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 6 - Burns v. Reed and Prosecutorial Misconduct

On September 2, 1982, Cathy Burns had called the Muncie, Indiana, police department claiming that an unknown assailant had entered her house. She also claimed that this assailant knocked her unconscious and shot her two sons while they were sleeping. When the police arrived they had already come to the conclusion that Burns was their primary suspect although there was no evidence to prove this conclusion. The officers contemplated whether Burns was suffering from multiple personality disorder and decided to interview her under hypnosis however, they were not certain that hypnosis would be an acceptable investigative technique. For that reason, the officers consulted the chief deputy prosecutor from Delaware County, Indiana, Rick Reed. Reed then told the officers they could continue with the hypnosis. While under hypnosis, Burns allegedly confessed however, neither the police nor the district attorney notified the judge that the “confession” was acquired under hypnosis which would therefore lead to the alleged confession to be not admissible.

Burns then spent for months in the psychiatric ward of a state hospital which led to her being fired from her job as a dispatcher for the Muncie Police Department and she also lost temporary custody of her sons to the state. Upon medical expert’s examinations, she was released from the psychiatric ward with no signs of ever having multiple personality disorder. The criminal charges against Burns were later dropped when the judge ruled that the evidence was not admissible as a result of obtaining through hypnosis.

Cathy Burns filed a civil rights suit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana. Before the trial began, the Muncie Police Department decided to settle for $250,000. But the court dismissed Burn’s suit against the DA, holding that Reed enjoyed absolute immunity, a position upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Supreme Court ruled that in situations like this particular case the DA should gain immunity from a civil lawsuit. The Supreme Court went further to argue this type of protection must exist in order for prosecutors to properly provide legal advice without the fear of being harassed by civil lawsuits. Therefore, Reed could not be sued for his actions in supporting the application for a search warrant and presenting evidence at the probable cause hearing. However, the court decided that there must be some limitations present. In this case Reed was potentially liable for the legal advice he provided the police because advising police during the investigative phase of criminal cases was not closely associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.

Two years later the Court re-examined the issue and laid down a slightly more discernable line of permissible and impermissible conduct. The Court reiterated that in the case of civil lawsuits, prosecutors have complete immunity for actions in connection with the traditional role of the courtroom advocacy. However, DAs enjoy only “qualified immunity” for other actions. The Court collectively held that statements made as a result of a news conference were not protected by absolute immunity. However, the justices split 5-4 on whether investigative actions by the DA were subject to suit. The bare majority held, “There is a difference between the advocate’s role in evaluating evidence, and interviewing witnesses as he prepares for trial…and the detective’s role in searching for the clues and corroboration that might give him probable cause to recommend that a suspect be arrested.”

This case was a very interesting case to read and I believe the Supreme Court’s ruling for prosecutors immunity is justified. I believe without immunity, prosecutors would indeed become hesitant before providing legal advice and would therefore jeopardize their career.