After reading the case, write a brief in which you address the elements listed below. This case brief will help you address the impact of similar decisions in studying your own is

CJ 500 Case Brief Guidelines and Rubric

Overview: Many issues in the United States are focused on the application of force in the field of law enforcement. Questions have been raised as to whether criminal justice professionals are applying the least amount of force necessary to gain compliance from an unwilling subject. Because of several recent controversies surrounding the use of deadly force and the treatment of individuals in police custody, many members of society have been extremely critical of the use of force. These controversial issues have created a negative public perception of law enforcement officers, and there have been demonstrations and calls for reform in both the training and hiring of police officers.

For this assignment, you will first read and analyze the Graham v. Connor court decision. This decision is the seminal case that articulates when and how use-of- force situations will be reviewed and judged. As you read the case, consider who the key stakeholders are (police officers, police departments, citizens, etc.) in the controversy and how this issue impacts the field of criminal justice.

Prompt: After reading the case, write a brief in which you address the elements listed below. This case brief will help you address the impact of similar decisions in studying your own issue analysis for the final project. Set up your brief as the Sample Case Brief is set up, and include the answers to the questions in the Analysis section of the brief.

1. Facts: State the facts of the case and why the case went to trial. 2. Issue: State what is at issue in the case. 3. Ruling: State the court’s ruling in the case. 4. Analysis: This section contains the bulk of the brief. In your analysis, address the following:

a) In this case, what standard did the court use to determine whether the use of force was reasonable? For instance, what did the court say about judging the objective reasonableness of the use of force?

b) What perspective did the court use in determining whether the officer acted appropriately in the use of force? What did the court say about using hindsight to determine objective reasonableness?

c) What strategies do you believe should be employed to make sure officers are applying the correct amount of force in any given situation? d) Analyze the connection between the issue of use of force and what criminological theory contributed to the understanding—or

misunderstanding—of these issues. 5. Conclusion: Conclude the case brief by summarizing your analysis.

Reference your textbook reading as well as the case material in your submission. To facilitate this task, refer to the Sample Case Brief document.

Guidelines for Submission: Your submission should be at least 1 page in length (in addition to title and reference pages). It should use single spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. Follow APA style for in-text citations and the reference list.

Rubric

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Facts Meets “Proficient” criteria, and facts are detailed and specific

States the facts of the case and why the case went to trial

States the facts of the case and why the case went to trial, but statement lacks detail or contains inaccuracies

Does not state the facts of the case or why the case went to trial

15

Issue Meets “Proficient” criteria, substantiated with evidence from the case to support statement

States what is at issue in the case States what is at issue in the case, but statement lacks detail or contains inaccuracies

Does not state what is at issue in the case

7

Ruling Meets “Proficient” criteria, substantiated with evidence from the case to support statement

States the court’s ruling in the case

States the court’s ruling in the case, but statement lacks detail or contains inaccuracies

Does not state the court’s ruling in the case

7

Analysis: Standard

Meets “Proficient” criteria, substantiated with evidence from the case to support identification

Identifies what standard the court used to determine whether the use of force was reasonable

Identifies what standard the court used to determine whether the use of force was reasonable, but identification contains inaccuracies

Does not identify what standard the court used to determine whether the use of force was reasonable

15

Analysis: Perspective

Meets “Proficient” criteria, substantiated with citations from the case to support description

Identified the perspective the court used to determine whether the officer acted appropriately in the use of force

Identifies the perspective the court used to determine whether the officer acted appropriately in the use of force, but identification lacks detail or contains inaccuracies

Does not identify the perspective the court used to determine whether the officer acted appropriately in the use of force

15

Analysis: Strategies

Meets “Proficient” criteria, substantiated with research- based evidence to support strategies

Identifies which strategies should be employed to make sure officers are applying the correct amount of force in any given situation

Identifies strategies to be employed, but identified strategies will not help to make sure officers are applying the correct amount of force in any given situation

Does not identify which strategies should be employed to make sure officers are applying the correct amount of force in any given situation

15

Analysis: Criminological

Theory

Meets “Proficient” criteria, substantiated with examples of criminological theory to support connection

Analyzes the connection between the issue of use of force and which criminological theory contributed to the understanding (or misunderstanding) of these issues

Analyzes the connection between the issue of use of force and which criminological theory contributed to the understanding (or misunderstanding) of these issues, but analysis lacks detail or contains inaccuracies

Does not analyze the connection between the issue of use of force and which criminological theory contributed to the understanding (or misunderstanding) of these issues

15

Conclusion Meets “Proficient” criteria, substantiated with evidence from the case to support a conclusion

Provides a conclusion that summarizes the analysis

Provides a conclusion that summarizes the analysis, but conclusion contains inaccuracies

Does not provide a conclusion 7

Articulation of Response

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization, and is presented in a professional, easy to read format

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

4

Total 100%

CJ 500 Sample Case Brief

Facts: Mr. Miranda was arrested at his residence, taken into custody, and subsequently brought

to the police station. While in custody at the police station, Mr. Miranda was identified by a

witness who made an accusation and complaint against him. Mr. Miranda was then interrogated

by police officers for approximately two hours. Mr. Miranda subsequently confessed to the crime

and gave a signed, written confession. Mr. Miranda was never advised of his right to counsel or

his right to remain silent. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury.

Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20 to 30 years

imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s

constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

Issue: Whether statements that are obtained from an individual who is in custody and being

interrogated are admissible at trial if the suspect has not been advised of his Fifth Amendment

privilege to remain silent and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Ruling: Confession received in violation of an individual’s Fifth Amendment and Sixth

Amendment privileges are inadmissible in trial if the individual has not been advised of his or

her rights.

Analysis: The court held that

there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal

court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of

action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate

themselves. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

As such,

the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming

from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural

safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial

interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person

has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any

significant way. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

The court further held that

without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or

accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the

individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so

freely. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

Therefore, a defendant

must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that

anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the

presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for

him prior to any questioning if he so desires. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

Conclusion: Based on the aforementioned reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled and

reversed the conviction of Edwin Miranda in the state of Arizona.

Reference

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).