Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Procedure Keyed to Miller
Vermont v. Michael Brillon
Citation:556 U.S. 81 (2009)
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 July 2001, Michael Brillon (defendant) was charged with felony domestic assault, and a public defender named Richard Ammons was assigned to represent him. Ammons unsuccessfully moved twice for a continuance, citing a heavy workload and the need for further investigation. In February 2002, four days before jury selection, Brillon fired Ammons. The court appointed a second attorney, but he immediately withdraw due to a conflict.
In March, Gerard Altieri was assigned as Brillon’s third attorney. In May, Brillon filed a motion to dismiss Altieri for his failure to file motions, lack of communication, and lack of diligence. Altieri also moved to withdraw because Brillon threatened his life. The same day, the court appoint Paul Donaldson as Brillon’s fourth attorney. In October, Brillon filed a motion to dismiss Donaldson on the same grounds as his motion to dismiss Altieri. In November, Donaldson revealed that his contract with the Defender General’s office had expired in June and that he needed to have Brillon’s case reassigned. Brillon’s fifth attorney was not assigned until January 2003, but he withdrew from the case in April due to modifications to his firm’s contract with the Defender General’s office.
Brillon’s sixth and final attorney, Kathleen Moore, was not assigned until June 2003. In February 2004, Moore filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, which the court denied. The case went to trial on June 14, 2004. Brillon was found guilty. The court denied a post-trial motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial.
- 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.