Appellate Brief Assignment
Assignment:
Research and draft a basic appellate brief for your client based on the facts provided in the Appellate Brief Scenario below.
Requirements:
Using your Westlaw subscription, research and correctly identify the legal issue or issues involved. Locate, correctly cite, and thoroughly apply the following:
1. At least one source of primary legal authority from Massachusetts.
2. At least one court opinion that would be mandatory authority for the court to which you’re appealing; this may or may not be the same source meeting the requirement in No. 1 above.
3. At least one source of persuasive authority; this may be secondary or primary, but not mandatory.
Your appellate brief must contain the following sections:
1. Cover Page
2. Table of Contents
3. Index of Authorities
* Note that all case citations must conform to Bluebook guidelines.
4. Statement of Jurisdiction
5. Question(s) Presented
6. Statement of the Facts
7. Argument
* Note that this sample is overly-simplified and the arguments in your brief should be much more fully developed.
8. Conclusion
9. Relief
Appellate Brief Scenario:
Your client, Ms. Kimberly Hall, stands convicted under your state law for charges involving theft, trafficking in stolen property, fraud, and alteration of vehicle identification numbers. Hall runs a small salvage yard on a 3.5 acre piece of property surrounded by several fences, tall trees, dense scrub bushes, and posted No Trespassing signs. The property contains 2 structures: a small one-room cabin, in which Hall resides, and a separate structure, approximately 30 feet high, with sliding barn doors on all four sides, no windows, and no roof.
Early on the day of Hall’s arrest, state and local authorities conducted a drone-surveillance sweep after an anonymous tip line received several calls reporting the operation of multiple automotive chop shops in a rural location within your state of residence. Captured video of the larger structure, obtained by the drone’s camera from approximately 100 feet in the air and simultaneously transmitted to police officers on the ground, revealed the presence of multiple dismantled vehicles, a pile of license plates, various automotive parts and tools, including grinders, cutting saws, hoists and welding rigs. Hall was taken into police custody at approximately 5:00 a.m. that morning, and was subsequently charged based on that footage.
At trial, several residents claimed that the presence of the drones in the early morning hours resulted in unnecessary panic, which quickly swept the small community, and resulted in multiple calls to local police dispatch, some minor property damage, and at least one assault. Sally Jones, who lives adjacent to Ms. Hall, testified that, “Conner Peterson and those damned drones caused enough drama and paranoia to end a 25-year friendship in a fistfight.” Conner Peterson, a survivalist/prepper and avid short-wave radio enthusiast, stated for the record that, on the morning of Hall’s arrest, he was up late monitoring radio transmissions between members of a known local anti-government group who were discussing plans for “something big” involving the use of personal drones. Mr. Peterson stated that he heard an unusual buzzing noise coming from the west side of his property as he stood outside with his dog at approximately 4:00 a.m. When he spotted a drone hovering between his house and his garage, he immediately began calling to warn his neighbors that something was up, and to remain vigilant.
The trial court considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments and found your client guilty.
SAMPLE PAPER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF………………
Defendant-Appellant
V
………………….
Plaintiff-Appellee
Contents
Tall and alteration of vehicle identification numbers. 3
Tall and Trafficking of stolen properties. 3
Illegal acquisition of evidence. 4
Table of authorities
Cases
United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 (1957).
Milanovich v. United States, 275 F.2d 716.
Fuller v. United States, 407 F.2d 1199, 1223 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
COMMONWEALTH VS. WILLIAM M. DELLAMANO. 393 Mass. 132. May 8, 1984
Statutes
National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 28,
Statement of jurisdiction
This is a consolidated appeal from the orders of a district court convicting the defendant-Appellant related cases. In the cases, the district court convicted Hall for theft, trafficking in stolen property, fraud, and alteration of vehicle identification numbers. The district court had jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1514A (b). Supreme Court Rules 315 and 612(b ) give the court jurisdiction over the matters. One can appeal a case at any given time as long as there is ground to do so under the set rules and regulations.
Questions presented
The cases raise several fundamental questions that will be an area of focus.
- Was it in order to convict Hall for theft of vehicles when there was no substantive evidence to show that she steals vehicles?
- Is there a stolen vehicle where there is no complainant of vehicle theft?
- What amounts to modification of vehicle identification numbers in relation to Hall’s case?
- Can one steal a vehicle and also engage in the trafficking of the stolen vehicle?
- Can a person who entered a legal agreement with another party to purchase a property be accused of stealing the same property?
- Is drone footage showing the vehicle within a yard enough evidence to prove that the vehicle was stolen and that the appellant deals in stolen property, is a fraudster, and engages in alteration of vehicle identification numbers?
- Is illegally acquired evidence admissible in a court of law?
Statement of Facts
Tall and theft
Tall operates a lawful car salvaging yard, which allows people to sell their motor vehicles at the yard to allow the reuse of their parts. All her transactions at the yard are lawful, and she keeps records of persons who sell her old vehicles or scraps for reuse of their parts. Throughout the time she has been running the Yard, Tall has never engaged in buying old cars from non-owners, the reason there is no person that has come out to claim that his or her vehicle is among those whose parts or identification were found at the yard[1].
Tall and alteration of vehicle identification numbers
Tall’s yard does not deal in the modification of vehicle identification numbers whatsoever. The yard simply deals in parts of old vehicles, which are sold to customers just the way similar business in the sector trade. The prosecution did not prove which vehicle or vehicles had Tall modified their identification numbers because there was none. Tall is a law-abiding citizen who knows the cost of crime? As a businesswoman, she only engages in what is legal, underscoring why the police cannot show vehicles that she altered the identification number plates.
Tall and Trafficking of stolen properties
Tall conducts due diligence before buying any old vehicle and bringing it into her yard, ensuring that the property she handles is not stolen to the best of her knowledge. Although she trades in olden vehicles’ parts, she makes sure that the seller is authentic and makes a formal agreement of sale before Tall can buy the vehicle. If any vehicle or part of the vehicle found in her yard was stolen, she has all the evidence to show that she was not involved in the theft and that she had no whatsoever knowledge that she knew that it was stolen property at the time of purchase. This confirms that Tall has no interest in stolen properties. Tall learned about the possibility of the vehicles or their parts being stolen elsewhere after she was arraigned in court. She believes that her business was above the board and that she had not whatsoever knowledge that she trafficked stolen properties.
Trafficking of stolen properties means some thieves are involved in the crime, but the prosecution side never provides at any given point that Tall works with the particular thieves to steal vehicles for whatsoever benefits. For one to handle a stolen property, there must be a person who stole it and the one whom it was stolen from. The prosecution side never provides any of these facts.
Argument
Illegal acquisition of evidence
Tall argues that the evidence used to secure her prosecution was illegally obtained by trespassing on her property and privacy. The use of a drone to collect evidence from her garage is in itself an intrusion into the private life of the appellant and the community at large. The act caused a lot of trouble in the community as many people suffered the sudden breach of their privacy as the drone hovered over their homes and farms while without any restriction, capturing all manner of information from their area.
Witness statements
The witnesses whom the prosecution relied upon to prosecute the case did not link the appellant to any of the charges for which she was convicted. All the information shared by witnesses was on the drone’s impact on their lives, underscoring the lack of sufficient evidence to find my client guilty of offenses she is accused of. It would have interested the court if the prosecution presented persons whose vehicles were stolen but were found at my client’s yard. It would have interested the court if the prosecution presented witnesses who can affirm that my client traffics stolen properties. It would interest the court if the prosecution presented evidence of alteration of the vehicle’s identification number.
The presence of olden vehicles, their parts, and identification numbers at the salvage yard is not evidence of theft, fraud, trafficking stolen properties, or altering vehicle identification. The court’s decision to convict Tall was solely based on footage by the drone that is not self-explanatory. The police never interviewed the appellant to determine the reason vehicle, vehicle parts, and number plates were found in her salvage yard and their status. In this respect, the appellant argues that she was convicted based on questionable information that has not been substantiated.
One cannot be a recipient of stolen property and, at the same time, a thief who stole it. “[I]n law the guilty receiver of stolen goods cannot himself be the thief; nor can the thief be guilty of a crime of receiving stolen goods which he himself had stolen[2].” The trial court ruled that the appellant was a thief or the same property that she is accused of receiving as stolen property. The decision creates a contradiction in law that speaks to errors that led to the appellant being found guilty. My client argues that she was improperly convicted, that this court should determine the incongruence of her conviction with the law.
Conclusion
Ms. Kimberly Hall submits her conviction was not supported by credible evidence whatsoever, proving that her conviction was wrongfully done based on the footage captured by the drone. She submits that there was no proof that she is involved in theft, trafficking of stolen property, fraud, or alteration of vehicle identification numbers. The prosecution did not submit any evidence of a lost motor vehicle that was found in her yard. She submits that the evidence used against her was illegally acquired; hence she seeks the court of appeal to rule that such evidence cannot be used in court. Hall respectfully appeals the decisions of the trial court and vacates the conviction.
Certificate of Compliance
Pursuant to rule 8.204(c) of the Massachusetts Rules of Court, I do hereby certify that this brief contains 1387 words. This brief has been prepared using Microsoft Word in New Times Romans 12 pt font.
[1] MGL c. 266, s. 28
[2] COMMONWEALTH VS. WILLIAM M. DELLAMANO. 393 Mass. 132(1984).
