DAVIS v. ALASKA Case Brief

Supreme Court of United States1974
415 U.S. 308 94 S.Ct. 1105 39 L.Ed.2d 347

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

4 min read

tl;dr: A criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a key prosecution witness for potential bias outweighs a state’s policy of protecting the confidentiality of that witness’s juvenile criminal record.

Legal Significance: This case establishes that the Confrontation Clause guarantees a defendant the right to cross-examine a witness for bias, and this right is paramount to state policies protecting witness anonymity when the witness’s testimony is crucial.

DAVIS v. ALASKA Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Petitioner Davis was convicted of burglary and grand larceny based partly on the testimony of Richard Green, a key prosecution witness. Green, who was 16 at the time of the crime, identified Davis as one of two men he saw near where a stolen safe was later found. At the time of the crime and his subsequent identification of Davis to police, Green was on probation following a juvenile adjudication for burglary. Before trial, the prosecutor obtained a protective order preventing the defense from referencing Green’s juvenile record during cross-examination, based on an Alaska rule protecting the confidentiality of such records. Davis’s counsel argued this information was not for general character impeachment but to specifically show Green’s potential bias. The defense theory was that Green’s probationary status might have motivated him to cooperate with police, perhaps out of fear of having his probation revoked or to shift suspicion from himself. The trial court prohibited this line of questioning. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the defense was able to adequately question Green about bias without revealing the juvenile record.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permit a criminal defendant to impeach a crucial prosecution witness for bias by cross-examining them about their probationary status as a juvenile delinquent, even when doing so conflicts with a state’s policy of preserving the confidentiality of juvenile records?

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the state’s interest Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Does the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permit a criminal defendant to impeach a crucial prosecution witness for bias by cross-examining them about their probationary status as a juvenile delinquent, even when doing so conflicts with a state’s policy of preserving the confidentiality of juvenile records?

Conclusion

This case firmly establishes that a defendant's constitutional right to effective cross-examination Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris

Legal Rule

The Sixth Amendment right of an accused to confront the witnesses against Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.

Legal Analysis

The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Burger, grounded its decision Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses includes the right to
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint o

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial