9.2.2 ORGANIZING THE FACT STATEMENT
A good fact statement begins by providing the reader with the necessary context. Too many writers begin the statement with the first happening in the case’s chain of events, as in the following example from a fact statement written in the case of Rubin v.
Coors Brewing Co.:
BAD EXAMPLE
In 1987, Coors Brewing Company submitted an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms requesting approval for the labels that disclosed the alcohol content of their Coors and Coors Light Beers. App. 60-65.
Although this sentence makes reference to the controversy—whether beer manufacturers can put alcohol content on their labels—it does not identify the controversy for the reader. The following example provides better context:
GOOD EXAMPLE
This Court is being asked to affirm a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that found that 27 U.S.C. §§ 205(e)(2) and 205(f)(2) violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Those provisions prohibit labels or advertisements disclosing the alcohol content of malt beverages unless disclosure is required by state law.
These two sentences set both the procedural and legal context, and better enable the reader to understand the significance of the rest of the information in the statement.
After providing context, the writer must decide how to organize the rest of the fact statement. Although chronological organization is often favored, sometimes a topical organization is more effective. For example, in Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004), the Court was asked to decide whether a state scholarship program could refuse to grant a scholarship to a student because he was studying for the ministry. The state constitution forbade funding religious education.
The writer could combine a chronological organization and a topical organization, beginning with the enactment of the constitution, moving to the creation of the scholarship program, and then ending on the facts leading up to the respondent’s challenge. In the alternative, the writer could begin with the respondent being denied a scholarship, and use that denial to set the stage for the other facts.You may have strategic reasons for choosing or avoiding chronological organization. If causation is at issue, presenting information chronologically may send the implicit message that the events that occurred earlier caused the events that occurred later. If you do not want to send that message, present the later events first (using topical headings as needed) and then move back to the earlier events.
When deciding how to organize the fact statement, try to identify a set of topics that you can use as an organizing principle, whether or not you ultimately discuss those topics chronologically. Identifying topics can allow you to create topical headings within the statement; headings are particularly helpful if the statement is long. Although the writer must provide procedural as well as “factual” information, there is no requirement as to where in the fact statement this information must be included. Some writers provide the information about court proceedings immediately after giving context; others progress chronologically from the facts that happened “in the world” to the facts that happened in court. Finally, some writers include internal headings to separate their “statement of the case” (including procedural information) from their “statement of the facts” (for factual information).