The Legal System Has the Duty of Resolving Disputes in Courts - Assignment Example

The legal system has the duty of resolving disputes in courts by applying the principles and rule of law to the facts brought before the courts of law. The dispute process involves the application of law and the facts of the case. The facts of a case may be more important than others since there are key facts that determine the outcome of a case. The key facts are necessary since they prove or disprove claims before the court. There are four steps used in determining the key facts in a client’s case (Albright & Putman, 2013).
The first step is identifying each cause of action that is stipulated by the facts of the case. The second step is to determine the key elements of the cause of action that are raised by the facts of the case. The third step is to outline all the facts of the case that are important to the elements of action raised in the second step. The fourth and final step is to outline which of the facts listed satisfy the key elements of the cause of action to be discussed in a court of law.
There are three steps used in identifying the facts in a court opinion. The first step involves reading the entire case having in mind what was decided regarding what facts of the case. The second step is to read and analyze the holding of the case. This helps to understand how the court answered the legal questions raised on the facts of the case. The last step is analyzing the key facts used to make the holding of the case (Albright & Putman, 2013).
Key Facts of United States v Alberto Antonio LEON et al No.821771
Police in Burbank initiated surveillance on Leon after receiving confidential information that they were selling cocaine and an investigation earlier showed that he stored a stash of methaqualone in his house. After a search, Leon was indicted by a grand jury in California and charged with drug trafficking. The court granted a motion to suppress evidence arguing it was defective due to the warrant and lack of probable cause. On Appeal, the government argued that the police acted in good faith when using the defective warrant. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's decision and declined the government's argument of good faith.
Parties: United States of America the petitioner and Alberto Antonio Leon et al, who was the respondent.
The facts of the case: The Superior Court Judge allowed the seizure of huge amounts of drugs in Leon's residence. The warrant was found to be defective and was suppressed at the trial stage.
Prior Proceedings: The petitioner had appealed the matter of the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.
The issues before the court: Whether the evidence obtained from the defendant's residence should be excluded due to a defective search warrant. Read More