Connection lost
Server error
SCHREINER v. UNITED STATES 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: The Court held that an indigent federal criminal defendant has a statutory right to the appointment of counsel to assist in preparing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, vacating the lower court’s judgment to allow for such an appointment.
Legal Significance: This case affirms that the statutory right to counsel under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 extends to the discretionary appeal stage of seeking a writ of certiorari, regardless of counsel’s opinion on the merits of the appeal.
SCHREINER v. UNITED STATES 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
The petitioner, Schreiner, was convicted of a federal crime, and his conviction was affirmed by a United States Court of Appeals. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Schreiner sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s decision. The record indicates that Schreiner was not provided with appointed counsel to assist him in preparing and filing this petition for certiorari. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court was not the underlying merits of his conviction but rather the procedural question of whether an indigent defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel when seeking discretionary review from the nation’s highest court. The Supreme Court granted Schreiner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his petition for certiorari to address this procedural right. The case was considered alongside a similar case, Doherty v. United States, which involved the same question regarding the scope of the right to counsel under federal law.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an indigent federal criminal defendant have a statutory right under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 to have counsel appointed to prepare and file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court?
Yes. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 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
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 an indigent federal criminal defendant have a statutory right under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 to have counsel appointed to prepare and file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court?
Conclusion
This case establishes a federal criminal defendant's statutory right to appointed counsel 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 co
Legal Rule
Under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, and 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
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court's brief per curiam decision resolved the case on statutory 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, 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 volupt
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An indigent criminal defendant is entitled to the appointment of counsel