Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Procedure Keyed to Dressler
Chambers v. Maroney
Citation:399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419.
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:
On May 20th, 1963, a gas station was robbed by two men, each of whom had a gun. A blue compact station wagon was seen speeding away from a parking lot close to the station. The description of the car and the suspects were reported to the police.
Within an hour, a car matching the description was stopped by the police. The car had four men inside, including the defendant. The occupants were arrested and the car was driven to the police station. The police searched the car after it was at the police station and found two .38-caliber revolvers and cards bearing the name of Raymond Havicon, the attendant at another gas station that had been robbed at gunpoint on May 13, 1963.
The materials taken from the car were introduced into evidence against the defendant. He was convicted of both robberies. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the search of the car was in violation of the Fourth Amendment as police did not first obtain a search warrant.
- 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.