May 23, 2018

Archives for May 8, 2018

Forging New Writing Conventions: Parentheticals (And How We Use Them)

Putting citations after sentences sacrifices readability for credibility. The convention has critics but is here for the immediate future.[1] Its sister convention is putting parentheticals after citations. This convention rarely gets any discussion. It should.

When to Use Parentheticals

Every law student learns to use parentheticals. They take different forms. Often they are incomplete sentences explaining a point about the source, usually starting with a present participle—an “ing” word like “holding,” “finding,” or “concluding.” We use them often. Why?

Any answer includes a need to convey information about the source. But why convey that information in a parenthetical? This is the question you need to answer before using one.

There is a difference between each of the following:

“Summary judgment is only appropriate if the moving party establishes that no disputed material facts exist.” People In Interest of S.N. v. S.N., 2014 CO 64, ¶ 16.

People In Interest of S.N. v. S.N., 2014 CO 64, ¶ 16. (“Summary judgment is only appropriate if the moving party establishes that no disputed material facts exist.”)

Summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no disputed material facts. People In Interest of S.N. v. S.N., 2014 CO 64, ¶ 16.

People In Interest of S.N. v. S.N., 2014 CO 64, ¶ 16 (summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no disputed material facts).

When you include a parenthetical you make a series of choices. First, you choose to include rather than exclude information. Second, you decide how to phrase the information, either quoting, paraphrasing, or a little of both. Third, you determine where to put the information, either in the main text before the citation or in a parenthetical after the citation. That placement has consequences.

Those consequences come from how we read briefs. We all learn to write using parentheticals. But we do not necessarily learn to read parentheticals, or at least not to read them how the writer intends.

Here’s the writer’s perspective. The information is important enough to go in the brief, and belongs at the source’s hip.

But this placement has other consequences to the reader. The parenthetical is separate the main text. Because it stands apart, the reader must connect the main text information and the parenthetical information. A parenthetical placement may also suggest the information is less important than the main text. Indeed, part of Bryan Garner’s argument for putting citations in footnotes is that important authorities should be named and discussed in the main text, and “discussion of governing and persuasive authorities is enhanced because it can no longer be buried in parentheticals following citations.”[2] Plus, a parenthetical lengthens the citation, often by several lines. That lengthening causes greater disruption. Remember, main text citations trade readability for credibility. The longer the citation, the less readable the pros, the more unbalanced the trade.

Applying these factors, here are some scenarios that tempt readers to skip or gloss over parentheticals.

The main text suggests the parenthetical is unnecessary: If the main text sentence states an obvious or well-known proposition, a parenthetical seems unnecessary. Readers are always more tempted to skip portions that seem unnecessary. For example:

The statute of limitations for a bad faith tort claim is two years. Brodeur v. American Home Assur. Co., 169 P.3d 139, 151 (2007) (dismissing claim filed over two years and ten months after cause of action arose).

We all know what a statute of limitations is and the consequences of filing a tardy claim. The information in the parenthetical adds nothing. But that’s just the reader’s guess.

The reader’s triage comes before reading the parenthetical. Based on the main text sentence, the reader determines the parenthetical probably adds nothing and therefore is not worth reading. So the takeaway is to make sure the main text sentence preceding the citation sets up the need for a parenthetical. Great information does you no good if the reader never reads it. Secondarily, make sure the parenthetical’s information adds to your brief so when the reader does get to it, the information advances your argument.

The parenthetical is very long: Lengthy parentheticals rarely work. They are too much. They squeeze lists of facts or reasons into a run-on incomplete sentence. At the same time they drag out a citation, which disrupts the main text’s flow and often makes it difficult to find the next sentence. A common example is a parenthetical that tries to single-handedly apply a multi-factor test. For instance, a parenthetical applying People v. Humphrey’s twelve-factor assessment to determine if a Miranda waiver is valid.[3] Or a single parenthetical discussing how Effland v. People found five factors weighing against a finding of custody and fifteen in favor.[4] A parenthetical about one factor may be appropriate. But a discussion of the entire analysis or several factors is too much for one incomplete sentence bracketed by parentheses.

When to use parentheticals, what information to put in them, and how to convey that information requires judgment. But odds are you overuse them. To refine your judgment analyze People v. Brooks, which has over sixty case citations and only one with a substantive parenthetical explanation.[5] People v. Howard-Walker has over one-hundred case citations, only four with explanatory parentheticals.[6]

How to Phrase Parentheticals

An equally valid question is why we start parentheticals with a present participle (those “ing” words). Law school taught us this probably because the Bluebook rule on parentheticals says explanations not quoting the source “usually begin with a present participle.”[7] Why the Bluebook takes this position is unclear. Even if you live and die by the Bluebook, “usually” means not always.

Given the widespread use of “ing” words, would cutting them throw the reader or alter the meaning? See for yourself.

For all these reasons, we conclude that the issue was sufficiently preserved. See People v. Syrie, 101 P.3d 219, 223 n.7 (Colo.2004) (an issue is preserved where the trial court has “adequate opportunity to make factual findings and legal conclusions on any issue that is later raised on appeal”)

. . .

In all of them, the courts considered extrinsic circumstances only to determine whether the images were created to be viewed for sexual gratification. See Batchelor, 800 P.2d at 604 (that the defendant concealed the photos of his naked nine-year-old daughter, took the pictures at night, posed the child, and took the pictures secretly showed that he took the pictures for his own sexual gratification); T.B., ¶ 34 (that the defendant had texted the victims a picture of his erect penis when he solicited nude pictures from the victims showed that the pictures taken by the victims were intended for the defendant’s sexual gratification); Grady, 126 P.3d at 222 (the defendant produced photos of teenage models that he also posted on a website entitled “True Teen Babes”); Gagnon, 997 P.2d at 1284 (in deciding whether pictures taken by the defendant of a teenage girl in sexually suggestive poses and clothing were produced for sexual gratification, the court considered that “the pictures of the victim were found along with a large collection of other material the trial court described as adult pornography”).”

. . .

Images that are otherwise constitutionally protected images could become unprotected based merely on the subjective response of a particular viewer. See Batchelor, 800 P.2d at 602 (pictures depicting nude children for legitimate purposes are constitutionally protected).[8]

This excerpt shows “ing” words are often not needed. Commonly used present participles like “holding,” “finding,” and “concluding” are usually unnecessary because they are implied. In fact, it is difficult to imagine an example where such words make a difference. Take a look:

Smith v. Jones, 123 F.2d 345 (12th Cir. 2018) (finding statute of limitations barred claim).

Smith v. Jones, 123 F.2d 345 (12th Cir. 2018) (statute of limitations barred claim).

By contrast, openings like “comparing,” “reaching,” and “distinguishing” add meaning to a parenthetical.

You can decide when a present participle adds to the parenthetical. But omit them when they are unnecessary. Break the habit.


[1] Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges 132-33 (Thomson/West 2008).

[2] Id. at 132.

[3] 132 P.3d 352, 356 (2006).

[4] 240 P.3d 868, 875 (2010).

[5] 2017 COA 80.

[6] 2017 COA 81M.

[7] The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation R. 1.5(a)(i), at 59 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al., eds., 19th ed. 2010).

[8] People v. Henley, 2017 COA 76, ¶¶16, 28-29.

 

Michael Blasie graduated from the New York University School of Law. He began his career as a commercial litigator and criminal defense attorney in the New York City office of Cooley LLP where he practiced in state and federal trial and appellate courts. After five years he moved to Denver where he worked as a law clerk to the Honorable David J. Richman of the Colorado Court of Appeals before becoming Staff Counsel at Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell, LLP. Michael also serves as a volunteer firefighter for the City of Golden.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 5/7/2018

On Monday, May 7, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and four unpublished opinions.

Quintana v. Hansen

Packard v. Goodrich

Oviatt v. Reynolds

Kerner v. City & County of Denver

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.