This is the first in a new series of posts this month on new things we did in our teaching last semester or expect to do next semester.
One thing I did not do this past semester, but seriously thought about, was restricting laptop use in some way. I have a hard time pulling the trigger on this, in part because all of my strongest instincts are antipaternalist. But I can’t help feeling laptops are doing something pernicious in the law school classroom. Lisa Hatlen had a good post on the topic earlier this fall, which also generated several thoughtful comments. My basic concern is that the laptop has turned many law students into stenographers, with the quality of their learning and of classroom discussion suffering as a result. I find it a bit dismaying when students send me e-mails at the end of the semester quoting something verbatim that I said in class at the start of the semester and asking what I meant by it — this suggests that too much mental energy is going into transcription and not enough into comprehension and critical engagement with the material.
As a potential experiment, I have thought about sharing with students a detailed outline of the material I cover in class (so students don’t feel they need to transcribe) and banning laptops. On the other hand, I respect the fact that most upper-level students are used to having laptops, and that it would no doubt be perceived as unfair to ask them to abandon their well-established classroom practices so that I could conduct my little pedagogical experiment. For that reason, I would not try this except in a first-year class. I would also be reluctant to do it except as part of a cooperative venture with other first-year professors.
So, my only innovation this past semester was rather modest: I decided that I would test my first-year Criminal Law students on certain common-law rules.
Coincidentally, on the very day I am planning to cover juror misconduct in Criminal Process, I see this story in the New York Times regarding a murder conviction that may be overturned based on juror misconduct. Notice how brazenly the defendant’s mother sought out evidence of misconduct. This is, of course, precisely the sort of post-verdict harassment of jurors that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) aims to prevent. I wonder if the mother has created a criminal liability problem for herself by disguising her identity and secretly recording phone conversations with the juror in question.