Evidence keyed to Fisher
United States v. Brackeen
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:
Robert Nello Brackeen robbed three different banks. Subsequently, Brackeen was charged with one count of aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 2, 2113(a), 2113(d) (1988) and two counts of unarmed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2113(a). Brackeen pled guilty to the unarmed bank robberies. However, for the armed bank robbery, Brackeen objected before testifying at trial to the use of impeachment of his guilty pleas regarding the unarmed robberies. The basis for the trial court admitting the prior guilty pleas as impeachment evidence was Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) which allows impeachment of a defendant for any crime involving “dishonesty or false statement.” Brackeen appealed on the grounds that his guilty pleas were for a bank robbery, which is a crime that does not involve “dishonesty or false statement” as required by Riule 609(a)(2).
- 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.