Question
Answered step-by-step
MajorIronMouse30
1. Legal Reasoning Legal systems that derive from the English…
1. Legal Reasoning
Legal systems that derive from the English system depend on precedent. This means that they subscribe to the requirement that similar legal cases must be decided similarly. Consequently, analogical reasoning figures prominently in legal argument because such arguments frequently involve conclusions about a case at trial that are based on a comparison with some preceding case that has already been decided by the courts. For this reason, the factors that bear on evaluating the strength of ordinary analogical arguments can also be applied to legal arguments.
Besides the role of precedent just described, another reason that analogical reasoning plays a key role in legal argument has to do with how laws come about in these systems. Today, many of our laws are the direct product of decree by some legislative body. These laws are called statutes, and they are typically written in relatively general language. Consequently, precedent is often required to determine how these general statutes should be interpreted and applied.
Finally, it is worth noting some caveats (qualifications) about the way precedent and analogical reasoning factor in legal argument. First of all, court systems include a variety of jurisdictions (for example, federal courts versus state courts in the United States) and, as a result, a precedent may carry different weight in different jurisdictions. Thus, as primary analogues for a legal argument, the relevance of a particular precedent may vary depending on the court before which the argument is made. Also, the modes of similarity that link these analogues are often the result of creative thinking by lawyers and judges, and the relevance of these similarities to the proposed conclusion is often debatable. Furthermore, sometimes a court is confronted with cases for which there is no clear precedent. Such cases are called “cases of first impression,” and these cases must be decided on the basis of something other than simple legal precedent. (Judges often resort to moral reasoning in these cases.)
Answer the following questions about the nature of legal reasoning.
Which statement best explains why analogical reasoning plays a prominent role in legal argument?
Legal arguments frequently involve conclusions about a case at trial that are based on a comparison with some preceding case.
Analogical reasoning is less prominent in statutory law.
Cases of first impression have no clear precedent.
Legal precedents do not have equal weight in all jurisdictions.
Which statement best represents the roles of legal precedent and of the case at trial, in terms of analogues for a legal argument?
Legal precedents function as primary analogues within many legal arguments.
Legal precedents function as secondary analogues within many legal arguments.
Similarities between the case at trial and cases of legal precedent function as the primary analogues in a legal argument.
The case at trial functions as a primary analogue within many legal arguments.
Which statement best expresses the significance of the requirement of precedent in legal argument?
Analogical arguments in law are often considerably more elusive than those dealing with ordinary subject matter.
The primary analogues in law do not all have equal weight.
Similar cases must be decided similarly.
Modes of similarity between legal cases are often the result of creative thinking by lawyers and judges.
——–
2. Legal Arguments
When formulating a legal argument, a lawyer often attempts to show that his or her case is analogous to some preceding case that was decided in a favorable way. Accordingly, the lawyer will use an analogical argument with the favorably similar case as its primary analogue. If the lawyer is able to convince the court that his or her case is indeed most similar to this favorable case, then the rule of precedent suggests that the case under consideration should also be decided favorably. Of course, many cases involve multiple precedents, and some preceding cases may have been decided unfavorably (relative to the position that the lawyer wants to argue for). So, if an opposing argument is successful in convincing the court that the case under consideration is most similar to this less favorable precedent, then the lawyer’s own argument will be weakened.
Consider the following case at trial, along with its relevant preceding cases (Preceding Case A and Preceding Case B). Use your knowledge of analogical reasoning and legal argument to answer the questions that follow.
Case at Trial: State of Maryland v. Michael Shatzer
In August 2003, a detective interviewed Michael Shatzer regarding allegations that he had sexually abused his three-year-old child. At the time, Mr. Shatzer was incarcerated on an unrelated offense involving sexual abuse of another child. After Mr. Shatzer invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain silent, the interview was terminated. The investigation was subsequently closed, only to be reopened two and a half years later, in January 2006, on the prompting of Mr. Shatzer’s wife, who recognized that her child could make more specific allegations about Mr. Shatzer’s alleged sexual abuse. Thereafter, in March 2006, another detective, who was aware that Mr. Shatzer had been under investigation, but was not aware that Mr. Shatzer had previously invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain silent, interviewed him. At this interview, Mr. Shatzer was advised of his Fifth Amendment rights, which he waived; he then confessed to specific instances of sexual abuse involving his child. Prior to trial, Mr. Shatzer moved to suppress the confessions he made in the March 2006 interview, arguing that his 2003 invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights was still applicable.
Preceding Cases
McNeil v. Wisconsin
The court reaffirms the general principle in Edwards v. Arizona, holding that, if the police initiate an encounter in the absence of counsel (assuming there has been no break in custody), the suspect’s statements are presumed involuntary and therefore inadmissible as substantive evidence at trial. This is “designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights.”
Edwards v. Arizona
The U.S. Supreme Court held that, when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to police-initiated interrogation after being again advised of his rights. An accused is not subject to further interrogation until counsel has been made available to him unless the accused has himself initiated further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. In the case of Edwards v. Arizona, the court ruled that a second interrogation of Edwards was at the insistence of the authorities, and his confession, made without having had access to counsel, did not amount to a valid waiver and hence was inadmissible.
Imagine you are a lawyer in the case of State of Maryland v. Michael Shatzer and you are arguing in support of Shatzer.
Which of the cited cases would best serve as a primary analogue for your argument in support of Shatzer?
McNeil v. Wisconsin
Edwards v. Arizona
Given the preceding case that is most favorable to your position, which of the following facts from your case (State of Maryland v. Michael Shatzer) presents the most relevant similarity in support of your position?
That Shatzer had been convicted of another crime, before the interrogation at issue in Maryland v. Shatzer
That Shatzer signed a waiver of his right to counsel during subsequent interrogations
That Shatzer had asserted his right to counsel prior to confessing under a subsequent interrogation that was not initiated by him
With respect to the opposing precedent, which of the following facts from your case (State of Maryland v. Michael Shatzer) is most damaging for your position?
That more specific allegations could be made against Shatzer
That Shatzer signed a waiver of his right to counsel during subsequent interrogations
That there had been a substantial break in Shatzer’s custody, and the second interrogator was unaware that Shatzer had previously invoked his Fifth Amendment rights
