Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law Keyed to Johnson
State ex rel. Woods v. Cohen
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:
Edwin Cohen (Defendant) was indicted for conspiracy to defraud the Arizona health-care system. Count 1 of the indictment charged Defendant with conspiracy, while counts 18 through 29 charged Defendant with various substantive offenses committed by co-conspirators. Defendant moved to dismiss counts 18 through 29, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support those charges. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion and remanded those counts to the grand jury. In a special action before the court of appeals, the state argued that the trial court had incorrectly rejected thePinkertondoctrine of vicarious liability, which would have supported Defendant’s liability for substantive crimes committed by co-conspirators, even though Defendant had not participated in the crimes. The state contended that co-conspirator liability was included within accomplice liability. State law defined an accomplice as anyone who, while intending to encourage or facilitate an offense, aided or tried to aid another person in planning or committing the crime. The grand jury had been instructed onPinkertonliability, and the state conceded that there had not been any evidence showing that Defendant had participated directly in any of the offenses in counts 18 through 29. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings on the indictment. Defendant petitioned the Supreme Court of Arizona for review.
- 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.