Chapter 4 deals with civil procedure. Although there are many similarities between civil and criminal procedures, there are also many differences that we will cover in a later chapter. Civil procedure involves the process by which civil cases are filed, served, and tried.

Many people think that anyone can sue anyone for anything, and that's pretty much true in our system. However, in order to get to trial many difficult procedural hurdles must be overcome. The claims made fall within a recognizable legal theory, and litigants must show that they can produce enough evidence that a jury would be justified in returning a verdict in their favor. At trial, evidence introduced must meet strict requirements to be admissible.

There are two discussion board topics this week. If your last name begins with the letters A-L, your initial post will be on Question 1, and if your last name begins with the letters M-Z your initial post will be on Question 2. You will not be able to see anyone else's post until you have made your initial post. Your second post will be on the question you did not address in your initial post. Your third post will reflect your review of all posts on your initial question and will address whether that review has caused you to reconsider your position - and, if so, how your position has changed.

As a general rule on the discussion board, we are looking for analysis. A student's personal opinion that is not somehow tied to our course concepts is just that - a personal opinion - and as such is entitled to little weight. You are free to express your opinion, but to obtain a good grade you need to tie your discussion to our course concepts analytically.

Question 1: Read the article "The repo man wants to poke you on Facebook". Do you think the court was correct in allowing the defendants to be served via Facebook? Examine both sides of the question.

Question 2: Jury selection in civil and criminal cases is a similar process. Each attorney starts out with goal of ending up with a jury that is completely biased in favor of that attorney's client. The other attorney, of course, wants to prevent that. The end result is supposed to be a jury that consists of people who are unbiased and fair. Read the article "A judge's vote for the rule of reason", which involved jury selection in a recent Clackamas County faith healing death case. Do you agree with the judge's ruling? Why or why not?