|
On the following pages I have reproduced an excellent student brief originally
written for Politics 366. This may be the best brief I have received in
a Constitutional Law class. I have edited it just a little to remove some
small errors that you might otherwise emulate. I invite you to study this
exceptionally good brief for the insights it may provide in the preparation
of your own. Note particularly that the entire argument is a carefully
structured hierarchy of contentions. (See A
Good Argument Is a Hierarchy of Contentions.) Strong and weak points
of the brief are discussed briefly in the commentary I provided to its
author, which is reprinted below. (I've fixed the first three weakness
mentioned.)
COMMENTS OF CRAIG ALLIN ON THE ATTACHED BRIEF
Your written brief is superb. It is--at the minimum--one of the best
I have seen over a ten year period. Without consulting the files, I'd
wager that it is the best. It's exceptionally well-organized, exceptionally
well-written, exceptionally creative, and (almost) properly presented.
You've conceptualized the arguments effectively and argued persuasively.
You developed your arguments step by step and developed each precedent
with skill. The biggest problem I see in undergraduate advocacy briefs
is the urge to make an assertion and simply attach a case name to it,
as if a case name can substitute for an argument. There is none of that
here. The relevant features of every case relied upon are explained clearly
to the court. You deserve special plaudits for the 4th Amendment argument
which is entirely original and very persuasive. The better a brief is
the harder I look for errors. You didn't make it easy. In fourteen single-spaced
pages, this is the best I can do:
- p. 3, ¶4: You leave the preposition "to" dangling at the end of the
sentence. It belongs before the "what."
- p. 8, ¶2: "but" should be "buy."
- At a somewhat more significant level, you state two legal questions
and respond with three main arguments resulting in a mismatch between
questions asked and answered. Your arguments I and II are subsets of
your response to question I and should be organized that way.
- Your statement of the relevant provisions of the Child Protection
Act of 1984 is so attenuated as to be a sentence fragment. Arguably
the important words and phrases are all here, but at least complete
the sentence.
Standing alone, I'd rate the brief an A+.
The Model Brief is presented
in pdf format to maintain the original look of the printed pages as submitted.
|
