Here - Harvard Law Review

WRITING COMPETITION:
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBCITE
© 2015 Harvard Law Review Association
April 16, 2015
Dear First-Year Student,
Welcome to the Subcite Intro Session for the 2015 Law Review writing competition! Because the subcite
portion of our writing competition is an unusual type of assignment, we are holding this session to give
you all a better sense of what it’s like. While it is impossible to replicate the experience of taking the
competition subcite within a one-hour meeting, we hope you will leave this session feeling at least a bit
more comfortable with what you will be asked to do for this part of the competition.
The following materials are included in this packet:






An overview of the competition subcite.
A list of typical subcite errors to identify.
An excerpt of the answer key used to evaluate the subcite entries from a previous
competition.
Excerpts from two subcites submitted in that year’s competition by Law Review editors.
A non-exhaustive sample of the type of Bluebook rules you might be responsible for on the
competition; use these for today’s exercise. (The full list of rules will be provided in the
competition packet.)
Finally, today’s subcite exercise itself.
We hope that you find this information and this exercise helpful. If you have any questions at all, please
feel free to email Meghan Cleary, Coordinating & Outreach Chair ([email protected]), or
simply call the Law Review (617-495-7889).
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Gould
Meghan Cleary
Mary Schnoor
President, Vol. 129
Coordinating & Outreach Chair, Vol. 129
Vice President & Treasurer, Vol. 129
THE SUBCITE PORTION OF THE COMPETITION
(40% of total competition score)
The basic task of a subcite is to identify and correct both technical and substantive errors
in a short written piece or excerpt. As part of the competition, you will receive a portion of text
suffering from such errors. The next page contains a non-exhaustive list of the types of errors
that may appear in the subcite and the point values awarded for correcting these errors. Please
remember that to receive credit for a correction you must not only 1) identify an error, but also 2)
briefly explain why it is an error and 3) correct the error. We suggest reviewing the examples
included in this packet to get a sense of the level of detail that is appropriate in your corrections.
In addition to editing for general substantive and technical writing quality, you will also
be asked to apply a small subset of basic Bluebook rules and internal Law Review style
guidelines, which will be provided in the competition materials. We have included a nonexhaustive sample of Bluebook rules, sufficient for the purposes of today’s exercise, later in this
packet. Keep in mind, however, that the purpose of the subcite is to measure overall editing
quality and attention to detail, not mastery of the Bluebook; you are not responsible for Bluebook
rules that we do not include in the actual competition materials.
Following the list of error types referenced above, you will find excerpts from the subcite
portion of a previous competition, which should give you a sense of how the subcite works.
There is an “answer key” showing the full set of errors in a series of pages, followed by the
actual edits suggested for that same set of pages in two successful competition submissions.
Although many of the errors that appear on these pages are representative of errors that can be
found in an entire subcite, please remember that these are merely excerpts and that other types of
errors may appear in this year’s subcite that do not appear in these excerpts. Thus, you should
view the excerpts –– and the distribution of the errors within those excerpts –– as an illustrative,
not exhaustive, example of the competition’s subcite portion.
Furthermore, this packet does not contain the source materials corresponding to the
subcite that were provided to those taking the competition. Many of the errors in the subcite
excerpts in this packet draw on information provided in the source materials and cannot simply
be deduced from the text itself (e.g., misquotations or substantive mischaracterizations of a
source’s text). Thus, reviewing these excerpts will not reproduce the entire subcite competition
experience. During the actual competition (and this afternoon’s subcite exercise), checking the
source materials will be essential.
In this section:
 General Subcite Tips
 Typical Subcite Errors and Point Values
 Sample Answer Key for Subcite Excerpt
 Two Sample Subcite Excerpts (as submitted by Law Review editors in the competition)
GENERAL SUBCITE TIPS












Before doing anything else, make multiple photocopies of the subcite text. How many copies
you make will depend on your work style, but about 10 copies is typical. Be sure to reserve at
least two clean copies for printing your final answers (in case you experience a printing mistake).
When choosing where you will take the competition, remember that you will need access to
a printer for preparing your final answers.
Carefully read the instructions for how final answers are to be prepared. Your final answers
will need to be typed and then printed onto a copy of the subcite text. The subcite text may not be
scanned.
Be sure to leave yourself ample time to print and box your comments. The process of
drawing boxes and lines will take several hours and will need to be completed before you can
make the final copies of your subcite answers; do not underestimate how long this step will take.
Handwritten comments will receive at most half credit.
Review the list of typical subcite errors in this packet. Remember that some of the errors will
be substantive; to find them, you will need to check that the statement in the text is supported by
the source it cites.
There are approximately five to twelve errors per page.
You will not need to know any Bluebook rules beyond what is included in the Competition
packet itself. There is no guarantee that the Bluebook rules and internal style guidelines included
in the Competition will be the same as the rules that have appeared in previous years.
Make sure that you do not only identify errors but also suggest fixes, even for simple
misspellings. To avoid any confusion about quotation marks, we recommend setting off your
suggested fix with <angle brackets>.
You must also label the general error type before identifying the specific error.
We encourage you to identify only clear errors rather than points of style. If you find
yourself consistently flagging errors without being certain whether the error was “clear,” you may
be over-editing. Excessive editing may be penalized, but only in egregious cases.
Applicants who adopt an actively rude or offensive tone will be penalized.
In the subcite text you are given, text that would be in SMALL CAPS in print (such as journal
names and book titles) will be bold and text that would be in italics in print (such as article titles
and textual references to case names) will be underlined.
TYPICAL SUBCITE ERRORS AND POINT VALUES
Note: This list is non-exhaustive.
1-POINT ERRORS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Misspelling
Incorrect word
Singular v. plural
Subject/verb agreement
That v. which
Simple redundancy (simple
and redundant)
7. Parallelism
8. Incorrect or. missing
punctuation
9. Misquotation
10. Split infinitive (good idea
to not use one)
11. Typeface error
12. incorrect or Missing
capitalization
13. Preposition at end of
sentence
14. Too many or missing
spaces
15. Incorrect use of supra or
infra
16. Simple substantive error
(e.g., wrong court,
judge, disposition)
17. Sentence fragment
18. Run-on sentence
19. Improper verb tense
20. Colon v. semicolon
21. Wrong acronym or
abbreviation
2-POINT ERRORS
1. Simple logical error (e.g.,
incorrect use of words
such as additionally,
however, furthermore,
nevertheless, thus)
2. Intermediate redundancy
3. Intermediate substantive
error
4. Incorrect or misplaced
section headings
5. Statement lacks support
or quotation needs
citation (find support in
included materials)
6. Dangling modifier
7. Wrong pincite (find
proper page number in
supporting material)
8. Mischaracterization of
source
9. Wrong signal (no signal
if quotation or direct
support; see if inferential
step needed between
source and statement;
see, e.g., if one of several
directly supporting
authorities; cf. if support
by analogy; but see if
directly opposing source;
but cf. if opposing
analogy)
3- AND 4-POINT ERRORS
1. Order of sentences within
paragraph
2. Misplaced topic sentence
3. Misplaced paragraph
4. One paragraph should be
two paragraphs
5. Misplaced section
6. Other structural error
7. Difficult substantive
error (e.g., subtle
misconstruing of source
or case; grossly
conclusory claim)
8. Subtle logical error (e.g.,
conclusion obviously
does not follow from
premises)
9. Subtle redundancy
(virtually consecutive
sentences saying virtually
the same thing)
Subcite Answer Key
Subcite Sample 2
THE SUBCITE EXERCISE
To help you get comfortable with the competition subcite, we will spend the next thirty
minutes subciting a small excerpt. The excerpt has been taken (with only minor alterations) from
a previous writing competition.
Before we begin, an important warning: This exercise has been designed as a learning
experience only. It is not a self-assessment tool; if you treat it as one, you will likely end up
frustrated. Our expectation is that you will not be able to identify, explain, and correct every
error within the time provided. You are subciting roughly two pages of a thirty-page competition
subcite. If you did the entire subcite at this pace it would take less than nine hours, which is
likely far too little time to be successful; during the actual competition, you will have several
days. (And even in the real competition, no one –– literally no one –– has ever found all the
errors in the subcite.)
We have designed the exercise this way for several reasons. First, while an excerpt this
brief can never be representative, we want to provide an adequate quantity and variety of errors
to make this exercise useful. Second, there are a variety of successful approaches to dealing with
the competition subcite; some people run through it several times, others do one very vigorous
review, and so forth. We similarly want you to use this time in whatever way is most helpful to
you. For example, you might speed through the excerpt trying to identify as many errors as you
can find; alternatively, you might thoroughly evaluate as much of the excerpt as you can, giving
explanations and corrections along the way. It is entirely up to you.
The Note from which this excerpt is drawn deals with the due process rights of juveniles;
specifically, it explores the constitutional limits of police interrogations of juvenile criminal
defendants.
In editing the excerpt, please refer to the list of errors (reproduced again here) and sample
rules provided in this packet. We have also provided the source materials relevant to this
excerpt. After thirty minutes, we will briefly review the answer key for this excerpt.
A special note on typeface errors: Here and throughout the competition subcite, bold
typeface is used where LARGE AND SMALL CAPS would appear in the published version of the
piece (for instance, in citations of journal titles, book authors, and book titles) and underlining is
used where italics would appear in the published version (for instance, in citations of article titles
or for case names in the body text). You should mark bold typeface as an error only if you
believe that large and small caps would not be appropriate, and you should mark underlining as
an error only if you believe that italics would not be appropriate.
In this section:
 Typical Subcite Errors and Point Values
 Sample Bluebook Rules Tested in the Competition
 Subcite Exercise –– Excerpt
 Subcite Exercise –– Sources
TYPICAL SUBCITE ERRORS AND POINT VALUES
Note: This list is non-exhaustive.
1-POINT ERRORS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Misspelling
Incorrect word
Singular v. plural
Subject/verb agreement
That v. which
Simple redundancy (simple
and redundant)
7. Parallelism
8. Incorrect or. missing
punctuation
9. Misquotation
10. Split infinitive (good idea
to not use one)
11. Typeface error
12. incorrect or Missing
capitalization
13. Preposition at end of
sentence
14. Too many or missing
spaces
15. Incorrect use of supra or
infra
16. Simple substantive error
(e.g., wrong court,
judge, disposition)
17. Sentence fragment
18. Run-on sentence
19. Improper verb tense
20. Colon v. semicolon
21. Wrong acronym or
abbreviation
2-POINT ERRORS
1. Simple logical error (e.g.,
incorrect use of words
such as additionally,
however, furthermore,
nevertheless, thus)
2. Intermediate redundancy
3. Intermediate substantive
error
4. Incorrect or misplaced
section headings
5. Statement lacks support
or quotation needs
citation (find support in
included materials)
6. Dangling modifier
7. Wrong pincite (find
proper page number in
supporting material)
8. Mischaracterization of
source
9. Wrong signal (no signal
if quotation or direct
support; see if inferential
step needed between
source and statement;
see, e.g., if one of several
directly supporting
authorities; cf. if support
by analogy; but see if
directly opposing source;
but cf. if opposing
analogy)
3- AND 4-POINT ERRORS
1. Order of sentences within
paragraph
2. Misplaced topic sentence
3. Misplaced paragraph
4. One paragraph should be
two paragraphs
5. Misplaced section
6. Other structural error
7. Difficult substantive
error (e.g., subtle
misconstruing of source
or case; grossly
conclusory claim)
8. Subtle logical error (e.g.,
conclusion obviously
does not follow from
premises)
9. Subtle redundancy
(virtually consecutive
sentences saying virtually
the same thing
Structure and Use of Citations
Structure and Use of Citations
R1
1
SAMPLE of Bluebook Rules for
2015 Writing Competition
Note: This sample is non-exhaustive
Provide citations to authorities so that readers may identify and find those
authorities for future research. Citations are made in citation sentences and
clauses (rule 1.1) and are introduced by signals. Signals organize authorities
and show how those authorities support or relate to a proposition given in
the text (rule 1.2). Citation sentences and clauses may contain more than
one signal. Order signals according to rule 1.3. Within each signal, arrange
authorities according to rule 1.4. Parentheticals may be necessary to explain
the relevance of a particular authority to the proposition given in the text
(rule 1.5). Certain additional information, specific to that authority, may also
be appended according to rule 1.6.
Citation Sentences and Clauses in Law Reviews
1.1
Citations may be made in one of two ways: in citation sentences or in citation
clauses. In law review pieces, all citations appear in footnotes appended to
the portions of the text to which they refer. For an explanation of citation
sentences and clauses in practitioners’ documents, see Bluepages B2.
(a) Text. Citations to authorities that support (or contradict) a proposition
made in the main text (as opposed to footnote text) are placed in footnotes.
A footnote call number should appear at the end of a textual sentence if the
cited authority supports (or contradicts) the entire sentence. In contrast, a call
number should appear within the sentence next to the portion it supports if
the cited authority supports (or contradicts) only that part of the sentence.
The call number comes after any punctuation mark—such as a comma, semicolon, or period—with the exception of a dash or a colon. In addition to citation to authorities, a footnote may include textual sentences that are related
to or tangential to the main text to which the footnote is appended.
(b) Footnotes. If a footnote itself contains an assertion requiring support, a
citation to the relevant authority should appear directly after the assertion as
either a citation sentence or a citation clause.
(i) Citation sentences. Authorities that support (or contradict) an entire
footnote sentence are cited in a separate citation sentence immediately after
the sentence they support (or contradict). The citation sentence starts with a
capital letter and ends with a period.
(ii) Citation clauses. Authorities that support (or contradict) only part of a
sentence within a footnote are cited in clauses, set off by commas, that immediately follow the proposition they support (or contradict).
(c) Example. The following excerpt illustrates the use of citation sentences
and clauses in a law review piece:
• Some American jurisdictions 1place the burden of sustaining criminal defenses on the accused. States have required defendants to
prove both insanity2 and self-defense.3 In several jurisdictions the
defendant must even establish that a homicide was accidental.4
See John Calvin Jeffries, Jr. & Paul B. Stephan III, Defenses,
Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, 88 Yale
1
45
R1
Structure and Use of Citations
L.J. 1325, 1329–30 (1979). The authors point out that the use of
affirmative defenses may relieve the state of its duty to prove a
sufficient factual basis for punishment, id. at 1357, and argue that
the reasonable doubt standard should not be limited to those
facts formally identified as elements of the offense charged, id. at
1327.
1.2
E.g., State v. Caryl, 543 P.2d 389, 390 (Mont. 1975); State v.
Hinson, 172 S.E.2d 548, 551 (S.C. 1970).
2
See, e.g., Quillen v. State, 110 A.2d 445, 449 (Del. 1955); State
v. Skinner, 104 P. 223, 224 (Nev. 1909). See generally Wayne R.
LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Handbook on Criminal Law § 8.1, at
704–06 (2d ed. 1986) (discussing the origin of embezzlement and
false pretense).
3
4
See, e.g., Chandle v. State, 198 S.E.2d 289, 290 (Ga. 1973);
State v. Enlow, 536 S.W.2d 533, 541 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).
Introductory Signals
(a) Signals that indicate support.
[no signal] Cited authority (i) directly states the proposition, (ii) identifies the
source of a quotation, or (iii) identifies an authority referred to in
the text. Use “[no signal],” for example, when directly quoting an
authority or when restating numerical data from an authority.
E.g.,
Cited authority states the proposition; other authorities also state
the proposition, but citation to them would not be helpful or is
not necessary. “E.g.” may also be used in combination with other
signals, preceded by a comma:
See, e.g.,
But see, e.g.,
Accord
“Accord” is commonly used when two or more sources state or
clearly support the proposition, but the text quotes or refers
to only one; the other sources are then introduced by “accord.”
Similarly, the law of one jurisdiction may be cited as being in
accord with the law of another.
See
Cited authority clearly supports the proposition. “See” is used
instead of “[no signal]” when the proposition is not directly stated
by the cited authority but obviously follows from it; there is an
inferential step between the authority cited and the proposition it
supports.
See also Cited authority constitutes additional source material that supports
the proposition. “See also” is commonly used to cite an authority
supporting a proposition when authorities that state or directly
support the proposition already have been cited or discussed. The
use of a parenthetical explanation of the source’s relevance (rule
1.5) following a citation introduced by “see also” is encouraged.
46
Structure and Use of Citations
Cf.
R1
Cited authority supports a proposition different from the main
proposition but sufficiently analogous to lend support. Literally,
“cf.” means “compare.”The citation’s relevance will usually be clear
to the reader only if it is explained. Parenthetical explanations
(rule 1.5), however brief, are therefore strongly recommended.
(b) Signal that suggests a useful comparison.
Compare . . .
[and] . . .
with . . .
[and] . . .
Comparison of the authorities cited will offer support for
or illustrate the proposition. The relevance of the comparison will usually be clear to the reader only if it is explained.
Parenthetical explanations (rule 1.5) following each
authority are therefore strongly recommended.
• Compare Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 121 (1989) (rejecting
the claim by a putative natural father of the right to visit his child
conceived by a married woman), and Catharine A. MacKinnon,
Feminism Unmodified 49 (1987) (contending that what connects
all women is their oppression in a sexual hierarchy), with Loving
v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (naturalizing language about
marriage), Doe v. McConn, 489 F. Supp. 76, 80 (S.D. Tex. 1980)
(holding a cross-dressing ordinance unconstitutional as applied to
individuals undergoing therapy for sex-reassignment surgery), and
Kenneth L. Karst, The Freedom of Intimate Association, 89 Yale L.J.
624, 631 (1980) (“The denial of the society of an intimate may be
partial, as in the case of a parent who loses a contest over child
custody but is allowed visitation rights, or virtually total, as when a
noncustodial parent is denied visitation rights.”).
(c) Signals that indicate contradiction.
Contra
Cited authority directly states the contrary of the proposition.
“Contra” is used where “[no signal]” would be used for support.
But see Cited authority clearly supports a proposition contrary to the main
proposition.“But see” is used where “see” would be used for support.
But cf.
Cited authority supports a proposition analogous to the contrary
of the main proposition. The use of a parenthetical explanation of
the source’s relevance (rule 1.5) following a citation introduced by
“but cf.” is strongly recommended.
“But” should be omitted from “but see” and “but cf.” whenever one of these
signals follows another negative signal:
• Contra Blake v. Kline, 612 F.2d 718, 723–24 (3d Cir. 1979); see
Charles Alan Wright, Law of Federal Courts § 48 (4th ed. 1983).
(d) Signal that indicates background material.
See generally Cited authority presents helpful background material related
to the proposition. The use of a parenthetical explanation
of the source material’s relevance (rule 1.5) following each
authority introduced by “see generally” is encouraged.
(e) Signals as verbs. In footnotes, signals may be used as the verbs of textual sentences. When using signals in this way, include material that would
otherwise be included in a parenthetical explanation as part of the sentence
47
R1
Structure and Use of Citations
itself. Signals should not be italicized when used as verbs of textual sentences
(rule 2.1(d)).
Thus:
•See Christina L. Anderson, Comment, Double Jeopardy: The
Modern Dilemma for Juvenile Justice, 152 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1181,
1204–07 (2004) (discussing four main types of restorative justice
programs).
becomes:
•See Christina L. Anderson, Comment, Double Jeopardy: The
Modern Dilemma for Juvenile Justice, 152 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1181,
1204–07 (2004), for a discussion of restorative justice as a reasonable replacement for retributive sanctions.
“Cf.” becomes “compare” and “e.g.” becomes “for example” when used in this
manner.
1.3
Order of Signals
When more than one signal is used, the signals (along with the authorities
they introduce) should appear in the order in which those signals are listed in
rule 1.2. Note that the order of authorities within each signal must conform to
rule 1.4. Signals of the same basic type—supportive, comparative, contradictory, or background (rule 1.2(a) – (d))—must be strung together within a single citation sentence and separated by semicolons. Signals of different types,
however, must be grouped in different citation sentences. For example:
•See Mass. Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976) (per curiam);
cf. Palmer v. Ticcione, 433 F. Supp. 653 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) (upholding a mandatory retirement age for kindergarten teachers). But
see Gault v. Garrison, 569 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1977) (holding that
a classification of public school teachers based on age violated
equal protection absent a showing of justifiable and rational state
purpose). See generally Comment, O’Neil v. Baine: Application of
Middle-Level Scrutiny to Old-Age Classifications, 127 U. Pa. L. Rev.
798 (1979) (advocating a new constitutional approach to old-age
classifications).
Within a citation clause (rule 1.1), however, citation strings may contain
signals of more than one type, separated by semicolons.
1.4
Order of Authorities Within Each Signal
Authorities within each signal are separated by semicolons.
48
If one authority is considerably more helpful or authoritative than the other
authorities cited within a signal, it should precede the others. Except in
this situation, cite authorities in the order in which they are listed below.
Authorities cited in short form are ordered as though cited in full.
(a) Constitutions and other foundational documents are cited in the following order:
(1)federal
(2)state (alphabetically by state)
(3)foreign (alphabetically by jurisdiction)
. . .
For a statement made prior to a
custodial interrogation to be
admissible, the familiar rule of
Miranda v. Arizona17 is that a
suspect must have “voluntarily,
knowingly and intelligently”
waived certain rights after
recieving adequate warnings and
before questioning began.18
These
rights are the “right to remain
silent” and the “right to the
presents of an attorney, whether
retained or appointed.”19
If a
suspect indicates that he or she
wishes to speak to an attorney or
wishes not to be interrogated, the
the interrogation must stop.
Responding to questions or
volunteering information waives the
right subsequently to consult a
lawyer or an attorney before
choosing whether to continue the
interrogation.20
. . .
17
18
384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Id. at 444; see also Dickerson
v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 432
- 33 (2000) (summarizing Miranda).
19
444.
See Miranda, 384 S. Ct. at
Miranda also requires police
to warn the suspect “that any
statement he does make may be used
as evidence against him”
21
Id. at 445.
Id.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2015 WRITING COMPETITION: INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBCITE
Cases
DICKERSON
MIRANDA
1
12
SC-1
SC-2
SC-3
SC-4
SC-5
SC-6
SC-7
SC-8
SC-9
SC-10
SC-11
SC-12
SC-13
SC-14
SC-15
SC-16
SC-17
SC-18
SC-19
SC-20
SC-21
SC-22
SC-23