Connection lost
Server error
PATTERSON v. NEW YORK 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 defendant was charged with murder and claimed the mitigating defense of extreme emotional disturbance. The Supreme Court held that New York could constitutionally require the defendant to prove this affirmative defense.
Legal Significance: Established that states may place the burden of persuasion for an affirmative defense on the defendant, so long as the defense does not negate an essential element of the crime as defined by the legislature.
PATTERSON v. NEW YORK 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
Gordon Patterson, Jr. was charged with second-degree murder in New York after killing his estranged wife’s lover. Under New York law, the elements of second-degree murder were (1) intent to cause the death of another person, and (2) causing that person’s death. The statute did not include malice aforethought as an element. However, the law provided an affirmative defense that could reduce the charge to manslaughter if the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he “acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse.” At trial, Patterson raised this defense. The jury was instructed that the prosecution must prove the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, while Patterson bore the burden of proving his affirmative defense. The jury convicted Patterson of murder. He appealed, arguing that placing the burden of proof for the defense on him violated the Due Process Clause, citing the precedent of Mullaney v. Wilbur, which had invalidated a similar scheme in Maine.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a state from placing the burden of persuasion on a defendant to prove the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in a murder prosecution?
No. The Court held that the New York statute requiring the defendant 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 ame
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 the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a state from placing the burden of persuasion on a defendant to prove the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in a murder prosecution?
Conclusion
This case significantly clarified the *Winship* doctrine by establishing that the prosecution's 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 labor
Legal Rule
A state may require a defendant to bear the burden of proving 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
Legal Analysis
The Court distinguished this case from *Mullaney v. Wilbur*, where it had 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: A state may constitutionally require a defendant to prove an