Press Enterprise v Riverside (478 US 1) outcome?

Question

I'm not a law student, but I have to brief the Press-Enterprise Co v. Riverside Superior Court (478 US 1, 106 S.ct. 2735). I do not understand the outcome of the trial, or how to write the analysis & conclusion. Help?

Answer 1

Nice answer above. A law school briefing tip that works perfectly well even if you're not a law student: always use IRAC:

Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.
Remember, there can be more than one issue in a case.

In this case:

PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT, 478 U.S. 1 (1986)

Issue: Is there a right of access to criminal proceedings that applies to preliminary hearings as conducted in California?

Rule: The First Amendment guarantees that preliminary hearings be open, unless specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that "closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."

Analysis: go into detail, using the reasoning Justice Burger used in the majority opinion. Note the key points in Justice Stevens' dissent.

Conclusion: California's Supreme Court (37 Cal. 3d 773, 691 P.2d 1026) reversed.
--
If you can analyze a case using this method, and prepare a written brief for each case that's assigned in law school, you'll be too buried in work to get into trouble, get great grades, and ace any exam.

Answer 2

Outcome -- 37 Cal. 3d 773, 691 P.2d 1026, reversed.

First, it wasn't a trial. The case you cited was a Supreme Court decision, which reviewed an appellate court decision, which reviewed the original trial. The text of that holding is linked below.

Second, the analysis refers to what the facts of the case were, what the rulse (holding) was, and why the application of those facts to that rule resulted in that outcome.

So, to do the brief, you need to read the case, starting with the summary at the top. Get a handle on what happened (the facts). Then read the details of the holding, also at the top, where the court stated the relevant rules that came out of the case.

Once you understand what happened, and what the court ruled, you can apply the fact to the rules for your analysis. You already know what the conclusion is -- the Supreme Court said the lower court outcome was wrong. You just need to find out what the lower court did that was wrong, and what the new rule was.

Answer 3

Are you advantageous you're a pawn or that all and sundry or pawns? What in case you're in straightforward terms a pawn yet yet anybody else isn't a pawn? You in the present day scrutinize and assume that maximum insist on being pawns yet maximum could under no circumstances be. you notice them as pawns yet they won't be pawns. those that look could be a wolf in sheep's epidermis. under no circumstances assume basically ask your self. the fact could under no circumstances learn because of the fact incredibly basically a lie. Or the different guy or woman could be a insistent pawn in this life because of the fact in his different life he or she isn't a pawn. Schrodinger cat exhibits so.

Answer 4

Outcome was overturned