Connection lost
Server error
Michigan v. Bryant Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a dying victim’s statements to police identifying his shooter were non-testimonial because their primary purpose was to address an ongoing emergency, not to create evidence for prosecution.
Legal Significance: This case refines the “primary purpose” test for Confrontation Clause analysis, expanding the concept of an “ongoing emergency” to include threats to the public and police, beyond the initial victim.
Michigan v. Bryant 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
Police responded to a report of a man shot and found Anthony Covington in a gas station parking lot with a mortal gunshot wound. Covington told officers that “Rick” (respondent Bryant) had shot him about 25 minutes earlier at Bryant’s house, six blocks away, through the back door. Covington was in great pain and had difficulty speaking. Officers asked what happened, who shot him, and where the shooting occurred. Covington’s statements were made within 5-10 minutes of police arrival, before emergency medical services arrived and before the shooter’s location or motive was known. Covington died hours later. At Bryant’s trial for second-degree murder, the officers testified about Covington’s statements. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed Bryant’s conviction, holding the statements were testimonial under Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington because the primary purpose was to establish past events, not to meet an ongoing emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Were the statements made by a mortally wounded victim to police officers at the scene of his discovery testimonial hearsay, such that their admission violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment?
Covington’s statements were non-testimonial because the circumstances objectively indicated that the primary Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Were the statements made by a mortally wounded victim to police officers at the scene of his discovery testimonial hearsay, such that their admission violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment?
Conclusion
This case significantly clarifies the "ongoing emergency" exception to the Confrontation Clause, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad mi
Legal Rule
Statements are non-testimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under 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 nis
Legal Analysis
The Court determined the primary purpose of the interrogation by objectively evaluating 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, s
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Statements to police are non-testimonial if their objective primary purpose is