CRJ 419 Midterm Exam
Professor Hong Lu
This exam contains THREE QUESTIONS. The total length of your answers to these questions is between 1,200 and 1,350 words. Label each part of your answers clearly (e.g., Q1a), Q1b), etc) and put the word count at the end of each QUESTION. Put your full name on top of the first page of your document, and save your document in .doc or .docx.
QUESTION 1
Cite Chapter 3 and Readings 4 and 5 to answer the following subquestions (400-450 words in total for Question 1):
Cite 3 Supreme Court’s decisions discussed in Reading 4 to demonstrate that the Court has recognized a bodily or physical autonomy right.
Assuming the bodily autonomy right is fundamental and the Court is to apply strict scrutiny to the federal prohibition of marijuana use, discuss how the federal government will justify a “compelling interest” in restricting the right to marijuana use in two aspects.
A court rejected a nurse’s lawsuit against Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for federally funded health care facilities, which cited the bodily autonomy right. Describe the relevant legal doctrine and two substantive reasons specific to this case that the court may have used in rejecting the lawsuit (refer to Chapter 3 and Reading 5 for the legal doctrine). Also see this link for the vaccine mandate and court ruling. https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/scotus-narrowly-upholds-health-worker-vaccine-mandate/617000/Question 2
Cite Chapter 4 and Readings 6 and 7 to answer the following subquestions (400-450 words in total for Question 2):
What are the standards for a plea?
What are the safeguards for preventing conviction of the innocent by plea bargain?
Under the plea bargain framework, which type of lawyers will be more effective: the gladiator or the problem solver type of lawyers? Define each type of lawyers first and then explain.
Question 3
Cite Chapter 7 and Readings 11 and 12 to answer the following subquestions (400-450 words in total for Question 3):
What is tort reform and what are the three proposed changes for reforming personal injury damages in reading 12 “Let the damages fit the wrong”?
Is the McDonald’s coffee spill case a frivolous lawsuit (see reading 11)? Why or why not?
Which doctrine is more appropriate for the McDonald’s coffee spill case, contributory negligence or comparative negligence? Explain.