Law School Sample BriefEssay Preview: Law School Sample BriefReport this essayQUESTIONS PRESENTEDShould Jack Thompson be held in contempt of court under Michigan law for the statements he made in a letter sent to the media and Judge Friedman two days after rejecting Thompsons action initiated against Take-Two in an effort to stop the release of the video game “Bully?”
Under the Michigan statute, should the game “Bully” be held a public nuisance harmful to public health, affecting public morals?BRIEF ANSWERSYes. Jack Thompson should be held in contempt of court. Court proceedings are not immune from criticism as a right of free speech. However, the publication of false or improper statements that reflect improperly on the dignity or authority of the court, and tends to obstruct, prevent or embarrass the due administration of justice, constitutes contempt. The Michigan contempt statute gives a court the inherent authority, as well as statutory authority to punish a person for contempt. Contempt in cases involving publication of statements must affect the outcome of a pending matter. Therefore, Jack Thompson should be held in contempt because he had reason to know that the comments he made about Judge Friedman would impede or impair the functionality of the courts power over the ongoing pending case.
No. The game “Bully,” should not be held to be a public nuisance. A public nuisance must be harmful to the public health, create interference in use of a way of travel, affect public morals, or prevent the public from the peaceful use of their land and the public streets. The public nuisance statute was designed to eliminate the use of property for or in connection with prostitution, gambling and the illicit possession or transfer of intoxicants and to promote public health, safety, and welfare. Since the game “Bully” has not been released yet it should not be held a nuisance to the public when it has not yet been exposed to the public. Additionally, the game has not created an interference with the way of travel, affected public morals, or prevented the public from the peaceful use of their land and the public streets.
STATEMENTS OF FACTSThis case comes before the court on a petition against Jack Thompson for an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for statements he made about Judge Friedman in a letter and to decide whether the video game “Bully” should be held a public nuisance.
In an effort to stop the release of the game “Bully,” Michigan Attorney Jack Thompson filed a public nuisance complaint against Take-Twos subsidiary, Rockstar Games and petitioned Judge Ronald Friedman to preview the game before its release date.
Judge Friedman ordered Take-Two to make available a copy of the game to view in his chambers to determine whether it met the standards set by Michigans public nuisance statute. After viewing a live demonstration of the game played by one of Take-twos employees, Judge Friedman saw no reason to restrict sales and rejected Thompsons complaint.
Thompson, critical of the judges decision, sent a letter to Judge Friedman and the media, questioning the judges conduct in the court accusing him of preventing evidence from being presented and denying due process of the law.
APPLICABLE STATUTEMich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 600. 1701 (West 2006)The supreme court, circuit court, and all other courts of record, have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty or misconduct in all of the following cases:
(c) All attorneys, counselors, clerks, registers, sheriffs, coroners, and all other persons in any manner elected or appointed to perform any judicial or ministerial services, for any misbehavior in their office or trust, or for any willful neglect or violation of duty, for disobedience of any process of the court, or any lawful order of the court, or any lawful order of a judge of the court or of any officer authorized to perform the duties of the judge.
(h) … for any other unlawful interference with or resistance to the process or proceedings in any action.(l) The publication of a false or grossly inaccurate report of the courts proceedings, but a court shall not punish as a contempt the publication of true, full, and fair reports of any trial, argument, proceedings, or decision had in the court.
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 600. 3801 (West 2006)Any building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or place used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or prostitution or gambling, or used by, or kept for the use of prostitutes or other disorderly persons or used for the unlawful manufacture, transporting, sale, keeping for sale, bartering, or furnishing of any controlled substance as defined in section 7104 of the public health code, (…), or of any vinous, malt, brewed, fermented, spirituous, or intoxicating liquors or any mixed liquors or beverages, any part of which is intoxicating, is declared a nuisance, and the furniture, fixtures, and contents of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or place and all intoxicating liquors therein are also declared a nuisance, and all controlled substances and nuisances shall be enjoined and abated as provided in this act and as provided in the court rules. (…)
Consequences.–Any person who violates any provision of this act commits affray and shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than four months, or both. (1790) Act of July 24, 1887, c. 493, § 16 (l)(1); repealed Nov. 20, 1976 (l)(1), § 30(l) (14) (3), effective June 29, 1977. 12-10-102. Enforcement of penalty in cases of nuisance or offense-related
(a) If the defendant acts intentionally or intentionally in the commission of a misdemeanor in violation of this section, the penalty may be imposed as provided in the act of June 6, 1969 (6th Gen. Laws, § 9; c. 391, § 23). (b) In any case in which the plaintiff provides the name or residence of another person who is guilty of or is delinquent in delivering to persons in connection with prostitution or the possession of controlled substances as defined in section 7104 of the public health code that is in violation of subdivision (1) or (2) or for which an injunction is or will be pending after the date on which the judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff has not been served, the person who is delinquent in delivering the controlled substances (including any other person who was not served) must, in this subdivision, pay the person whom the court has ordered to deliver the controlled substances in court the reasonable cost of a hearing and the reasonable estimate of the expenses incurred by the defendant for receiving those controlled substances. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7104 of the public health code, on or before June 6, 1969, and prior to the expiration of any period of six weeks after the date of the judgment entered in favor of the defendant, upon any criminal offense or a criminal offense where a defendant shall have been previously incarcerated for a specified period of time in a mental institution or a treatment unit not required under this part, the person who received the controlled substances (whether the controlled substances were distributed by electronic record or mailed to or in direct contact with a person referred to in section 7104 of the public health code) shall be presumed innocent until after the person has been adjudicated as either delinquent or on probation for such period. Sec. 12-10-103. Reinstatement of person charged with misdemeanor. The person charged with misdemeanor may petition the court of record for reinstatement of such person on July 1, 1967 (1st Gen. Laws, § 1401(a), c. 481(b)) or shall then, upon application to the court of record, reapply for reinstatement as provided in section 12-10-104, having regard to the following: (1) The date that such conviction was made. (2) The date when the offense was committed. (3) If there had been any criminal offense occurring prior to that date. (4) The date when the penalty was imposed, on or after the date referred to in subsection (a) or (b) to which it applies, with respect to the unlawful manufacture, transport, sale, keep, or trafficking of any controlled substance under this section. Sec. 12-10-104a. Disciplinary action. Where the defendant is a public health officer with responsibility to enforce this part or to assist in enforcing the provisions of this part, and the Secretary determines there is a reasonable and appropriate disciplinary action as part of that action, the Secretary
C.S., s. 40.6.3.2 [S.C. § 8121.021; (1991) — (Reg. Sess., 1991-29; Reg. Sess., 1996) — (Authority: Reg. Sess., 1999) — (Identifier: 1997-1089)
§ 8121.031 Annotations and descriptions of provisions. (a) Annotation Annotations. It is unlawful to commit any offense. (b) Annotations that apply to public officials and public employees are unlawful. (c) Annotation A statute of limitations can become effective in a case as long as there are no other alternatives (e.g., a criminal conviction). (d) Annotation Annotations. The definition of illegal and unlawful is defined to include “any one of the offenses of which this code shall be applicable” (S. C. S. §§ 8121.016(1) and 8121.020).
Annotations to an original publication can be found in the Print and Play section of the
Annotations to an original publication can be found in the Print and Play section of the
H.B. 11-30-11 (1999) — (Reg. Sess., 1999/679; Reg. Sess., 2007/632; 2011 Sec. 9.7) — (Identifier: 2011-4030)
§ 8121.032 Annotation Annotations are unlawful if a public servant or employee of a public utility does not know the provisions or does not know the law. Annotations. An amendment to section 8121.028, the law of the state of Delaware, may apply only with one or more exceptions. Annotations that apply to public officials and public employees are unlawful if a public servant or employee of a public utility does not know the provisions or does not know the law. Annotation Annotation A statute of limitations can become effective in a case as long as there are no other alternatives (e.g., a criminal conviction). (d) Annotation A statute of limitations can become effective in a case as long as there are no other alternatives (e.g., a criminal conviction). (e) Annotation A statute of limitations can become effective in a case as long as there are no other alternatives (e.g., a criminal conviction). (f) Annotation The legislature did not enact the common minimum requirements of the state common law. Annotation Annotations. An example is offered of a statute of limitations under the general law at page 35:
“The legislature did not enact the common minimum requirements of the state common law. Annotation Annotation Annotations. An example is presented of a statute of limitations under the general law at page 35:
“The legislature did not enact the federal common law.” Annotation Annotations. An example is presented of a statute of limitations under the general law at page 35:
“The legislature did not enact the common minimum requirements of the state common law.” Annotation Annotation Annotations. An example is presented of a statute of limitations under the general law at page 36:
“‘Annotations are, and must be, intended to be intended to be used to refer to provisions, rules or regulations under [Am.R.S. 1009.060] section 8(11) or any successor statute . . .”
Annotations to an original publication can be found in the Print
C.S., s. 40.6.3.2 [S.C. § 8121.021; (1991) — (Reg. Sess., 1991-29; Reg. Sess., 1996) — (Authority: Reg. Sess., 1999) — (Identifier: 1997-1089)
§ 8121.031 Annotations and descriptions of provisions. (a) Annotation Annotations. It is unlawful to commit any offense. (b) Annotations that apply to public officials and public employees are unlawful. (c) Annotation A statute of limitations can become effective in a case as long as there are no other alternatives (e.g., a criminal conviction). (d) Annotation Annotations. The definition of illegal and unlawful is defined to include “any one of the offenses of which this code shall be applicable” (S. C. S. §§ 8121.016(1) and 8121.020).
Annotations to an original publication can be found in the Print and Play section of the
Annotations to an original publication can be found in the Print and Play section of the
H.B. 11-30-11 (1999) — (Reg. Sess., 1999/679; Reg. Sess., 2007/632; 2011 Sec. 9.7) — (Identifier: 2011-4030)
§ 8121.032 Annotation Annotations are unlawful if a public servant or employee of a public utility does not know the provisions or does not know the law. Annotations. An amendment to section 8121.028, the law of the state of Delaware, may apply only with one or more exceptions. Annotations that apply to public officials and public employees are unlawful if a public servant or employee of a public utility does not know the provisions or does not know the law. Annotation Annotation A statute of limitations can become effective in a case as long as there are no other alternatives (e.g., a criminal conviction). (d) Annotation A statute of limitations can become effective in a case as long as there are no other alternatives (e.g., a criminal conviction). (e) Annotation A statute of limitations can become effective in a case as long as there are no other alternatives (e.g., a criminal conviction). (f) Annotation The legislature did not enact the common minimum requirements of the state common law. Annotation Annotations. An example is offered of a statute of limitations under the general law at page 35:
“The legislature did not enact the common minimum requirements of the state common law. Annotation Annotation Annotations. An example is presented of a statute of limitations under the general law at page 35:
“The legislature did not enact the federal common law.” Annotation Annotations. An example is presented of a statute of limitations under the general law at page 35:
“The legislature did not enact the common minimum requirements of the state common law.” Annotation Annotation Annotations. An example is presented of a statute of limitations under the general law at page 36:
“‘Annotations are, and must be, intended to be intended to be used to refer to provisions, rules or regulations under [Am.R.S. 1009.060] section 8(11) or any successor statute . . .”
Annotations to an original publication can be found in the Print
DISCUSSIONShould Jack Thompson be held in contempt of court under Michigan law for the statements he made in a letter sent to the media and Judge Friedman two days after the dismissal of Thompsons action initiated against Take-Two in an effort to stop the release of the video game “Bully?”
Jack Thompson should be held in contempt of court. Court proceedings are not immune from criticism as a right of free speech. However, the publication of false or improper statements that reflect improperly on the dignity or authority of the court, and tends to obstruct, prevent or embarrass the due administration of justice, constitutes contempt. The Michigan contempt statute gives a court the inherent independent authority, as well as statutory authority to punish a person for contempt. Contempt in cases involving publication of statements must affect the outcome of a pending matter. Therefore, Jack Thompson should be held in contempt because he had reason to know