CASE BRIEFS General Guidelines "BRIEFING" CASES A crucial part of studying law is learning how to understand the importance of a case decision and what crucial issues the court is addressing. The best way to learn legal reasoning and to understand case law is by summarizing the case yourself in what is commonly called a "brief". A brief is simply a format in which the case is summarized and the key portions discussed. Law school and advanced legal education is almost completely dedicated to learning the law by reading and briefing cases. Some students truly enjoy the briefing process and learning how to identify how and why legal decisions are made. Other students are less enthusiastic. One fact is certain: there is no better way …show more content…
While at the police station, the victim identified Miranda as her attacker. Miranda was 23 years old, poor and had completed only half of ninth grade. Two officers questioned Miranda for two hours, during which time he was never advised of his right not to incriminate himself, or of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The officers obtained a written confession from Miranda. At trial, the confession and eyewitness identification were admitted into evidence (over defense objections). Miranda was convicted of rape and …show more content…
The books containing cases, known as reporters, are organized into volumes and take up many large library shelves in hard copy. Here, one would find volume number 384 to look for the Miranda case. Although much legal research is now done electronically, the cases are still divided into "volumes" in this fashion. The letters following the volume number identify what reporter in which the case is located. In the example, "U.S." identifies the reporter as the "United States Reports" and tells us that it is a U.S. Supreme Court case. After the reporter designation is the page number. In the example, the Miranda case starts at page
Shadrack Babwiriza Case Brief Writing Assignment Martin. J Littlefield Criminal Law 10/27/15 Buffalo State College I. Dennys Rodrigues, Petitioner v. United States II. 135 S. Ct. 1609; 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 III.
Step 1: Facts of the case This is a case in which the plaintiffs are three long haired young men who were denied the ability to enroll in Tyler Junior College due solely to their hair length violating the schools dress code. One of the plaintiffs is a Vietnam War veteran who had attended the school for a semester the previous year and had caused no difficulties in that time. The school stated that long haired students had been known to cause disruptions in the classroom. It was due to this that the rule regarding hair length was implemented into the schools dress code. Step 2: Question of law presented to the court
• In 1957 the police of Ohio received an anonymous notification that the suspect of a bombing was hiding in Dollree Mapp’s house. • The police of Ohio went to Mapps house and demanded to search the house; she denied them the access to her property and demanded a search warrant. • After the police first try to gain access to the house, they went a second time and forced their entry to the property. • Mapp requested the search warrant to which the police only showed her a piece of paper, one that she could not had access.
Trial or District courts deal with the actual trying of the case. Gideon v. Wainwright begins with a poor man named Clarence Earl Gideon, accused of breaking and entering a poolroom in
Because Amanda pushed Kalvin and ripped his jacket by grabbing hold of it, there was probable cause to arrest Amanda for RCW 9A.36.041 DV Assault 4th Degree. I advised Amanda she was under arrest and Officer Michels placed her into handcuffs. I advised Amanda of her Constitutional Rights from my pre-printed Miranda card. I asked Amanda if she understood her rights and she stated "yes". While arresting Amanda, she stated she needed belongings from inside, such as a coat and her driver's license, to go to jail with her.
The Miranda warning was established to fully complete the legal promise of self-incrimination
Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).
Arizona. The case gained national exposure when Miranda was taken into police custody and questioned for two hours and then signed a written confession stating that he had kidnapped and raped women. Miranda was taken into court and convicted of multiple accounts and was sentenced to multiple years in prison. Miranda appealed under the argument that Miranda’s fifth amendment rights were violated. The case eventually went to the Arizona supreme court, which ruled that none of Miranda 's rights were violated.
Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not immediately informed of his Miranda rights, although he was questioned by police. Under the public-safety exception to the law, law enforcement may question a suspect without invoking Miranda if the police have credible reason to believe the suspect may have information about an imminent threat to public safety. Once he was read his Miranda rights, police said Tsarnaev stopped answering questions (Imbriano, 2013). Conclusion Miranda v. Arizona, although nearly 50 years old, stands as one of the most well-known and important Supreme Court rulings.
The officer’s failure to notify the defendant of his right to an attorney at law; this violated his constitutional rights. According to the officers, they were aware that they did not notify him of his rights. However, Miranda 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was found guilty in a court of law regardless; this was due to the written statement he had written and signed. The decision of the court was that Miranda was guilty, as a result he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years incarceration on each count.
Part 2 was the transcript that the court case was based on. It consists of individual dialogues of the
When being interrogated, Miranda made two 2 confessions, both morally and written. Miranda was arrested and sentenced
Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
Different judges will have different interpretation of cases; hence, they may bind a single case with various precedents making it more difficult to pass a judgment. In this type of situation even competent judges may find it complicated to decide on the ‘ratio decidendi’. Nevertheless, there are a lot of case laws and deciding which case law best appropriates to a case is not always an easy task, as it is time consuming and very stressful to find the most suitable precedent. Therefore, not only the doctrine of judicial precedent has the disadvantage of being complex, while the judges are discussing which case law to apply to a specific case, justice is at the same time being delayed.
Fali in Chapter 5: Lessons in the ‘School of Hard Knocks.’, tells us that when law students from all over the country ask him how a lawyer must prepare for arguing important cases, he always answers ‘as best as you can.’ Fali, in this chapter, gives an invaluable piece of advise to the young lawyers of today which was advised to him by C.K.Daphtary, ‘It is better to spend more time thinking about a case than merely reading the brief.’ Fali gives another immensely important piece of advise to the lawyers saying, ‘Don’t quarrel with your opponents or be nasty to them because if you have chosen the law as your profession, the major part of your life will be spent with colleagues at the