A Short Lesson on Sources of Law, Court Systems, and Case Briefs (Homework)

Table data 1

Table data 6

GUIDELINES FOR THE BRIEF

Name: You can usually copy the name and citation information from the

casebook. In the Worley brief, “220 S.E.2d 242” means that a lawyer could find this case

in a law library in volume 220 of the second series of a set of books called the

Southeastern Reporter at page 242. Similarly, “265 S.C. 551” means that a lawyer could

also find this case in volume 265 of a series of books called the South Carolina Reports at

page 551. You will study reporters later in law school, so do not worry too much about

this information right now. “(1975)” means that the case was decided by the highest

court in South Carolina in 1975. You will learn the details of this citation form later.

Facts: It is not always easy to decide what to leave out of the fact section. You

should include only facts that are relevant to the issue being decided. It may help to ask

yourself, “Which facts really gave rise to the issue in the case?” “Which facts really

affected the outcome?” In Worley, the most relevant facts are that the defendant escaped

from prison and failed to surrender himself to authorities for two years after receiving

medical treatment. The opinion mentions few other facts, so it is not really necessary to

pare down the facts in the brief. Some opinions will go into great detail regarding the

facts, and you will have to decide which facts really make a difference and which are

mere details that do not need to appear in your brief.

Procedural History: Write down what happened procedurally between the time

the lawsuit was filed and the time one of the parties appealed. You will almost always be

reading opinions from courts of appeal in law school, so there will usually be some

explanation of what happened in the lower (trial) court before the case arrived at the

higher (appellate) court. This section will be hard to draft at first because unless you

have had some prior legal experience, you will not be familiar with criminal or civil

procedure. For the time being, just begin by jotting down where the lawsuit was filed

(South Carolina state court, in Worley). In a criminal case like Worley, you should also

9

note the crime that the defendant was charged with (escape) and whether the defendant

was convicted. In a civil case (such as a contract or tort case, where parties are suing

each other for money damages or other relief) you should note the theory the plaintiff

was suing under (breach of contract, for example), what relief the plaintiff was seeking

from the defendant (money damages, for example), and how the lower court disposed of

the case.

Issue: This is probably the most important section of the brief. Write a yes-or-no

question that identifies the specific issue that the court must answer in order to decide

which party will win the appeal. You might include a few key facts in order to make the

issue statement more specific and concrete. Note that the Worley brief does so by

mentioning that the defendant sought medical treatment after his escape, but failed to

report to authorities for two years thereafter, in the Issue section. Be sure not to make

your issue statement so general that it fails to indicate what the case was about. “Did the

lower court err?” “Should the defendant have been convicted?” and “Was a necessity

defense available?” are all much too general to be helpful in a brief of Worley because

they fail to indicate that this case involved someone who left prison because of

inadequate medical treatment, but failed to report to authorities for two years after he

received proper medical care.

Holding and (Judgment): The Holding section is also very important. It should

contain 1) a yes-or-no answer to the issue question; 2) the issue question turned into an

affirmative or negative statement; and 3) any brief qualification necessary to make the

statement accurate, or a very brief “because” clause. (The notation about the Judgment

describes the procedural outcome resulting from the opinion. Usually the court will

either have affirmed or reversed the judgment below.)

Pre-existing Rule(s): Many brief formats do not include this section, but it might

help you to note what relevant law was already on the books when the appellate court set

out to decide this case. Sometimes the opinion will refer very specifically to some case

or statute upon which the court relies. If you notice such references, be sure to describe

the rule(s) from the statute(s) or case(s) somewhere in your brief, either in a separate

section such as this one, or as part of the Reasoning section below. In Worley, the court

did not expressly mention the statute that makes escape from lawful confinement a crime.

Further, the court did not rely on a statute for the necessity defense, and noted that courts

had been reluctant to consider the defense in this context. As a result, this section may

not list any pre-existing rules, but instead note the absence of cases or statutes that

directly address the issue.

Reasoning: This is an extremely important section of the brief. Describe what

led the court to answer the issue question as it did. Often, the court’s reasoning will

consist of a description of pre-existing principles of law, followed by an explanation of

how they apply to the case before the court. Sometimes, a court will identify policy

reasons that support its decision, and it may also describe the negative consequences of

coming to a different conclusion.

10

Dissent (or Concurrence): Sometimes your casebook editor will include a

dissenting opinion or a concurring opinion. (A concurrence is an opinion that agrees with

the majority about the end result but disagrees about the reasons leading to it.) If your

editor thought this opinion was important enough to include in the book, and your

professor thought it was important enough for you to read, you should summarize it in

your brief.

Comments: It is often helpful to give yourself some space to step back and note

your own reaction to the court’s decision. Do not be surprised if you sometimes disagree

with the court. In addition, explain why you believe your professor assigned this case to

you at this point in the course. What were you supposed to learn from it? How does it fit

in with what you’ve already covered in the course? Where might this case lead?

SAMPLE BRIEF (STATE V. WORLEY)

Case Name: State v. Worley, 265 S.C. 551, 220 S.E.2d 242 (1975)

Facts: James Worley, the Defendant in this case, was an inmate at Richland County Prison camp in 1972. While in the camp, he contracted a severe case of poison ivy. He asked three times to see a doctor, but was not allowed to do so. He was given calamine lotion as treatment. The Defendant voluntarily left the Camp and went to Georgia, where he was treated by a doctor. He was arrested two years later in Florida and charged with the crime of escape from lawful confinement.

Procedural History: The Defendant was convicted in South Carolina state court of escape and argued at trial that his escape was justified because of inadequate medical treatment at the prison camp. The trial judge refused to allow the Defendant to present the affirmative defense of necessity to the jury. The Defendant appeals his conviction on the basis that the trial judge should have charged the jury with the necessity defense.

Issue: Did the trial court err in failing to allow the jury to consider a necessity defense in an escape from lawful confinement case where the Defendant left a prison camp due to inadequate medical treatment and promptly sought proper medical treatment, but failed to report to authorities during the two years that followed?

Holding (and Judgment): No, the trial court did not err in withdrawing the necessity defense from the jury’s consideration because the Defendant remained at large, without reporting to authorities, for two years after he left the prison camp. (Affirmed.)

Pre-Existing Rules: The case does not cite the statute that criminalizes escape from lawful confinement, but presumably such a statute exists. The necessity defense had apparently not been recognized by South Carolina courts in this context, so the criteria set forth in this case define a new affirmative defense.

Reasoning: The court reasoned that the defense of necessity must be available only in limited situations because legal channels exist to address problems with medical treatment, and, therefore, prisoners should not be the ones to decide when escape is justified. The court observed that escapes are “dangerous to prison guards, officials and the public and are disruptive of prison routine.” The court set forth six criteria that must be satisfied in order for the necessity defense to be available to a prisoner charged with escape: 1) the prisoner must have informed prison officials of the problem and been denied medical treatment; 2) there must not be time for a court to address the problem; 3) the escape must not involve force or threat of force; 4) the escapee must promptly seek medical care; 5) the treating doctor must agree that the prisoner was in danger of death or “immediate serious permanent” bodily harm absent prompt medical care; and 6) the prisoner must report to authorities immediately after receiving medical care. Because the 6th criterion was not satisfied by the Defendant, the court held that the trial court did not err in withholding the necessity defense. 7

Dissents/Concurrences: None.

My Comments: The fact that the Defendant didn’t turn himself in for two years was enough for the court to affirm his conviction, but there also seems to be a question of whether poison ivy puts a prisoner in sufficient danger of death or serious, permanent bodily harm to satisfy the fifth criterion. Also, a case of poison ivy may lack the urgency apparently required by the second criterion. But the court did not need to address either of these issues because the Defendant’s failure to fulfill the sixth criterion, alone, automatically made the defense unavailable to him. As a result, it’s unclear how the fifth and second criteria might impact the outcome of a different case.