Case Citation (Case Names Should Be In Italics; Ex. John V.)

Question

Case Citation (Case names should be in Italics; ex. John v. Doe 123 F.3d st Cir. 2016)) Case Citation (Case names should be in Italics; ex. John v. Doe 123 F.3d st Cir. 2016)) Facts: These are the most important facts of the case; they should include the parties involved, what happened and how the case got to this point (the procedural history: who’s suing who? What happened in the lower court? Who is appealing?) Issue: This is the question presented for the court to answer. This will usually be a question about how the law is/was applied to the case and whether it was done correctly. This should be in the form of a question. In many cases the issue will also correspond with why a person is appealing. Rule: This explains how the court should apply the relevant rule of law. This does NOT mean the ruling in the case. This section should explain how the court is supposed to apply the law to answer the question in the issue. Analysis: In this section of the brief you will explain how they applied the law and reached its decision in the case. This should connect the rule of law explained in the previous section to the facts of the case. Conclusion: How the court answered the question in the issue and how the court ruled in the case. Each section should be written in single-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. There should only be one space between the case citation and each of the sections. DO NOT include the date, class, my name or your name. Failure to follow these instructions will result in point deductions on your grade.

Dr. Jack HW Helper · Accepted Answer

Case Citation: Oconne v. State, 581 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 2016) Facts This case involves the criminal prosecution of Denis Oconne, accused of burglary in the state of Louisiana. The procedural history began in a district court where Oconne was convicted after a jury trial. Dissatisfied with the verdict, Oconne appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. During the lower court proceedings, evidence was presented that linked Oconne to the crime scene, including eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence. The case was appealed primarily on grounds of procedural irregularities during the trial and alleged misapplication of evidentiary rules by the district court. Issue The core legal question was whether the exclusion of certain forensic evidence by the district court violated Oconne’s right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, the issue was: Did the trial court err in excluding the forensic evidence, and if so, did that error affect the overall fairness of the trial? Rule The court was guided by the principles set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony and scientific evidence. According to this rule, forensic evidence must be relevant and reliable, with the court acting as a gatekeeper to evaluate its scientific validity. The court must ensure that the evidence presented is based on sound scientific methodology and is pertinent to the case, in line with the standards established by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Analysis In reviewing the case, the Fifth Circuit examined the manner in which the district court evaluated the forensic evidence. The appellate court found that the trial court failed to conduct a proper Daubert analysis, thereby improperly excluding forensic evidence that could have significantly supported Oconne’s defense. The court emphasized that the exclusion of relevant scientific evidence without proper consideration violated the defendant’s right to present a

Case Citation (Case Names Should Be In Italics; Ex. John V.)

Case Citation (Case names should be in Italics; ex. John v. Doe 123 F.3d st Cir. 2016))

Paper For Above instruction

Facts

Issue

Rule

Analysis

Conclusion

References