Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Procedure keyed to Kamisar
Rothgery v. Gillespie County
Citation:554 U.S. 191, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d 366 (2008)
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:
Texas police arrested Rothgery (Plaintiff) and brought him before a magistrate judge for an “article 15.17 hearing,” at which the court makes a probable cause determination, sets bail, and informs the defendant of the accusations against them. There is no formal indictment at this point.
The magistrate judge found there was probable cause and committed Rothgery to jail, from which he was released after posting bond. Rothgery did not have money for a lawyer and his requests for appointed counsel were unsuccessful. Six months later, a Texas grand jury indicted Rothgery for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, resulting in his rearrest. Shortly thereafter, Rothgery was assigned a lawyer, who was able to get the indictment dismissed.
Rothgery then brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Gillespie County (Defendant), claiming that he was not provided with the assistance of counsel within a reasonable time after his initial appearance before the court. If he was provided with the assistance of counsel, he claims, he would not have been indicted, rearrested, or jailed.
- 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.