By Alisha Budhwani, Former Law Firm Intern and Neena Speer, Principal Attorney
This will help you breakdown case problem for law school and the bar exam
Case Analysis by a Law Firm Intern
Alisha Budhwani
July 15, 2020
Moore v. Illinois
Alisha’s Analysis (this is a breakdown you can use to breakdown your cases applying the IRAC method)
FOR THE QUESTION: Will Moore still be charged despite the potential constitutional violation in Brady?
Issue
Lyman Moore’s shotgun will likely be seen as a dangerous and deadly weapon that caused risk to the bartender at a Lansing, Illinois, tavern, and will be held accountable.
Rule
It is the law that people be granted a fair trial and due process. The State failed to make a pretrial disclosure of several items of evidence helpful to the defense, which prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial and due process. Thus, the court decided that the defendant was responsible for the death of the bartender.
YOU CAN USE IN YOUR ESSAY ANALYSIS SECTION TO PERSUADE NOT HERE: DIRECT Case Text For Cite: “In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), the petitioner and a companion were found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder and were sentenced to death. In his summation to the jury, Brady’s counsel conceded that Brady was guilty, but argued that the jury should return its verdict “without capital punishment.” Prior to the trial, counsel had requested that the prosecution allow him to examine the codefendant’s extrajudicial statement. Some of these were produced, but another, in which the codefendant admitted the actual homicide, was withheld and did not come to Brady’s notice until after his conviction. In a post-conviction proceeding, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that this denied Brady due process of law, and remanded the case for retrial on the issue of punishment. This Court affirmed. It held”
Proper Rule section suggested by Neena from the case: The heart of the holding in Brady is the prosecution’s suppression of evidence, in the face of a defense production request, where the evidence is favorable to the accused and is material either to guilt or to punishment. Important, then, are (a) suppression by the prosecution after a request by the defense, (b) the evidence’s favorable character for the defense, and (c) the materiality of the evidence. These are the standards by which the prosecution’s conduct in Moore’s case is to be measured.
Analysis
In this case, Moore will not be able to prove that he did not commit the crime. The shotgun was admitted into evidence at the trial instead of pretrial. Moore did nothing to prevent the situation from ever happening, therefore he is responsible for the incident that resulted in a person dying. A witness, Powell, testified that he saw the killing, but Moore says that Powell could not see the shooting. Additionally, it seems fairly obvious that Moore did in fact, kill the bartender. The device that was used was a shotgun, but a second shotgun was found when Moore was arrested. Though the shotgun found with him was not the shotgun that was used to kill the bartender, it was still admitted into evidence. A waitress at the bar said that Moore was kicked out of the bar, and is the one who returned back to the bar to kill the bartender, Zitek. She claims that she saw Zitek kick two men out of the bar and the killing an hour later.
Conclusion
Thus, the State failed to make a pretrial disclosure of several items of evidence helpful to the defense, which prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial and due process. However, the court decided that the defendant was still responsible for the death of the bartender. Moore will be held accountable for the death of Zitek.
CASE Holding: Thus, the evidentiary items (other than the diagram) on which Moore bases his suppression claim relate to Sanders’ misidentification of Moore as “Slick,” and not to the identification, by Sanders and others, of Moore as the person who made incriminating statements in the Ponderosa Tap. These evidentiary items are not material under the standard of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83. The diagram does not support Moore’s contention that the State knowingly permitted false testimony to remain uncorrected, in violation of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264, since the diagram does not show that it was impossible for Powell to see the shooting. Pp. 408 U. S. 794-798. Moore’s due process claim as to the shotgun was not previously raised, and therefore is not properly before this Court, and, in any event, the introduction of the shotgun does not constitute federally reversible
BAR EXAM ANALYSIS
It’s Scary trying to do a breakdown analysis, but use the facts given in the essay prompt to highlight that you value what the exam creator is looking to see. Use common sense applied to legal sense to enhance your legal analysis. Be thorough in case law breakdown: go from the big general statute and move to the specific statute.
Neena Speer
Neena’s Recommended Approach of Moore vs. Illinois
Based on the Bar Exam Method (UNDER-HERE-THEREFORE)
FOR THE QUESTION: Will Moore still be charged despite the potential constitutional violation in Brady?
A. HEADING (3-5 WORDS) = Issue
A. Deadly shotgun was not material
Under (the Law) = Rule
Under the heart of the holding in Brady is the prosecution’s suppression of evidence, in the face of a defense production request, where the evidence is favorable to the accused and is material either to guilt or to punishment. Important, then, are (a) suppression by the prosecution after a request by the defense, (b) the evidence’s favorable character for the defense, and (c) the materiality of the evidence. These are the standards by which the prosecution’s conduct in Moore’s case is to be measured.
Here (Analysis of the Facts)= Analysis
Here, Moore will not be able to prove that he did not commit the crime. The shotgun was admitted into evidence at the trial instead of pretrial. Moore did nothing to prevent the situation from ever happening, therefore he is responsible for the incident that resulted in a person dying. A witness, Powell, testified that he saw the killing, but Moore says that Powell could not see the shooting. Additionally, it seems fairly obvious that Moore did in fact, kill the bartender. The device that was used was a shotgun, but a second shotgun was found when Moore was arrested. Though the shotgun found with him was not the shotgun that was used to kill the bartender, it was still admitted into evidence. A waitress at the bar said that Moore was kicked out of the bar, and is the one who returned back to the bar to kill the bartender, Zitek. She claims that she saw Zitek kick two men out of the bar and the killing an hour later.
Therefore (Conclusion) = Conclusion
Therefore, the State failed to make a pretrial disclosure of several items of evidence helpful to the defense, which prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial and due process. However, the court decided that the defendant was still responsible for the death of the bartender. Moore will be held accountable for the death of Zitek.
