3 Page Paper

A BRIEF GUIDE TO LEGAL CASE BRIEFS

I. CITATION/ PROCEDURAL HISTORY

From what specific source is the case taken? US Court of Appeals? US Supreme Court? How did the case reach this court? Who won/lost below and appealed to the higher court?

II. THE FACTS

What materially happened and ONLY what materially happened? What does the plaintiff want the court to do for him/her?

III. LEGAL ISSUES

A. General

· What specific legal questions does this case raise? 

· What is the statutory, constitutional or other provision that the court is now considering?

· The 1st Amendment, The Voting Rights Act, The Clean Air Act

B. Specific

· What specifically must the court consider from the general provision?

· For example, the scope of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

IV. THE HOLDING

· What decision was made? That is, in support of which side did the court hold? 

· For example, “the court held that Congress has the power to enact the Family and Medical Leave Act pursuant to its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

V. LEGAL RATIONALE

· What legal reasoning informed the court's decision?

· What rules of law, for example, did it apply?

· How did it interpret legal principles, documents?

· What POLICY informed the court’s decision?

VI. SECOND GENERATION QUESTIONS

· What existing legal questions, if any, are unresolved by this case?

· What new questions, if any, does it raise?

How to Brief a Case [ Detailed Version ]

Briefs should be a one-two page summary of the case. Structure the summary according to the elements listed below. The structure adheres to the types of questions the professor asks in class and to the information you'll need for outlining. Not every case can be summed up in one page, but it's a good discipline to attempt to condense the material.

Citation and Procedural History

The heading should contain citation information as well as the author of the majority opinion

How did this case get to this particular court? Typically, you will be reading case law from the Appeals Court or Supreme Court. That means the case has already been decided at a lower court and the losing party has appealed to a higher court. Typically, the lower courts don't write opinions on their decisions, consequently, you'll almost always be reading appellate decisions.

The judge often starts the case with information on how the court below decided the case and which party is making the appeal. Often the cases will present a detailed history of the arguments presented by both parties in the court below as well.

At minimum, you should be able to answer the following two questions that your professor is likely to ask in class:

Who is appealing on what issues? What happened in the lower court?

Facts of Case

A well-written case brief provides the relevant facts that brought the parties to court.

The bulk of the relevant facts are often found early in the opinion.

Legal Issue

A well-written opinion starts out by telling you the legal issue up-front. Language that the court uses might include such phrases as:

"The question before us is whether...." “This case is before us to decide whether..."

Note: If you're having trouble spotting the issue try to key into the word "whether." It often signals what the turning point for a case.

Appellate courts hear a case on appeal when there has been a problem with the case in the court below. By taking this case, it gives the higher court a chance to give guidance and establish precedent for the lower courts to follow.

Holding

The holding is the court's decision on the issue. Who wins? The holding may be narrowly construed to a particular issue or be very broad. Identifying the holding may merely consist of finding the words "We hold that..."

The holding should include the disposition of the case. Is the ruling of the lower court affirmed? Overturned? Remanded for retrial?

Legal Rationale

The reasoning is the arm of IRAC. This is how and why the court fits the particular facts and circumstances of this case into the rule. The courts often fashion tests or rely on precedent, which forms part of the reasoning. You should take special note of the reasoning and try to emulate it in your own writing.

Policy

Rules don't stand by themselves without any sort of reason behind them. If there isn't a sound policy behind a rule, then the court tries to fashion a rule that serves the principles of equity or justice. Sometimes a statute that does not further the policies of equity or justice binds the judge. In those circumstances, the judge sometimes upholds the statute but writes the opinion in such a way to bring the injustice to the attention of the legislature in order to encourage them to change the law.

Concurrence/ Dissents [ if applicable ]

A Concurrence is a separate opinion in which one of the judges agrees with the result but has different reasoning. Like dissents, you will find that concurrences proliferate in Supreme Court cases. Look at the concurrence to see how the reasoning differs. Make a note of it in the brief.

Typically, a panel of judges tries appellate cases. Not surprisingly, there is not always unanimous agreement. Consequently, a judge who is not in the majority will write a dissent. Dissents are ubiquitous in Supreme Court cases. Make sure that you pick up the major sticking points in the dissent. What principles does the dissenting judge disagree with the majority on? Dissents are sometimes indicators of a direction the court may eventually move towards.

Second Generation Questions

What is left open by the court’s decision?

What might a litigant next bring before the court?

CITATION: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Procedural History: Defendant ( ∆ ) Miranda Appeals from Ariz Supreme Ct

FACTS: Miranda (∆) was arrested and taken to the police station where officers questioned him for two hours. ∆ signed a confession. The confession stated that it was made voluntarily and that ∆ had full knowledge of his legal rights. ∆'s confession was used against him at trial and over ∆'s objection. ∆ was convicted of rape and kidnapping and received 20 years. The state supreme court affirmed the conviction. ∆ appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

LEGAL ISSUE: Must law enforcement officials inform an accused of his constitutional rights? Are statements obtained from an individual subjected to in custody police interrogation admissible if ∆ has not been notified of his “right to remain silent” under the 5th Amendment?

HOLDING: The Court Held That--- Incriminating statements made by an individual are only admissible if the following safeguards have been taken; and/or, when a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom, the following warnings must be given:

“∆ has the right to remain silent; that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; that he has the right to have an attorney present; and if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him.”

REASONING: (Warren, C.J.) Yes. When a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom, the warnings must be given. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination [i.e. taking the 5th] is jeopardized when a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom. Previously the Court has held that such warnings were not required but instead represented a “safe harbor” for the police to ensure that a confession is both knowingly and intelligently made. Yet, heretofore, no confession obtained as a result of an “in custody” interrogation can be used against a person unless the prosecution has shown that the person had been “read his/her rights.” This favors a policy of making suspect aware of the nature of their rights as well as making the acquisition of confession easier for the police. Essentially, so long as the police read the warnings they will have complied with the 5th amendment.

Dissent: (White, Justice) The Fifth Amendment forbids only self-incrimination only if it is compelled. The core of the majority's opinion is that there is compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings and that no statement made while in custody can be the product of free choice unless the protective devices as described by the court are used. There is insufficient evidence support the inherently coercive nature of “in-custody” confessions.

Second Generation Questions: What counts as “in custody” for Miranda purposes? To what extent must a suspect actually understand the warnings in order to intelligently waive them?