Briefing a case is the activity of summarizing a court opinion. A paralegal's job revolves around writing. A paralegal will draft numerous documents including: correspondence with clients and other attorneys, memoranda, discovery requests, and legal pleadings. Most of the paralegal's written documents will incorporate the law. A paralegal must have the ability to read the law, and apply the law to the facts of the present case. A paralegal must have the ability to analyze the law. In this assignment, you will read a US Supreme Court case and write an accurate essay about it. This will help you do the analysis you may later need to write a case brief, and it gets you used to understanding a case without worrying about the specific case brief format. You should find a Supreme Court case related to the subject matter of this class. Use Nexis Uni via the APUS Library or look up cases on Oyez. If you need help picking a case, let me know. Your essay should include the following information: Who were the parties? What happened that led to this case? What lower courts heard the case and what did they decide? What did the Supreme Court decide and what was their reasoning? What cases did the Supreme Court use to help them with their decision? Did any Supreme Court Justices dissent? If so, what did they have to say? What was the end result of the case? Has the case had impact on society or do you think it will in the future? Your paper should be 1-2 pages long. Points will be deducted for spelling, grammar and punctuation errors. Please proofread your work; most errors are easily corrected by proofreading. When citing legal cases, the case names should be done in standard Bluebook format. Example: York v. Smith, 65 U.S. 294 (1995). For further information, see Introduction to Basic Legal Citation and look under the "How to Cite" section. APA references/formatting/nThe landmark Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruling holds a distinguished status in American legal jurisprudence due to its far-reaching implication on the nation's law enforcement mechanisms. Chief Justice Earl Warren, leading the Supreme Court, delivered a groundbreaking decision that addressed the custodial rights of defendants. The ruling affirmed that individuals in custody possess the right to be informed about the protections offered by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. It specifically barred the admissibility of confessions or statements made under coercive interrogation methods employed by law enforcement agencies, recognizing the constitutional rights of suspects. The Fifth Amendment shields suspects from self-incrimination, preventing them from being compelled to testify against themselves. Similarly, the Sixth Amendment outlines defendants' rights, including the right to counsel. The Miranda case emerged from precedents like Brown v. Mississippi (1936), a stark example where coercive methods led to false confessions, highlighting the gross violation of constitutional rights. This case, along with Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)2 and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)³, laid the groundwork for a more ethical approach to handling suspects in custody and during interrogation. Justice Clark, in defense of the Miranda Decision, emphasized placing the burden of proof on the State to demonstrate the voluntary nature of confessions and the intentional waiver of the right to counsel. However, Justices Harlan and White vehemently opposed the ruling, expressing concerns that it could lead to offenders escaping incarceration.

Fig: 1

Fig: 2