Michaela Downes 1

Court Case Extra Credit Assignment

The State, Respondent, v. Charles Allen Cain, Petitioner

Thursday, October 20, 2016
SC Supreme Court

For this assignment I decided to attend a Supreme Court case because

I thought the cases would be more interesting. I have been in a courtroom

before and have watched many different crime shows where they film fake

court scenes, but this experience was much different. There were multiple

court justices on the stand, which I thought was interesting as well as

intimidating. Throughout the case, there were many moments in which there

was a little laughing and I really enjoyed the real people feel to the

courtroom, where as in the past I have always held the opinion that

courtrooms are always cold, serious, and daunting.

I took notes on the case and really thought that this experience left a

significant impression on me. I really enjoyed the logic behind the judges

statements and questions, and their use of reasoning when deciphering what

points each party was trying to make. On the other hand, I was not very

impressed by both of the speakers on behalf of the appellant and respondent

parties. I think that both Mr. Rode and Mr. Spencer seemed to be talking in

circles and not getting their points across efficiently and eloquently; in fact I

noticed that Mr. Spencer went over his allotted time when he presented his

argument. I agreed with a lot of the judges confusion when trying to figure

out exactly what Mr. Rode was doing there and also what approach Mr.

Spencer was asking them to take. I felt like both of them did a poor job

getting their points across and I have always felt that out of respect for the
law people shouldnt talk in circles and when asked a question should answer

it point blank.

In regards to the case facts I was extremely involved in determining

what was the purpose of being there on that day. When a judge felt

confused and needed to clarify what point was being made, I felt that it

helped me really understand the thought processes of the law. It is very

objective and what is being said really does need to be presented clearly in

order for the judges to make their verdict. I thought that it was interesting

that the entire time, the argument seemed to be based around whether or

not you base your verdict on a physical attribute (in this case the weight of

the methamphetamine) or on the mere intent of action. I really enjoyed the

specifics of this kind of decision and when other cases were brought up as

precedent I feel like I was able to make linkages between cases and

recognize principles I learned in lecture.

A lot of this case was interpreting definitions of words being used by

both parties. They discussed differences between theoretical and potential

yields of methamphetamine when in relation to the amount of grams that

the person had on hand, but what I thought was interesting is that regardless

if they used theoretical or potential numbers, both of those are not the real

yield and that I believe is an important fact of evidence in this case. I talked

to people I knew in the biology field and they explained to me in further

detail how the theoretical yield is extremely mathematical and would be the

result if everything went perfectly in the experiment (or in this case the
 Michaela Downes 3
Court Case Extra Credit Assignment

manufacturing of methamphetamine) and I thought it was interesting that

Mr. Spencer would base a lot of his argument on theory. I dont know a lot

about yields and would not be able to draw a conclusion based on the

numbers that were read off in the case, however I do agree that if Cain had

19.2 grams of pseudoephedrine with a theoretical 91.9% theoretical yield,

that does not necessarily mean that its actual yield would come to be more

that 10 grams.

I think this case had a lot to do with drawing lines between different

principles of the case. Where is the line drawn between guilty vs. not guilty?

Attempt vs. intent? Real vs. theoretical? When one of the judges made the

parallel from this case to a murder, I thought it was an interesting way to

make you step back from the case and see it as the facts. So if I were to

decide to kill someone, and set out to go do that but only end up committing

3rd degree assault, should I be charged with murder? Just like in this case,

should Cain have been convicted of trafficking when there was not physical

evidence of the drug, just intent to manufacture?

All in all, I believe the fact that I enjoyed the case really made this

assignment effective in my involvement with this class. I think that although

this was a business law class, even seeing the logic of the law in a non

business case shows the objective views of law making decisions.