Criminal Law keyed to Dripps
Ricketts v. Adamson
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:
Adamson (Defendant) was charged with first-degree murder in the car bombing of Donald Bolles. Defendant entered into a plea agreement to plead guilty to second-degree murder in exchange for his agreement to testify against Max Dunlap and James Robinson. Defendant agreed to testify against anyone involved in the murder upon request. The agreement stated that if Defendant refused or lied, the original charge of first-degree murder would be reinstated. Defendant testified, Dunlap and Robinson were convicted, and Defendant was sentenced pursuant to the agreement. Later, Dunlap and Robinson’s convictions were reversed, and the prosecution asked Defendant to testify at the new trial. Defendant refused on the grounds that the duty to testify ended at sentencing. After Defendant pled the Fifth at a pretrial hearing, the prosecution filed new first-degree murder charges. Defendant moved to quash on the basis of double jeopardy. The court denied the motion. Defendant then offered to testify, but the state refused. Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on double jeopardy grounds.
- 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.