From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
United States v. Brown
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
557 F.2d 541 (1977)
Facts
A clinic of the Planned Parenthood Association was firebombed. Hayward Leslie Brown (defendant), a Black man from Detroit, was apprehended near the clinic by the police. Also, the police discovered hair of unknown origin at the clinic. After Brown confessed to the firebombing, charges were filed against him. Later, a hair sample was taken from Brown. At the trial, Michael Bayard and Dr. Robert Muggli testified as expert witnesses. Bayard and Muggli used a procedure called ion microprobic analysis to compare hair samples. Ion microprobic analysis measured the trace-element content of a hair sample. Bayard and Muggli had a test group containing 130 hair samples. The samples in the test group were collected primarily from White people who lived in Chicago. Bayard and Muggli conducted ion microprobic analysis on the unknown hair and Brown’s hair. The analysis produced charts that showed the trace elements in these samples. The charts from the samples were then compared to the charts from the samples in the test group. Based on this comparison, Bayard and Muggli determined that Brown was the source of the unknown hair. The district-court judge admitted evidence of the ion microprobic analysis conducted by Bayard and Muggli. Subsequently, Brown was convicted. Brown appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Celebrezze, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
