Connection lost
Server error
Murphy v. Florida Case Brief
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: A notorious defendant, “Murph the Surf,” claimed pretrial publicity about his past crimes biased the jury. The Supreme Court held that juror knowledge of a defendant’s prior convictions does not automatically violate due process absent a showing of actual prejudice or an overwhelmingly inflammatory trial atmosphere.
Legal Significance: This case distinguishes between presumed prejudice from a “carnival-like” trial atmosphere and the lesser standard of actual prejudice, clarifying that juror exposure to pretrial publicity about a defendant’s past, by itself, is not a per se due process violation.
Murphy v. Florida 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 Murphy, a well-known figure nicknamed “Murph the Surf” due to prior notorious crimes, was charged with robbery in Florida. His case received extensive, largely factual, press coverage, detailing both the current charges and his prior convictions for murder and theft. During voir dire, 78 potential jurors were questioned, and 20 were dismissed for having a preconceived opinion of his guilt. The empaneled jurors all had some knowledge of Murphy’s criminal history from the media. However, they asserted during questioning that they could remain impartial and decide the case based on the evidence presented at trial. Murphy’s motions for a change of venue and to dismiss the jurors for cause were denied. He was convicted and subsequently sought federal habeas corpus relief, arguing the pretrial publicity and juror knowledge denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state criminal defendant’s right to an impartial jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require the automatic disqualification of jurors who have been exposed to news reports about the defendant’s prior criminal record?
No. The Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that Murphy was 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 do
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
Does a state criminal defendant’s right to an impartial jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require the automatic disqualification of jurors who have been exposed to news reports about the defendant’s prior criminal record?
Conclusion
This case establishes that juror familiarity with a defendant's criminal history is 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 irur
Legal Rule
Juror exposure to information about a defendant's prior convictions or to news 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 offi
Legal Analysis
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Marshall, distinguished between two types 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 pari
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Juror exposure to news of a defendant’s prior crimes does not,
