Case Worksheet/ Phyllis Young

People v. Versaggi, 83 N.Y.2d 123 (1994)

Practiced legal researchers will probably understand that N.Y. in this citation refers to the New York Court of Appeals. Anyone who is not sure can check the reporter referenced by the citation, in which the court’s entire name is given.

The citation format used in this book follows the convention of italicizing the names of the plaintiff (in these examples, the state or the “People”) and the defendant. Note that the v., which appears between the names of the parties (and stands for versus) is not italicized. Other formats may differ. To learn more about legal citations, you might want to consult a printed guide, such as A Uniform System of Citation,1 known in the legal profession as the Bluebook.2 The Bluebook is the result of the collaborative efforts of the Columbia Law Review Association, the Harvard Law Review Association, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and the Yale Law Review. As an alternative, you might also survey the appropriate format for legal citations through an online service, such as Boston College’s Law Library

(http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/library).

Relational electronic databases now under development will soon allow rapid online retrieval of case opinions by employing technologically advanced computerized search capabilities. Newly emerging citation styles, needed to take full advantage of the capabilities of such electronic case databases, have begun to augment the standard citation format.

In recognition of such changes, the 2012 edition of the Bluebook addresses citability of opinions found on the Internet. It suggests, “The citation should consist of all the elements required for the basic document type (e.g., case, constitution, statute, regulation), followed by the appropriate signal, and as complete an ID or address for the online electronic source as is available.”3 An example might be:

LLR No. 9405161.PA, P10 [http://www.versuslaw.com]

In this example, from the Versus Law website, LLR refers to Lawyer’s Legal Research, an electronic citation format created by the Versus Law staff. The number after the LLR designator refers to a specific case (in this instance, a 1994 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, Commonwealth v. Berkowitz), and the letters after the period reference the jurisdiction (Pennsylvania). P10 identifies the tenth paragraph in the case, and the URL for Versus Law is provided in brackets.

On August 6, 1996, in an effort to further standardize case citations, the ABA’s House of Delegates passed a motion to recommend a universal citation system to the courts. The resolution recommends that courts adopt a universal citation system using sequential decision numbers for each year and internal paragraph numbers within the decision. The numbers should be assigned by the court and included in the decision at the time it is made publicly available by the court. The standard form of citation, shown for a decision in a federal court of appeals, would be as follows:

Smith v. Jones, 1996 5Cir 15, ¶ 18, 22 F.3d 955

In this example, 1996 is the year of the decision; 5Cir refers to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; 15 indicates that this citation is to the 15th decision released by the court in the year; 18 is the paragraph number where the material referred to is located; and the remainder is the parallel citation to the volume and page in the printed case report, where the decision may also be found.

Facts

The facts of a case, for purposes of a legal brief, refer to only those facts that are essential to the court’s decision. Facts should be presented in the form of a story and should relate what happened that led to the defendant’s arrest. For example:

The defendant, Robert Versaggi, who worked for Eastman Kodak Corporation as a computer technician at the time of his arrest, was charged with two counts of computer tampering in the second degree (under New York Penal Law § 156.20). Authorities alleged that Versaggi intentionally altered two computer programs designed to provide uninterrupted telephone service to the offices of Eastman Kodak Corporation. It was also alleged that, as a result of Versaggi’s actions, approximately 2,560 of the lines at the Kodak Park Complex were shut down and use of another 1,920 lines was impaired for approximately an hour and a half on October 10, 1986, before company employees were able to restore service. As a result, a substantial number of the employees working at that large industrial complex, with the potential for dangerous chemical spills and accidents, were unable to receive calls, to call outside the complex, or to call 911 or similar emergency services. On November 19, 1986, a second interruption occurred. Essentially all service at Kodak’s State Street office was shut down for four minutes before the computer reactivated itself. As a result, all outside telephone calls, from the company’s customers and offices worldwide, were disconnected. Evidence against Versaggi consisted of telephone company and computer records showing that he accessed Kodak computers from his home computer at the time of both incidents and had instructed them to shut down.

History

The legal history of a case describes what occurred before the case reached its current level. Legal history should consist of a rendering of who was arrested, what he or she was charged with, and the findings of trial and appellate courts. In the case just cited, for example, the words of the New York Court of Appeals provide a concise legal history:

Charged with two counts of computer tampering, [the defendant was found guilty by] Rochester City Court . . . of two counts of computer tampering in the second degree. [The court determined] that [the defendant] intentionally altered two computer programs designed to provide uninterrupted telephone service to the offices of the Eastman Kodak Corporation. The County Court affirmed.

Issue

The question before the court, or the legal issue that the court is being asked to resolve, should be plainly stated. It will always be a question about the law, the application of a specific law, or a general legal principle. Sometimes there is more than one issue. Even so, the issue can often be stated in one or two sentences, although occasionally a statement of the issue or issues requires more detail. Keep in mind that questions have been concisely stated if they can be answered with a “yes” or a “no.” Frequently, the court states the issue itself in language like this: “The issue before the court is whether . . .,” and such a statement can be incorporated directly into the brief. Continuing with the case of People v. Versaggi, for example, we might state the issue as follows:

Does merely entering commands without changing any programs or computer code constitute tampering or altering within the meaning of the statute? The defendant argued that he could not be guilty under New York law of tampering with a computer program because he did not alter or change any programs. He claimed that he merely entered commands, which allowed the disconnect instructions of each program to function. Hence, the issue for the court became deciding whether the defendant’s conduct was encompassed within the language of the tampering statute.

One trick you can use to easily spot issues is to look for the word whether. The issue usually follows.

Decision (or Finding) What did the court rule? How did it answer the question before it? You should remember that the decision of the court can always be stated in “yes” or “no” fashion and that an appellate court may affirm or reverse the decision of a lower court. Appellate courts may also send a case back to a lower court for review or retrial. In the case we have been using as an example, the decision might be stated as follows:

Yes. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the lower court and upheld the defendant’s conviction.

Rationale

In their written opinions, courts explain the reasons they had for reaching their decision. It may be that the court applied or interpreted a particular statute, that it analyzed previous cases and decided the present one within the context of such historical decisions, or that the court chose to create a new precedent based on the majority’s sense of justice and fairness. Summaries of such rationales, especially as they are stated in the written opinion of the court, should be contained in your brief. Hence an analysis of this case might conclude:

The court reasoned that, although the word alter, as contained within the New York computer-tampering statute, means “to change or modify,” the legislature had “attached expansive language to the verb,” stating that the crime consisted of altering a computer program “in any manner.” The term computer program was not defined by the statute, but the court reasoned that a computer program consists of “an ordered set of instructions” given to a computer telling it how to function. Hence, according to the court’s interpretation, the defendant modified the computer’s programming by sending it instructions via his modem and thereby violated the computer-tampering statute.

Your Notes

For purposes of further study, you should take notes for your own use. You might want to outline what you think about the case. Do you agree or disagree with the conclusion reached by the court? Why? Could the court have used a different rationale in reaching its decision? If so, what? Perhaps you will want to note dissenting or concurring opinions. Finally, you might want to note what lessons you learned from a review of the case.

In 1986, the New York state legislature modified the state penal code to include five new crimes: unauthorized use of a computer (Penal Law § 156.05); computer trespass (Penal Law § 156.10); computer tampering (Penal Law §§ 156.20 and 156.25); unlawful duplication of computer-related material (Penal Law § 156.30); and criminal possession of computer-related material (Penal Law § 156.35). Versaggi could not logically be indicted for the crimes of unauthorized use of a computer because he had lawful access to the computer whose services he disrupted. Moreover, he had not duplicated any computer-related materials, nor had he in his possession any computer-related materials that he had not been authorized to possess. Hence he was charged with the crime of “computer trespass.

” NOTES 1. A Uniform System of Citation, 17th ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law Review Association, 2001).

2. Bluebook format requires that the v. between parties be italicized. 3. A Uniform System of Citation, Section 2-110(2).