legal analysis synthesis-case comparison-revised

8/11/2019 Legal Analysis Synthesis-Case Comparison-revised

1/26

Legal Analysis

Synthesis and Case Comparison


2/26

Legal AnalysisThe 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 clients

position or

presenting an objective discussion of the law as

related to a factual dispute


3/26

Discussion/Argument

Lawyers (and Judges) use I.R.A.C.

formula to analyze legal issues

Issue

Rule of Law

Analysis or Application

Conclusion


4/26

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


5/26

Synthesis

Step between research and writing

Relating relevant cases to one another

Necessary because research often revealsmany cases

Also necessary because case law is

limited to facts of case and your facts maybe a little different than each case


6/26

How Similar Cases Relate

A group of cases say the same thing

i.e. The courts consistently hold

Two or more cases define/explain differentelements of the same cause of action or

code section

Two or more cases distinguish application

of law to different facts


7/26

Synthesis

Combining separate

pieces to make a

whole

Rule for your case


8/26

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 tocourt)

A number of states, however, have rejected the rule and

instead apply the traditional rule of a landowners duty totrespassers. (citations and reasons.)


9/26

You Try It

Powell v. Alabama

The 14thAmendment requires that states

appoint lawyers for indigent defendants in

capital cases.

Gideon v. Wainwright


10/26

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


11/26

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


12/26

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 mayhave 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


13/26

Example--Synthesis

For example, consider Terry v. Ohio and Minnesota v.

Dickerson and other cases:

If police have rational suspicion to believe a suspect isinvolved 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 becauseit 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.


14/26

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 avehicle matching the description. They pull the vehicleover, and order the occupants, 2 males, out of the car.

The officer pats down the suspects. The officer feels noweapon, but does feel a soft pouch that he thinks mightbe marijuana. To confirm this he removes the packagefrom the suspects pocket and discovers that it ismarijuana. The officers then check the passenger

compartment of the vehicle. Under the front seat theofficers find cocaine.


15/26

TerryRule

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 tobelieve he has a weapon


16/26

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 driversperson but also of the passenger

compartment of the car. Any contraband

in plain view can be seized, whether it is aweapon or not.


17/26

SibronRule

If the protective search goes beyond what

is necessary to determine if the suspect is

armed, it is no longer valid under Terryand

its fruits will be suppressed.


18/26

Rule from Terry, Long and

Sibron


19/26

When police have rational suspicion tobelieve a person is armed they may do apat down for weapons, and if the suspect

is stopped in a vehicle the passengercompartment may also be searched.However, any evidence obtained afterpolice determine there is no weapon will

be suppressed unless it was in plain view.


20/26

Case Synthesis

A case synthesis comparesthe 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


21/26

How to Synthesize

Start with facts:

Isolate factual similarities and differences


22/26

Proceed to Reasoning

If there are different facts, or contrary

holdings, you may also need to compare

and discuss reasons for decisions


23/26

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?


24/26

How to Synthesize, cont.

Reconciling contradictory holdings:

Look to facts

Look to rationale


25/26

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?


26/26

Written Synthesis

Look for these words tying your holdings

together:

And

In addition

However

Unless

Except

legal analysis synthesis-case comparison-revised

Documents