Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law keyed to Dripps
United States v. Montgomery
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Bernard Vincent Montgomery (Defendant) was found guilty of conspiracy to manufacture, conspiracy to distribute, conspiracy to import, and distribution of methamphetamine. He was also convicted of possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. A co-defendant, Lloyd Ray Buxton (Defendant) was also found guilty of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. At trial, Lance Blondin, an employee of a Canadian chemical supply company identified Defendant at trial as the purchaser of a large quantity of red phosphorous, a key ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine. When shown photographs of Defendant and two other men initially, Blondin identified Defendant as “Jim Luna,” who had purchased the red phosphorous. Additionally, prior to his testimony, Blondin had requested that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) fax him a photograph of Defendant, to “have it right in [his] mind that [he] could identify Defendant.” Blondin also pinned this photo to the wall in his office and looked at it several times prior to testifying. The day before he was scheduled to testify, Blondin entered the courtroom with a DEA agent and looked at Defendant. Blondin testified that he did so in order to “have it straight in my mind that Defendant was the fellow that had purchased the chemicals from us…” Defendant appealed his convictions, arguing that the prosecution impermissibly employed suggestive in-court identification procedures to identify him of the crimes thereby violating his right to due process.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.