Confirm favorite deletion?
Evidence Keyed to Sklansky
United States v. Carter
Citation:910 F.2d 1524 (7th Cir. 1990)
The defendant was accused of robbing the Acme Continental Credit Union and again on January 20, 1989. At trial, an issue arose on whether the prosecution’s cross-examination of a certain witness was improperly allowed to exceed the scope of the defendant’s direct examination. The defense called a witness named Lashan Riggins to testify. On cross-examination the prosecution was allowed to exceed the scope of direct. Defendant objected, arguing that the government violated Federal Rule of Evidence 611(b). However, in each instance, the trial court invoked its discretion to permit the questions.
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.
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.