> 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-5-comparing-cases-and-rule-synthesis/rule-synthesis.md).

# Rule synthesis

## <mark style="color:blue;">1. What is rule synthesis?</mark>&#x20;

When you compare cases and make analogies, you’re not just finding similarities — you’re building toward *rule synthesis.*

In some instances, rules may be clearly laid out in a statute or in well-established case law, and you may simply quote from those sources. However, in many instances, you will need to reconcile a patchwork of rule statements, applications, and conclusions to form a clear and coherent interpretation of the rule of law.&#x20;

**Rule synthesis** is the process of pulling together pieces of law from multiple cases to form a single, more general rule that can be applied to new situations. You do this when no one case perfectly answers your legal question, or when you see patterns across several cases.

Think of it like weaving: each case is a strand, and when you pull them together, you make a single, stronger thing — the synthesized rule.

***

## <mark style="color:blue;">2. "Building" a rule</mark>&#x20;

> Rule synthesis is the binding together of several opinions into a whole that stands for a rule or expression of policy. By focusing on the reasoning and generic facts that the cases have in common, synthesis finds and explains collective meaning that is not apparent from the individual cases themselves. &#x20;
>
> -Richard K. Neumann Jr.

Imagine that there is no single rule in your jurisdiction about when surveillance video is considered reliable evidence. However, you need to find how surveillance video footage *tends* to be treated in your jurisdiction. You find three separate cases that rule on this matter.&#x20;

* **CASE A:** If the video resolution is high enough to identify a person’s facial features, then the footage is generally considered reliable.
* **CASE B:** For video to be reliable, it must capture the relevant event continuously without significant gaps.
* **CASE C:** Although not necessary, video recorded in well-lit conditions is assumed to be more reliable than footage recorded in dim lighting.

How can we synthesize (weave together) these cases into a single rule?&#x20;

One easy way to do this is by charting out the cases. Follow this process for using charts to synthesize a rule:&#x20;

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

#### **Step 1 –** Pinpoint the key legal finding in each case that relates to the element or rule you are trying to synthesize. Focus only on the part of the decision that directly addresses your specific legal question.

| Case       | Holding / Rule                                                                     |
| ---------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Case A** | High enough resolution to identify facial features → footage is generally reliable |
| **Case B** | Must capture event continuously without significant gaps → footage is reliable     |
| **Case C** | Well-lit conditions → footage assumed more reliable than dimly lit                 |

{% endstep %}

{% step %}
**Step 2 – Identify whether the conditions in these findings are&#x20;**<mark style="color:$danger;">**necessary**</mark>**&#x20;(i.e., the court said they&#x20;*****must*****&#x20;be present) or&#x20;**<mark style="color:purple;">**persuasive (**</mark>**conditions that aren't required but are preferable).**&#x20;

To answer this part, go back to the language of the cases and see the court's reasoning.

* **CASE A:** If the video resolution <mark style="color:$danger;">**is high enough to identify a person’s facial features**</mark>, then the footage is generally considered reliable.
* **CASE B:** For video to be reliable, it <mark style="color:$danger;">**must capture the relevant event continuously without significant gaps**</mark><mark style="color:$danger;">.</mark>
* **CASE C:** <mark style="color:purple;">**Although not necessary,**</mark> video recorded in well-lit conditions is assumed to be more reliable than footage recorded in dim lighting.

Once you've done this, you can add to your chart:&#x20;

| Case       | Holding / Rule                                                                     | Type of Condition      |
| ---------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- |
| **Case A** | High enough resolution to identify facial features → footage is generally reliable | Necessary              |
| **Case B** | Must capture event continuously without significant gaps → footage is reliable     | Necessary              |
| **Case C** | Well-lit conditions → footage assumed more reliable than dimly lit                 | Persuasive / Enhancing |

{% endstep %}

{% step %}

#### Step 3 - Merge the necessary conditions and the persuasive factors. Do these separately before "merging" them together.&#x20;

Think of this step as a series of funnels. You'll first "funnel" together all the necessary conditions, and then you'll add the persuasive factors.&#x20;

* **Necessary conditions** (must be present):
  * High resolution (Case A)
  * Continuous recording (Case B)
* **Persuasive factor** (not required but strengthens the conclusion):
  * Good lighting (Case C)

<figure><img src="/files/T58hUqvMJoTEtMmtpUG5" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

#### Step 4 - Turn each of these funneled parts into statements and then combine them into a single, synthesized rule.&#x20;

<mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;">Synthesized rules can often be framed as</mark> <mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;"></mark><mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;">**“if…then”**</mark> <mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;"></mark><mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;">statements for necessary conditions.</mark>

*<mark style="color:$success;">Example</mark><mark style="color:$success;">**:**</mark>* **"If** the video has high enough resolution and captures the event continuously, **then** the footage is generally reliable.

<mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;">For persuasive or optional conditions, you can use</mark> <mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;"></mark><mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;">**"especially when"**</mark> <mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;"></mark><mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;">or</mark> <mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;"></mark><mark style="color:$primary;background-color:green;">**"preferably."**</mark> &#x20;

*<mark style="color:$success;">Example</mark>* "...**especially when** the video is recorded in well-lit conditions."

<mark style="color:green;background-color:$success;">**Final synthesized rule**</mark>**&#x20;= "If** the video has high enough resolution and captures the event continuously, **then** the footage is generally reliable, **especially when** the video is recorded in well-lit conditions."

{% hint style="warning" %}

#### When adding the optional/preferred elements, think carefully about how to communicate those conditions using correct signal words. Are these conditions that need something like "unless" or "except for," or do they need something more like "especially when" or "preferrably?"

Ask yourself: Is this condition **an exception** to the rule, or is it **an extra, recommended circumstance**? That determines which type of signal word you should use.
{% endhint %}

{% endstep %}

{% step %}

#### Step 5 - Make sure your synthesized rule is S-A-C

Your rule should be **(S)IMPLE:** concise enough for the reader to grasp easily.&#x20;

It should be also be easily **(A)ppliable** to give guidance for new sets of facts.  - unambiguous because the terms have defined,&#x20;

Finally, it should be **(C)onsistent** with the cases and law in the jurisdiction.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}