Sources used in this document:

The second most authoritative resource would be the 1990 Kansas Court of Appeals decision, with facts similar to the client's facts, in which the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter (lesser offense). Unless there have been major changes in the legislation or the interpretation of the legislation, such decision would help the court determine how prior courts have decided to interpret the statutes in question. Learning the reasoning behind the 1990 decision would help the court decide why it should choose not to follow the third most authoritative resource, which would be the 1980 Kansas Supreme Court decision, with facts similar to the client's facts, in which the defendant was found guilty of murder. Any state Supreme Court decision interpreting a state statute that has not been overruled would usually be the most authoritative resource; however, the passage of time, and a contrary Court of Appeals decision indicate that the courts have chipped away at the reasoning behind the 1980 case.

In order to support the claim that changing theories of law or views in society account for the differences in the 1980 and 1990 results, I would then turn to the fourth, fifth, and sixth most authoritative resources. The fourth most authoritative resource is the case is the article from American Jurisprudence, 2d, explaining the differences between murder and manslaughter cases. This is authoritative because it attempts to capture the essence of the difference between murder and manslaughter, from the point-of-view of America as a whole. To support the conclusions drawn in the article, I would suggest the fifth most authoritative resource: the 1989 law review article that surveys all of the murder statutes in all the 50 states. Although Kansas can choose to define murder and manslaughter differently than they are defined by other states, it is likely that the court will look at what other states are doing, in order to determine the difference between manslaughter and murder. To shore up that argument, I would provide the sixth most authoritative resource: the Illinois Supreme Court position. Illinois is only one state, and therefore its decision is less authoritative than a survey of the position of the various states. However, due to its proximity to Kansas, what is happening in Illinois may actually be more likely to convince the court than the resources that should be considered more authoritative.

Finally, if there were jurisdictional or procedural l issues or questions, I would present the information from the A 2004 Kansas supreme Court decision on breach of warranty in automobile sales. While a recent state Supreme Court decision would generally be considered more authoritative than the other sources listed, the fact that the decision appears to have little to do with the topic of murder or manslaughter indicates that it is not very authoritative. However, if the client were charged with murder based on a breach of an automobile warranty, or other issue that played a prominent role in the 2004 Kansas Supreme Court decision, I would actually choose to present that decision as the most authoritative.