CASE BRIEF

A case brief should be 1-2 pages. (250-500 words) The brief for each case should be submitted before the date on the work schedule. Be prepared to discuss your brief in class.

Facts: Summarize the facts of the case. List only the essential facts that you need to understand the holding and reasoning of the case.

Procedure: Most of the cases that you'll read in law school will be appellate court decisions. In this section, you want to list what happened in the lower court(s). Do not go into too much detail. One or two sentences are sufficient for this section.

Issue(s): What is/are the question(s) facing the court? Form the issue questions in a way that they can be answered by yes or no.

Holding: How did the court answer the issue question(s)? YES/NO?

Reasoning: This is the most important section of your case brief. Here you want to list the reasoning of the majority in reaching its decision. You can actually be quite detailed in this section. List what the law was before this case was decided and how the law has changed after this decision. Law professors love to discuss the reasoning of a case in class discussions.

Concurring/dissenting opinions: Even though I read the concurring and dissenting opinions, I rarely brief them. However, there are some cases (e.g. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer) where the concurring or dissenting opinions end up becoming more important than the majority's opinions. In such cases, you should add this section to your case brief.

Chapter 16 - Mistretta v. U.S. and Sentencing Guidlines

Mistretta v. U.S. and Sentencing Guidelines

In an effort to eliminate disparity and inconsistency in sentencing, Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 1984. The commission’s job was to develop guidelines for sentencing federal offenders. These guidelines went into effect in 1987, and have been a matter of some debate ever since. Defense attorneys claim that these preset guidelines will result in far more imprisonments for much longer periods of time. Many judges dislike the guidelines because they appear to discount their judgment by limiting the discretion they are able to exercise in sentencing defendants. In addition to the federal Sentencing Commission, many state legislatures have created state commissions, and whether approved guidelines are mandatory or merely advisory varies between jurisdictions.
The case of Mistretta v. U.S. and Sentencing Guidelines is a landmark in the disagreement about sentencing guidelines. Both the defendant (Mistretta) and the offense (selling cocaine) were not unusual, but the timing made this case very important, since Mistretta was charged only a month after the guidelines came into effect. After he pled guilty and was sentenced according to the new guidelines to 18 months in prison, Mistretta appealed his case to the district court of appeals. Before the district court could hear his case, the U.S. Supreme court chose to review the case due to its “imperative public importance”.
The main aspect of the controversy was the claim that the Sentencing Commission, which according to law must include three federal judges, overstepped the boundaries of the separation of power between the branches of government required by the Constitution. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court upheld the law, stating that although the independent commission was an unusual entity within our government, it did not violate the separation of powers and neither was undue authority granted to the commission. Justice Antonin Scalia, the only judge to vote against upholding the law, claimed that this case was not about just mingling the branches of government, it was about the creation of an entirely new branch, a sort of “junior-varsity congress”. His argument was that it was Article I of the Constitution that was being threatened, not Article III.
The Supreme Court was not only the group divided over the question of guidelines. Among federal judges, there were over a hundred who declared them unconstitutional, and many others who found ways around the application of the guidelines. Mistretta is important because the Supreme Court addressed the issue immediately after the guidelines had been implemented and made it clear that although there was controversy surrounding the issue, it was not a matter over which the Court was prepared to confront Congress. Sentencing Guidelines and the legitimacy of Sentencing Commissions are still a matter of debate, but Mistretta establishes the Supreme Court’s opinion that it is not a matter worthy of confrontation between the branches.
Although there are always cases that should perhaps be an exception to the rule, I believe that sentencing guidelines are a good idea. While Judge discretion should certainly play a part in sentencing, making sure that defendants with similar criminal histories and similar crimes are sentenced comparably is important. Consistency in sentencing is an important result of equal justice. While jurisdictions that allow the guidelines to be applied voluntarily have had little success in reducing sentencing disparity, when the guidelines are presumptive (required except where a reasonable explanation can be offered for not applying them) a much higher rate of disparity reduction is achieved. It’s difficult to declare that in every case sentencing guidelines should be followed without question, but since even presumptive application of the guidelines allows for exceptions where sufficient reason exists, I think that application of the sentencing guidelines has more pros than cons.