> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/chapter-10-writing-legal-exams/legal-exams.md).
# Legal Exams
Legal writing exams are not a memory contest. They evaluate how well you can apply law to new facts, which is the core skill of legal practice. Your goal is to show a reader (often imagining the judge) how precedent, statutes, and facts interact to reach a reasoned result.
Your task is to write a well-organized legal analysis essay that demonstrates your ability to analyze facts, interpret legal rules, and apply precedent. Your response should be written in full sentences and paragraphs (not outline form), and it should follow a clear and logical structure.\
\
What Your Essay Must Do:
* Introduce and summarize the key facts of the hypothetical case in your own words.
* Identify the main legal issue raised by the scenario.
* Clearly explain the relevant statutory rule, including its elements.
* Apply the statutory rule to the facts of the case, making specific connections.
* Explain how each of the three precedent cases relates to the scenario:
* Compare and contrast them with the current case.
* Show how their reasoning or holdings support or challenge the likely outcome.
* Pay attention to the persuasive vs. mandatory status of the precedents and how you use them.
* Make a reasoned argument for how a court should decide the case, supported by your legal analysis.
## 1. Before you begin
Before you start writing, there's some preliminary work to do!
1. **Read the fact pattern.** Make a list of legally relevant facts — not every detail, only those that bear on statutory elements.
2. **Identify the legal question.** Phrase it as the specific outcome the court must decide.
3. **Break the statute into separate elements.** These become the structure of the analysis.
4. **Create an element chart** showing how each precedent case satisfies (or fails) each element. Use a chart like the one below (adjusting for the number of elements).
5. **Compare/contrast the precedents** to the hypothetical case to locate the pattern.
6. **Make a preliminary prediction** of the outcome based on that pattern.
| Case | Element 1 | Element 2 | Element 3 | Finding |
| ------------ | --------- | --------- | --------- | -------------------- |
| Precedent 1 | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | Outcome |
| Precedent 2 | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | Outcome |
| Precedent 3 | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | Outcome |
| Hypothetical | Yes/No\* | Yes/No | Yes/No | Predicted conclusion |
| | | | | |
## 2. Make an outline
Here, **CIREAC** is your secret weapon for organizing your essay! Before you start writing, make an outline of your answer using **CIREAC** as a strategy:
**C:**** Conclusion**: What is the most appropriate conclusion to the main legal question?
**I:**** Identify the Issue:** State the issue implicated by the fact pattern/
**R:**** Rule:** describe the rule of law that is applicable to that issue, including its specific elements.
**E/A:**** For each element, explain how the rule was applied the precedents/prior cases**. (Do this for *each* element.)
* Analyze how the courts applied this element in the precedent cases.
* Compare/contrast the hypothetical case with the precedents.
* Analyze how the statute’s elements apply to the hypothetical’s facts.
**C:**** Conclusion**: Conclude how a court should rule on the particular issue.
***
Student's essay
> The central issue in this case is whether Jordan Reyes, a journalist who remained at the site of a protest after a police dispersal order, violated City Ordinance § 12.45 by continuing to record events. Specifically, the question is whether her actions meet the statutory definition of “obstructive presence” under the ordinance. The ordinance prohibits any person from willfully remaining at an unlawful assembly if their continued presence obstructs police operations.
>
> Under City Ordinance § 12.45, it is unlawful for anyone to remain at the scene of a public assembly after it has been declared unlawful, when that person’s continued presence interferes with officers’ attempts to clear the area or restore order. The statute thus contains two elements that must both be satisfied for a violation to occur: (1) The individual must willfully remain at the site after it has been declared unlawful by law enforcement; and (2) the individual’s continued presence must obstruct officers’ ability to restore order or clear the area.
>
> In Jordan’s case, she did meet the first element of this statute, as she stayed at the protest site after officers issued a dispersal order. There is no indication that she misunderstood the order or remained by accident. She stayed purposefully, intending to document events as they unfolded. Thus, her presence was willful. Therefore, to determine whether Jordan’s arrest was proper or improper, it must be determined whether or not the second element—obstruction or interference with law enforcement efforts to restore order— was also met.
>
> To help make this determination, we may look at three precedent cases. First, in Clymer v. State, the court ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to record public events so long as they do not physically interfere with police activity. There, a citizen was recording police arrests after a dispersal order. The court held that the arrest was improper because the individual was not physically interfering with officers. Similarly, Jordan remained solely to document events and made clear she was a member of the press. Her passive behavior falls well within the protection described in Clymer, reinforcing that her conduct should not be considered obstructive. Additionally, because Jordan was acting as a journalist, she arguably has an even greater reason to remain after the dispersal order to document the events. Because the court in Clymer found this right appropriate for regular citizens, there can be little doubt that it also applies to Jordan.
>
> Sanders v. County of Delmar (2019) also supports this conclusion. In that case, a journalist who remained at a protest site but did not obstruct police was found to have been wrongfully arrested under an ordinance that is similar to § 12.45. The facts of Sanders closely resembles Jordan’s situation and provides strong precedent for concluding that her arrest was not justified under the ordinance. Furthermore, the court in Sanders held that there is an important distinction between press and protester roles. In Jordan’s case, her presence at the protest was as a press member and not a protester. This fact further suggests that her arrest was wrongful.
>
> In contrast, we can distinguish Jordan’s case from that of Monroe v. State, which involved a protester who was disruptive and physically in the path of police. Monroe’s conduct was clearly obstructive as they remained at the scene, shouting and blocking police after the dispersal order. However, there is no evidence she interfered in any way, unlike Monroe. So, even through Jordan remained at the scene like Monroe, the key difference between the two was the question of obstruction. Therefore, while the arrest in Monroe was lawful, Jordan’s arrest was not.
>
> In sum, while Jordan remained after the dispersal order, her behavior does not meet the statutory threshold of “obstruction.” Given the protections for citizens and journalists affirmed in Clymer and Sanders, as well as her lack of interference with police activity, a court should find that Jordan did not violate § 12.45 and that her arrest was unlawful.