Evidence keyed to Fisher
U.S. v. Hines
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:
Defendant was charged with an alleged bank robbery in Massachusetts. At trial, the prosecution’s main proposed item of evidence was the eyewitness identification of the bank teller who was robbed, and an expert witness analysis of the handwriting contained in the note used in the robbery. The bank teller who was robbed was Jeanne Dunne (“Dunne”); she is described by the court as, “a white woman, [who] gave the following identification moments after the robbery occurred: She identified the man as black with dark skin, a wide nose, and a medium build. Her description was as close to a generic identification of an African American man as one can imagine.” Defendant wished to offer the testimony of Dr. Kassin, a psychologist who, “studies perception and memory, and who has been qualified as an eyewitness identification expert in other cases.” The prosecution argued that the handwriting analysis is a “science,” but that the psychology of eyewitness identification is not. Defendant asserts the opposite, arguing that the psychology of eyewitness identification is a “science,” but maintaining that handwriting analysis is not.
- 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.