Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law Keyed to Lee
Robinson v. California
Citation:370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962)
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
Robinson was convicted after a jury trial under a California statute that made it a criminal offense to “be addicted to the use of narcotics.” The evidence presented against him at trial was testimony from two police officers. They testified that they examined his arms one evening and saw scar tissue, discoloration, and what appeared to be needle marks. They also said that Robinson admitted to the occasional use of narcotics after being questioned. There was no other proof offered that Robinson used narcotics.
Robinson testified as well, denying the alleged conversation with the officers and denying the use of narcotics. He said that his arms were the way they are due to an allergic condition contracted during his military service. His testimony was corroborated by two witnesses.
The jury returned a guilty verdict and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
- 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.