Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Procedure Keyed to Dressler
Oregon v. Elstad
Citation:470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222.
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:
In December 1981, a home was burglarized. A witness to the burglary contacted the police, implicating the defendant, an 18-year-old neighbor and friend of the victim’s teenage son. The officers’ went to the defendant’s home with a warrant for his arrest. The defendant and his mom were home. The officer asked the defendant if he was aware of why they were there. He stated that he had no idea. The officer then asked him if he knew of the victim, and the defendant said that he knew him and also heard that there was a robbery. The officer told the defendant that he felt he was involved in that, and the defendant stated, “Yes, I was there.”
The defendant was transported to the sheriff’s head quarters, and approximately one hour later, he was read his Miranda rights for the first time. The defendant indicated he understood his rights, and, having these rights in mind, wished to speak with the officers. He gave a full written statement, explaining that he had known that the victim’s family was out of town and had been paid to lead several acquaintances to their residence and show them how to gain entry through a defective sliding glass door.
At trial, the State conceded that the defendant had been in custody when he made his statement, “I was there,” and accordingly it was inadmissible as having been given without Miranda warnings. However, the State maintained that the defendant’s written statement at the headquarters was not “tainted” by the earlier unwarned statement. The trial court admitted the written statement and the defendant was convicted. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed. The State appealed.
- 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.