included as panelists Judges James Robertson and Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and Francis D. Carter of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. You may watch the entire video or a particular segment: the closing argument of Mr. Kendall, closing argument of Judge Boasberg or the discussion and conclusion following the mock arguments using Windows Media Player.
| | |
| |
FCC Indecency Cases in the D. C. Circuit: An Historical Perspective
On October 14, 2008, just before the Supreme Court held oral argument on the "fleeting expletives" case, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, the Historical Society sponsored a panel discussion ont "FCC Indecency Cases in the D.C. Circuit." Panelists included former D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Wald, who recounted the court's en banc decisions leading to different regulations of indecency on broadcast and cable channels; Judge Timothy Dyk of the Federal Circuit, who represented broadcasters in many important indecency cases before taking the bench; and Professor Glen Robinson of the University of Virginia Law School, who served as an FCC commissioner when the agency issued its decision in the Pacifica case involving George Carlin's famous "filthy words" monologue. Former FCC General Counsel Christopher Wright moderated the discussion, which ended with a lively question-and-answer session in which the panelists provided advice to counsel on whether they ought to use allegedly "filthy words" in oral argument. You may watch the entire video or a particular segment: the panel discussion or the discussion and conclusion following the panel using Windows Media Player.
| | |
| |
FOIA, National Security and the D.C. Circuit: A Safeguard or a Sham?
On November 29, 2007, the Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit presented a program
on the role of the Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit in developing the law respecting the
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") and national security. Particular attention was given to the origins
and history of Exemption 1, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), pertaining to national defense and foreign policy; problems
such as delay and over classification; how the line should be drawn between the public interest in disclosure
and the needs of national security; what the drafters envisioned and whether those objectives are feasible in
today's circumstances; and relevant judicial interpretations. You can now view in full the Society's program
on the role of the Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit in developing the law respecting the Freedom of
Information Act and national security. You may watch the
entire video or a particular segment: the introduction
or panel discussion using Windows Media Player.
| | |
| |
The Steel Seizure Case in Historical Perspective
June 2007 marked the 55th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the Steel Seizure Case. On June 2, 1952,
the Supreme Court decided in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, that President Truman's seizure of
most of the nation's steel mills to avert a nation-wide strike of steelworkers and keep the mills operating during the
Korean War was an unauthorized, unconstitutional executive action that could not stand. The steel companies presented their
claims initially to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which ruled against the Government on all points
and issued a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit promptly stayed the injunction,
deeming it best that the issues raised be decided by the Supreme Court.
In a special program, "The Steel Seizure Case in Historical Perspective: Presidential Power in Wartime," a
panel of experts brought together by the Society analyzed the decision and its enduring ramifications. "The Steel
Seizure Case in Historical Perspective" is available for viewing. You may watch the entire video or a particular segment:
introduction, panel discussion, or Q&A
using Windows Media Player.
|
| |
| |
Panel Discussion on The Pentagon Papers: Did the Courts Get it Right?
Attorneys directly involved in the Pentagon Papers cases and law professors who
have written about the cases talked with moderator Carl Stern about their experiences
in a panel discussion sponsored by the Historical Society on November 30, 2006.
Watch the video of the full panel discussion using Windows Media Player.
| | |
| |
The Watergate Cover-Up Trial - A Panel Discussion
On November 17, 2004, the Society put on an exciting program, "Reflections on Watergate." Nearly 30 years after the jury returned its verdict finding President Nixon's closest advisors guilty of obstruction of justice, the key participants in that historic trial came together for the first time since the trial to discuss its historic significance and the lessons learned. Lead prosecutor, James F. Neal; Attorney General John Mitchell's counsel, Plato Cacheris; the lead government witness, former Counsel to the President John Dean; and Judge John Sirica's law clerk, D. Todd Christofferson, gave their unique perspectives on the events that led to President Nixon's resignation and the subsequent cover-up trial. Former NBC News Correspondent Carl Stern moderated the panel discussion.
Some highlights of the program included details of how taped conversations made in the Oval Office, together with John Dean’s testimony, identified those who participated in the cover-up of the Watergate break-in; how Dean spent hours in the basement of the Courthouse painstakingly reviewing each tape prior to the trial; and how the White House became, in James Neal’s words, a place where “anything goes.” Both James Neal and John Dean expressed the view that President Nixon did not know beforehand of the plans for the break-in.
The panel shed new light on this important event in history and provided anecdotal information about the trial and the participants that fascinated the audience of judges, attorneys, law clerks, and others.
Watch the video of the full panel discussion.
|
| |
|
