Examples of helpful and unhelpful formulations of the questions presented.

• Jurisdiction: United States

Section 32. Examples of helpful and unhelpful formulations of the questions presented.—It goes without saying that not all situations are adapted to the loading-with-facts technique of formulating the question presented. But the question presented in any case can be clearly and appealingly stated—or, contrariwise, unclearly and unappealingly. It will probably be helpful to set out as examples the questions presented in each of four cases. The first statement in each instance is the petitioner's formulation of the question; the second is the respondent's. As it happens, review was denied in each instance, and each of the cases is a dozen or so years old. But nothing turns on either factor for present purposes. The significant point for the student of the process is to inquire which of the rival statements is more effective, and why; and whether in his judgment the parties could have stated the problem for their purposes more effectively than they did. (For convenience in reference, the citations to the opinions below are included in the footnotes.)

(A)

Petitioner: "Did the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Judicial Circuit err in overruling petitioner's contention that until there had been an adjudication by the proper military tribunal, that the soldier involved was guilty of violating the Articles of War relating to desertion, the District Court was without jurisdiction to try the issue presented by the indictment?"

Respondent: "Whether petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 42 of the Criminal Code⁷⁴ for aiding a deserter from the Army before the soldier had been convicted of desertion by a court-martial."⁷⁵

In the foregoing case, the petitioner's statement is defective principally because it is unclear; it refers to "the issue presented by the indictment" without any clue to what that issue is. Consequently it fails to do what the correct formulation of "question presented" must always do, viz., tell the court what the case is about. Respondent's statement does just that, though it presents the matter plainly, without any effort at forensic sex appeal.

(B)

Petitioner: "1. Is the Petitioner a native, citizen, denizen or subject of a 'hostile nation or government' liable as such 'to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed' as an alien enemy?

"2. Is the Petitioner a citizen of the Third German Reich or the German Nation or Government?"

Respondent: "Whether an alien, born in Bohemia, then a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in 1905, who...