Parts of an Appellant’s Brief: However, rules may differ by jurisdiction’s rule The appellant will write a brief explaining why the lower court’s decision should be reversed. The appellee can file a response as to why the lower court’s judgement should be affirmed. Appellant’s Brief: Cover Table of contents Table of authorities Statement of jurisdiction Statement of the Questions presented - The issue/QP (question presented) Contains 3 main parts: the controlling law, the determinative or legally significant facts, and the legal conclusion - Must be concise, accurate, and describe key facts - The key difference in app. Brief QP is that you can try to being persuading by framing issue in a way that benefits your clients Statement of the Case/Facts Then summary of the argument – don’t just repeat arg, but foreshadow argument ahead. Must summarize arg, be succinct, doesn’t include citations Argument: - Should include descriptive and persuasive headings (as in Table of Contents) - Transitions and correct grammar Key aspect : STANDARD OF REVIEW: an effective arg will remind the judge what the standard of review is as well as what it means - The argument must be professional! Conclusion: Relief sought, summary of the argument, (this varies depending on the jursidction). Make sure relief requested is consistent with your argument Appellee/Respondant’s brief – response to appellant’s initial brief. Some courts let the appellee to accept parts of the appellant’s brief instead of repeating everything. This helps the parties and court pinpoint where the parties disagree - - Then the appellant can sometimes issue a reply brief – this has to be granted by the court. Prosecution argues that they conspired, worked together to create the scenarios, and look at the damage that they inflicted upon the poor facility worker Vs. appellee brief which said that Eduardo just got in boxing stance Procedure history: found D guilty of aggravated assault and conspiracy, ES now appeals. What is the error that ES says that the lower court committed? – the def. argues that the state didn’t prove that all the elements of conspiracy had been met – erred in finding the evidence sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict Arguments raised by the parties: - Defendant: didn’t establish elements of conspiracy beyond responable doubt, Eduardo was 5-6 feet away, never physically gestured to maxwell to get into o Not sufficient evidence for conspiracy, only maxwell (co def) caused the injured o Not guilty of aggravated assault, - Appellee (Prosecution): conspiracy doesn’t have to be explicit. Didn’t need to actually cause harm for an assault charge. The state says enough to convict him for assault and continuing the fight, enough for conspiracy because he was instigating – point to precedent with gang fights and relationships. Whats the standard of review? - Vacate conspiracy – not enough for - Under PA law, aggravated assault is defined as attempt to cause serious bodily harm, even though he didn’t cause actual injury, he was trying to hit the guy.
