MS Word template for brief
advertisement
No. AMC3-SUP 2014-37-02 FOR THE APPELLATE MOOT COURT COLLEGIATE CHALLENGE GEORGE JANUS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court Of The United States BRIEF FOR THE [PETITIONER/RESPONDENT] TEAM NUMBER Lead Attorney Team members [Please do not put your college name on the brief. For attorneys, please list name only.] 1 QUESTION PRESENTED Teams should detail the question presented as ordered when this Court granted the Petition for Certiorari. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................................................................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... ii JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................ STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................................... STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................................................................................................... SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................................................ ARGUMENT 1. EACH PRONG OF YOUR ARGUMENT SHOULD BE REPRESENTED WITH A TITLE HERE. ........................................................... 2. YOU MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE ARGUMENT PRONG. ........... CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES The Table of Authorities is an alphabetical listing of the cases, constitutional provisions, and other authorities the team used in the brief. The Table of Authorities is similar to the Table of Contents in that it is a quick reference tool which allows the reader to find the authorities used by the team and the pages of the brief on which those authorities are found. Below is an example of how teams should format the Table of Authorities. Citations to the record need not be included in the Table. Cases not cited in your brief should be deleted, as should this information. CASES CITED Alford v. State of Texas, 358 S.W.3d 647 (2012) ........................................................................... Baltimore Department of Social Services v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549 (1990) .............................. Bishopp v. District of Columbia, 788 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ................................................... Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988) .................................................................................... Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) ................................................................................ Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177 (2004) ................................................. Hughes v. State, 695 A.2d 132 (Md. 1997) ................................................................................... In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) .......... In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................................................................. Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968) ............................................................................. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) ................................................................ Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ..................................................................................... Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) ................................................................................ Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) ................................................................................... Rosa v. McCray, 396 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2005) ............................................................................... United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1949) ................................................................................. United States v. D’Anjou, 16 F.3d 604 (4th Cir. 1994) ................................................................. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984) ..................................................................................... United States v. Doe, 878 F.2d 1546 (1st Cir. 1989) ..................................................................... United States v. Fricosu, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (D. Colo. 2012) .................................................. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000) ................................................................................ United States v. Mata-Abundiz, 717 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1983) .................................................... United States v. Pacheco-Lopez, 531 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2008) ..................................................... United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................................................................ United States v. Rodriguez, 706 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1983) ................................................................ United States v. Virgen-Moreno, 265 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2001) .................................................... 4 United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944) ................................................................................. OTHER AUTHORITIES 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2014) ...................................................................................................................... 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (2014) ................................................................................................................ U.S. Const. amend. V ..................................................................................................................... 5 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASE No. AMC3-SUP 2014-37-02 GEORGE JANUS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. _______________________________ BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT _______________________________ JURISDICTION The parties agree that as the final Court of appeals, the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction over this case. The parties further agree to not raise any jurisdictional issues in either their brief or their oral arguments. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This section provides the procedural history of the case and should include a brief description of the dispute between the parties, a summary of how the case moved through the court system (i.e. the date and ruling of each court), and when this Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS This section should provide a general description of the facts of the case. In the Statement of the Facts, teams should introduce all facts referenced in the argument section. Put another way, no fact that appears later in the brief should be missing from the Statement of the Facts. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 6 As the title suggests, this section provides a summary of the team’s argument. The Summary of the Argument should correspond both to the questions presented and to the headings in the argument section. ARGUMENT This section is the bulk of the brief and lays out, in organized form, the team’s argument. It begins with a point-by-point response to the question presented, moves into a discussion of the general principles of the applicable law, and then goes into further detail about why the issue should be resolved in the team’s favor. Next, the brief goes into a second point-by-point response to the second question presented, if applicable, then moves into a discussion outlining the general principles of the applicable law, and then goes into further detail about why the issue should be resolved in the team’s favor. There can be multiple prongs of an argument. CONCLUSION The conclusion should include a request that the judgment of the lower court be upheld/reversed. This is called a prayer for relief. Respectfully submitted, Team Number 7
