Legal Analysis

1. Legal Analysis Synthesis and Case Comparison

2. Legal Analysis—The Next Step • Reading an understanding cases is first step in legal analysis • Next step is to relate law to a factual dispute • developing an argument to support your client’s position or • presenting an objective discussion of the law as related to a factual dispute

3. Discussion/Argument • Lawyers (and Judges) use I.R.A.C. formula to analyze legal issues • Issue • Rule of Law • Analysis or Application • Conclusion

4. Rule of Law • Rule of Law that applies may stem from more than one case • Giving a complete rule of law often requires synthesis of the cases

5. Synthesis • Step between research and writing • Relating relevant cases to one another • Necessary because research often reveals many cases • Also necessary because case law is limited to facts of case and your facts may be a little different than each case

6. How Similar Cases Relate • A group of cases say the same thing • i.e. “The courts consistently hold… • Two or more cases define/explain different elements of the same cause of action or code section • Two or more cases distinguish application of law to different facts

7. Synthesis • Combining separate pieces to make a whole • Rule for your case Long Terry Sibron

8. Example--Grouping Cases • The majority of the states have adopted the traditional rule that a landowner is liable for injuries to trespassing children if the landowner maintains an attractive nuisance (citations) The reasons for this rule are…. (explain various reasons--which may differ from court to court) • A number of states, however, have rejected the rule and instead apply the traditional rule of a landowner’s duty to trespassers. (citations and reasons.)

9. You Try It • Powell v. Alabama • The 14th Amendment requires that states appoint lawyers for indigent defendants in capital cases. • Gideon v. Wainwright

10. Synthesis and Case law • Every case gives us a piece of the whole picture; i.e. part of the entire body of law on a subject • When a factual situation presents more than one issue or when facts are not the same as any one case, it is necessary to use more than one case

11. Synthesis--Briefing 2 or more cases • Synthesis is done with cases dealing with the same or similar issue • Synthesis gives you a more complete picture of the rule of law governing your legal questions

12. Research • Research reveals Terry v. Ohio • A patdown for weapons is allowed when an officer has rational suspicion that a crime has occurred (Suspects seen “casing” a jewelry store ) and may have a weapon • If during a lawful patdown search, an officer feels something that he knows immediately to be contraband, it can be seized because plain feel is same as plain view

13. Example--Synthesis • For example, consider Terry v. Ohio and Minnesota v. Dickerson and other cases: • If police have rational suspicion to believe a suspect is involved in criminal activity and may have a weapon, that individual may be detained and outer clothing patted down for weapons. If an item feels like a weapon, the officer may remove it. If the item turns out not to be a weapon, but other contraband, it may be seized because it is in plain view. If an item does not feel like a weapon it cannot be seized unless the officer is immediately able to determine that the item is illegal contraband.

14. Hypothetical 2 • Police receive a report of an armed robbery at a 7-11, the suspects, 2 males, fleeing in a purple pickup truck, with a partial license, 4DC. While patrolling they see a vehicle matching the description. They pull the vehicle over, and order the occupants, 2 males, out of the car. The officer pats down the suspects. The officer feels no weapon, but does feel a soft pouch that he thinks might be marijuana. To confirm this he removes the package from the suspects pocket and discovers that it is marijuana. The officers then check the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Under the front seat the officers find cocaine.

15. Terry Rule • Police can detain an individual with rational suspicion to believe the person is involved in criminal activity and can pat down if there is rational suspicion to believe he has a weapon

16. Long (Michigan v.) Rule • Where police have articulable suspicion to believe a driver may be armed and dangerous, they may conduct a protective search for weapons not only of the driver’s person but also of the passenger compartment of the car. Any contraband in plain view can be seized, whether it is a weapon or not.

17. Sibron Rule • If the protective search goes beyond what is necessary to determine if the suspect is armed, it is no longer valid under Terry and its fruits will be suppressed.

18. Rule from Terry, Long and Sibron

19. When police have rational suspicion to believe a person is armed they may do a pat down for weapons, and if the suspect is stopped in a vehicle the passenger compartment may also be searched. However, any evidence obtained after police determine there is no weapon will be suppressed unless it was in plain view.

20. Case Synthesis • A case synthesis compares the outcomes of cases and attempts to harmonize these outcomes into a set of logically consistent rules of law. • E.g. Your complete statement of the rule(s) of law should apply to or be consistent with all of the cases you are synthesizing

21. How to Synthesize • Start with facts: • Isolate factual similarities and differences

22. Proceed to Reasoning • If there are different facts, or contrary holdings, you may also need to compare and discuss reasons for decisions

23. How to Synthesize, cont. • Compare your holdings • Look to the facts you have incorporated into your holding • have you incorporated all key similar facts? • Have you incorporated all key different facts?

24. How to Synthesize, cont. • Reconciling contradictory holdings: • Look to facts • Look to rationale

25. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS Did Courts base their decisions on law from same jurisdiction? If rationale based on state law, is same state law being applied? Is there a question of state or federal law? Has there been any intervening statutory law that could make court come up with another result? Has there been any intervening U.S. Supreme court ruling that might change things?

26. Written Synthesis • Look for these words tying your holdings together: • And • In addition • However • Unless • Except