Read the case State v. Patino (2012) that has been provided in your textbook.

After reading the case, deconstruct the case using the following Text-Case Method shown below and illustrated in your textbook . If you have a question or concern about the structure of this assignment, please reach out so I can clarify.

Please make your answers thoughtful and rational. Do not simply restate what has been said. Take a deep dive into the case, share your thoughts and your opinions. The length of your answers should be long enough to explain and defend your thoughtful and rational answers. While I am not requiring a certain number of words or pages for this assignment, please understand that a thorough and comprehensive review of this case cannot be done in one or two or perhaps even three pages. This assignment requires time, thought, effort, and critical writing. It will be evaluated on structure (the submission must contain the eight headings and the headings must be addressed. They cannot simply be included with no narrative). Does the submission cover the cases procedural history? Does the submission "tell the story" in a clear and accurate way? Does the submission identify the "legal question." Does it identify the Court's judgment? Does it include the Court's opinion? Does the submission come to a conclusion and has the student declared their side?

While I am not sure what it will take for each of you to address the requirements, I am sure this can not be done in a few pages. Expand your answers. Demonstrate a thoughtful, critical, and reasoned answer. This is your first assignment, I understand there might be a bit of anxiety but don't worry, you will get through this and they will become easier the more we do. If you have any questions about the requirements or directions, please reach out.

Double space your assignment. Provide thoughtful and critical analysis.

Title

• Case Citation (this is an example)

• Procedural History of the Case (identify the formal procedural steps the case has taken e.g., trial court, appellate court.

• Judge (name of judge who wrote the opinion and issued the courts judgment)

• Facts (tell the reader the story)
• Government officials' acts - actions that defendants claim violated the Constitution.
• Objective basis - facts and circumstances that back up the government officials' actions.

• Constitutional legal question (what is the legal question or questions?)

• Judgment (Disposition of the case. Did the Court affirm, reverse, or remand the case?)
• Affirmed - means the appellate court upheld a lower court's judgment.
• Reversed - means the appellate court set aside, or nullified, the lower court's judgment.
• Remanded - means that the appellate court sent the case back to the lower court for further action.

• Court Opinion (explain the Court's judgment). Opinions contain two essential ingredients:
• Holding of the court - refers to the legal rule the court applied to the facts of the case.
• Reasoning of the court - refers to the reasons and arguments the court gives to support its holding.

• Majority opinion - Five judges make a majority. If all nine judges do not participate, then a majority can be less than five.
• Concurring opinion - Judges agree with the conclusions of other judges in the case but rely on different reasons to reach the same conclusion.
• Plurality opinion - a majority of the justices agree with the decision in a case, but they can't agree on the reasons, the opinion with the reasoning agreed to by the largest number of justices is called the plurality opinion.
• Dissenting opinion - justices don't agree with the court's decision and/or its reasoning, they can write their own dissenting opinions explaining why they don't agree with the majorities or plurality's reasoning (Samaha, 2018).