I was only half right

I picked up the next Legal Analysis assignment yesterday. I had assumed that for the last paper we would be told that the appellate brief we were to do was in response to Anna's being convicted after the gruesome photos and testimony of prior acts were allowed. Of course, she was convicted and the photos and testimony was allowed, but half of the class has to write the brief on Anna's behalf, and the other half on the prosecution's behalf. Normally I would relish being in the role of prosecutor, but because I had anticipated otherwise, I feel like in the paper I just turned in, my arguments and cases were stronger for the defense.

While the research for what the law for #8 was the same, the requirement for #9 is that all cases be from 1990 or newer. Looking up the cases I used in #8, only 3 of are newer than 1990. So much for not having to do any more research. I might as well be starting from scratch. Oh well, it doesn't matter really, because I need to redo my arguments on this side anyway.

Normally we only have 2 weeks for each paper, but we have 3 weeks for this one. BUT, my daughter has the Campus Preview Weekend at MIT April 6-9. The paper is due on April 7 (Friday), and I'm leaving for Boston with her at 3am on Thursday the 6th, so I need to get mine turned in by Wednesday the 5th. I'm just hoping I get my graded #8 back early enough to be of help to me.

And for today, I'm very thankful for a phone call I received tonight which gave me hope for something I didn't think was going to happen.