Legal Analysis

Synthesis

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

Discussion/Argument

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

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

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

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

Synthesis

• Combining separate pieces to make a whole

• Rule for your case

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.)

Not synthesized version of law

• In 1932 in Powell v. Alabama the Court held that the 14th Amendment requires that states appoint lawyers for indigent defendants in capital cases.

• In 1963 in Gideon v. Wainwright the Court held that the 14th Amendment requires that states appoint lawyers for indigent defendants in felony cases.

You try it

• Hint—delete the words “the court held” and create a rule without referring to the case names (in practice the names and cites would be included as “citations.”—Just stick with the rule about right to attorney in state cases.

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

Synthesis--

• 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

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. [Cite to Terry} During a patdown an officer can seize contraband that is in plain view. Plain view extends to “plain touch.” While patting down for weapons, the officer may seize an item if the officer is immediately able to determine that the item is illegal contraband. However, the officer may not engage in further search activities once he determines the item is not a weapon. [Cites to Dickerson]

Reverse—write prior rules not using any synthesis

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.

Terry Rule

• In Terry v. Ohio the Court held that 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

Long (Michigan v.) Rule

• In Michigan v. Long the Court held that 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.

Sibron Rule

• In Sibron the Court held that 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.

Dickerson

• In Dickerson the Court held that during a patdown, an officer can seize evidence determined to be contraband through the sense of touch, but the nature of the item must be immediately apparent

Rule from Terry, Long and Sibron and Dickerson

• Construct a rule that applies to the prior hypthetical.

• 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. Although plain view extends to plain touch, in a patdown search the criminal nature of the item must be immediately apparent.

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

Proceed to Reasoning

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

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?

Written Synthesis

• Look for these words tying your holdings together:– And– In addition– However– Unless– Except