Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law Keyed to Lee
Clark v. Arizona
Citation:548 U.S. 735, 126 S.Ct. 2709, 165 L.Ed.2d 842 (2006)
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:
Police responded in uniform to complaints of a truck with loud music blaring. The driver of the truck, Eric Clark, was ordered to pull over by a police vehicle. An officer got out of the police vehicle and told Clark to stay where he was. However, less than a minute later, Clark shot the officer, who died soon after. Clark ran away on foot but was arrested later that day.
Clark was charged with first degree murder. In March 2001, Clark was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a state hospital for treatment. Two years later, the same court found his competence restored and a new trial was ordered.
At his trial, he did not contest the shooting and the death. Instead, he asserted an insanity defense and he relied on his undisputed paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the incident. He argued that he could not fulfill the required mens rea of the offense, given his cognitive incapacity. The trial court held that he could not rely on evidence bearing on insanity to dispute the mens rea for first degree murder. He was found guilty. Clark appealed, arguing that the trial court violated his due process.
- 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.