Appellate Briefs and Legal Memoranda

This assignment covers key aspects of paralegal work in appellate law. Students prepare a Notice of Appeal and Cover Page for a hypothetical appellate brief, differentiate between internal and external legal memoranda, and briefly analyze relevant case law to be cited in the appellate brief. The provided answers offer detailed explanations and examples.

PARALEGAL STUDIES 2
Section One
Prepare the Notice of Appeal and the Cover Page for Sam Kant’s appellate brief that
was assigned in Lesson Three. The trial court and the correct appellate court should be
based on your jurisdiction.
ANSWER – 1
See the attachment for the completed Notice of Appeal. The Cover Page remains the
same as used in the Appellate Brief.
Section Two
Explain the difference between an external memo of law and an internal memo of law.
ANSWER – 2
Legal Definition of an Internal Memo describes it as a note which is sent by a junior
attorney to a senior attorney in a Law Office. Such a memo is usually used for assessing
all the legal aspects connected with a client’s case and these could be in favour of or
against the client. It is sometimes referred as ‘A Legal Brief’ and involves a comment
on a motion or any other issue which arises during the trial period. An External Memo
can also be a communication or a brief but it is used for sharing the information or
comments with an external source, such as the client or another attorney, sometimes
those of the opposing party.
Section Three
Brief any cases that you are planning on citing to in your appellate brief that was
assigned in lesson 3. Refer to Statsky Chapter 7 for briefing opinions.
ANSWER – 3
Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881
This case addresses the question raised by two issues. The first issue concerns the
classification of an item of personal property as real property for taxation purposes. The
second issue concerns the review of on appeal after this test has been conducted by the
trial court. The classification should be based on whether a reasonable person can
consider the property in question as a real property, after taking into consideration the

adaptation and other objective parameters of permanence. Moreover, the trial court's
assessment should be an independent one.
People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889
The petition for review by the Court of Appeal was affirmed on one issue and reversed
on the second issue concerning the conviction of criminal offenses. On the first issue,
the court specified for review of issues concerning the trial court's determination that the
People had exercised "due diligence" in the presence of a witness at trial. The second
issue was concerned with an independent review standard was adopted by the People
while exercising "due diligence" in obtaining the presence of the witness during the
case.
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181
Whether a Petition for Review can be granted after the Court of Appeal has modified
the sentence and affirmed the judgment of conviction of the criminal offenses framed.
The court was concerned whether the People have the right to seek an abstract of the
judgment to be corrected on appeal when it fails to reflect that the sentence was orally
imposed by the trial court.
United States v. McConney (9th Cir. 1984) 728 F.2d 1195
In summary, the analysis of the court was that there is no litmus test through which all
the questions connected with a trial can be effectively categorized. Such a test can never
"unerringly distinguish between findings of fact and conclusions of law”1. The court
was of the opinion that if the courts focus on the nature of inquiry required for
determining if the established facts can be fitted within the relevant legal definition,
then a neutral test can be employed which may reflect the concerns which properly
underline the standard of review jurisprudence.
1 Pullman-Standard v. Swint 456 U.S. at 289 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. at 1790 n. 19.