Weigh the various available arguments, choose 1-3 understand where your are drawing the line
this could be tested by a hypothetical question
ensure that you consider the relative merits of a balancing test v. a bright line rule
evaluate whether to ask for a broad or narrow ruling
be able to justify why the court should rely on a particular precedent or test
pay attention to the relevant standard of decision
ex: to overturn a judgment based on an erroneous jury instruction to which there was no objection, an attorney must show it was a plain (or obvious) error
ex: to set aside a federal agency action as contrary to the statute itself, an attorney must show that the agency’s interpretation is not within the bounds of reason
authorities on which you can rely
text of law/Constitution
general rules of interpretation
words are presumed to bear their ordinary meanings
a word or phrase means the same throughout the document
provisions of a document should be interpreted within the context of a harmonious whole
avoid adopting an interpretation that renders the law in question invalid if possible
a federal statute should not be read to void a traditional state law or power unless this intent is clearly expressed
laws defining crimes and punishments will, if ambiguous, favor the accused
intent of law if it is clear
based on historical context
based on legislative history
precedent cases
controlling cases
leading case in this area of law
decided by equal or superior court
persuasive or non-governing precedents
dicta from a governing court (an equal or superior court)
holding of governing court in similar case
holdings of inferior courts or international courts
not binding, occasionally helpful
only helpful if virtually unanimous
freshness
the more recent the better unless it is a famous governing case
common sense
fairness, morality
if there are multiple paths to victory make sure you clarify which you think is the strongest and most defensible
present arguments logically
you may use a syllogism
ex: All S is P > This case is S > This case is P.
ex: Major premise (controlling rule) is true > minor premise (the facts invoking the rule) is true > inevitable conclusion
ex:
Major Premise: Under the Indian Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, states cannot tax Indian tribes for activities on reservations without the express authorization of Congress.
Minor Premise: South Dakota has imposed tis motor-fuel tax on tribes that sell fuel on reservations without the approval of Congress.
Conclusion: South Dakota’s tax is unconstitutional
organize the supporting evidence and precedents for each argument
prepare to address the arguments and concerns raised by your opponents
consider any strategic concessions you might want to make
explain why the facts, precedents, or arguments that do not favor your side should not determine the outcome of the case
clarify what other facts outweigh the damaging once you have admitted
Make sure you understand and can articulate the rule of law you are proposing.

I NEED THIS FOR ROE V. WADE BUT FROM THE WADE PERSPECTIVE!!!
ITS DUE AT 10PM EASTERN TIME, LESS THAN 4 HOURS

September 10, 2016: you’ve been assigned to investigate a hit-and-run incident. when you arrive at the scene, it’s raining and foggy. the roads are slick. it looks like the crash occurred during the early evening, about 5: 30 pm, a couple hours before dark. you notice a green 2010 chevrolet camaro lying off the road on an embankment and a blue 2014 toyota camry several yards back. both vehicles are damaged. robert b., the driver of the camaro, had severe back injuries and was taken to the hospital. the only witness is the toyota driver, fred h. fred h. was driving in the right lane when the accident occurred. according to fred, a red ford pickup truck (year and model unknown) suddenly swerved across the highway from the left lane. the pickup truck hit the front left side of the camaro in one of the center lanes, pushing it off the road before speeding away. the camaro lost control and sideswiped the toyota as it skidded across the highway, denting the toyota’s left side panels. the camaro then skidded across the grass to the right of the highway and crashed into a low concrete wall. the hood and both sides of the camaro have extensive damage. the toyota driver pulled up behind the camaro and called the police. the accident occurred near miami, florida, on i-95 northbound, a 5-lane highway. it happened just before the exit 16 offramp. fred h. and robert b. both passed breathalyzer tests. neither had any passengers in the car. as you search the scene, you notice: tire tracks/skid marks left on the pavement deep red scrapes across the camaro’s panels and green scrapes across the toyota’s panels broken car window fragments of a hood or panel a torn rag an empty beer can deep tire marks and footprints in the mud of the embankment at the scene use the information above to answer the following questions. for each of a – e above, give an example of a type of evidence you could collect from that item and how you would collect it. (one to two sentences each) fill out a crash form for the incident. use the form florida crash report and use the information in the description above to create a brief three- to five-sentence summary for the “narrative” section. use the witness’s description to draw a diagram of the incident. if you can’t find a piece of information for the form, just leave that part blank. impression evidence three separate tire marks were collected from the scene. the marks were found in a pattern that supports fred’s version of events. three tire tread marks, a, b, and c. tire a appears to be worn flat in the middle from overinflation, tire b is narrow and appears worn on the outside edges, tire c looks normal and is not worn at all tires leave different types of marks based on their wear patterns. for example, tires that are constantly flat will leave different impressions than tires that are normally inflated or overinflated. the tires tend to wear out on the parts that are most exposed to the road. you checked out the tires of the two vehicles at the scene. here’s what you found: two tires side by side. a camaro tire which appears to be in good shape, and a toyota tire which appears worn on the outside edges the camaro had normal tires, but the toyota’s tires were a little flat and overly worn on the outside edges. the condition of the red ford truck’s tires is unknown. match the three impressions with the cars that most likely created them. what can you hypothesize about the red pickup’s tires? could this have anything to do with the accident? explain your answer. (two to four sentences) a red pickup fitting fred’s description was later seen running a stoplight. police pulled it over for a check. its tire impressions looked like this: a single tire tread mark which appears worn on the outside edges based on the evidence, do you think this was the same red pickup that rammed the camaro? why or why not? (one to two sentences)