I have something to confess. Despite its popularity, The 48 Laws of Power isn’t one of my favorite books. In fact, I disagree with most of the “laws.” But for all of my personal criticisms, there is one law in particular that I can’t argue against, Law 29: Plan All the Way to the End.
While Robert Greene’s advice is applicable to most situations, when it comes to legal writing, planning all the way to the end is critical.
Think about it, how many times have you sat down to work on your motion and felt completely overwhelmed wondering where do I begin, did I do enough research, have I convinced my audience that I deserve the relief I am seeking?
With so many questions buzzing around inside your head it’s nearly impossible to focus on the task at hand. Trust me I know, I had the same problem in law school until my law professors introduced me to CRAC.
I am not talking about illicit drugs, I am talking about the CRAC paradigm for persuasive writing. CRAC stands for conclusion, rule, analysis, conclusion. By following this method, you will learn how to effectively present your thesis, state and explain the rule of law, apply the rule and clearly wrap-up the issue for the Court.
So what does this look like in practice? Let’s do a quick exercise together to illustrate the method. Consider the following search and seizure hypothetical:
Recently, police began setting up vehicle checkpoints around the city in an effort to root out illegal drugs. At each checkpoint, police would stop a set number of vehicles. One officer would conduct an open-view examination of the car or truck from the outside, while another officer would walk around it with a narcotics dog. Stops were designed to last no more than five minutes. Does this checkpoint program violate the Fourth Amendment?
Now let’s apply the CRAC method to answer the question:
Conclusion: A check-point program whose primary purpose is indistinguishable from a general interest in crime control violates the Fourth Amendment.
Rule: In Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) the Supreme Court ruled that a search or seizure conducted “in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing” violates the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis: The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). While Petitioners argue that the checkpoint program is justified by its lawful secondary purposes of keeping impaired motorists off the road and verifying licenses and registrations, in Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 308 (1997) the Court held that a search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. In Edmond, the Court affirmed its decision in Miller, noting that it “cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and everpresent possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.” Edmond, supra, at 44. Accordingly, the instant check point program wherein police officers create roadblocks and use drug-sniffing dogs to investigate for “possible” narcotics possession amounts to a “suspicion-less” stop which runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment.
Conclusion: Because the primary purpose of the checkpoint program is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment.
While this example is in no way exhaustive of all the arguments one could make about the issue at hand, it gives you a basic understanding of the format you should use in the argument section of each issue you intend to raise.
_______________
After you have structured your arguments make sure you have someone read them - read them again, and read them once more. Many pro se litigants struggling to find the right person to entrust with such an important task opt to hire a legal writing consultant. A legal writing consultant will proofread, edit and refine your submission for a fraction of the cost of hiring a lawyer.
Whether you decide to hire a consultant or work entirely on your own, by following the CRAC method you will effectively plan your arguments all the way to the end, “taking into account all the possible consequences, obstacles, and twists...that might reverse your hard work and give the glory to” your adversary.
