Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary. Dudley and Stephens (defendants) murdered a fellow young seaman (Parker) in order to save their own lives from starvation. They were found guilty of murder.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Killing an innocent life to save one’s own does not justify murder even if it under extreme necessity of hunger.
Continue reading “Regina v. Dudley and Stephens”
View this case and other resources at:
Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of Israel reviewed the lawfulness of utilizing physical means to interrogate prisoners.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Israeli interrogators may not use physical means to gain information from criminal suspects; however, in criminal cases, under certain circumstances, interrogators are not prohibited from asserting the defense of necessity.
Continue reading “Public Committee Against Torture v. State of Israel”
Brief Fact Summary. The Appellants appeal their convictions for interfering with activities of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office in Arizona and for failing to comply with an order of a federal police officer. The charges arose from their protest activities based on the United States’ involvement in El Salvador. Their appeal stems from the District Court’s denial of a necessity defense.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The defense of necessity is inapplicable to cases involving indirect civil disobedience.
Continue reading “United States v. Schoon”
Brief Fact Summary. A police officer responding to a dispatch call of an intruder in a residence shot a fleeing suspect in back of the head, killing the suspect.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A police officer may not use deadly force against an unarmed fleeing crime suspect who poses no danger to the officer or to others.
Continue reading “Tennessee v. Garner”
View this case and other resources at:
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Unger (Defendant), was charged with the crime of escape and convicted following a jury trial. The conviction was reversed by the appellate court and the cause was remanded for a new trial after the court found the jury was given an improper instruction. The principle issue in this case is whether it was error for the court to instruct the jury that it must disregard the reasons given for the Defendant’s escape and to refuse to instruct the jury on the statutory defenses of compulsion and necessity.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An individual who is charged with escaping from prison is entitled to submit his defense of necessity to the jury in light of testimony that the individual was subjected to physical attacks while in prison and was placed in fear of his life.
Continue reading “People v. Unger”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Ceballos (Defendant), was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for setting up a gun trap in his garage that fired a bullet at the face of an intruder.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Defense of justification is not applicable where defendant was not even present to be in any way threatened by the invasion of the intruder.
Continue reading “People v. Ceballos”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Durham (Defendant) a deputy game warden, was convicted of assault and battery of man suspected of illegal fishing.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An officer may use deadly force if necessary against any suspect physically resisting arrest, even if the subject of the arrest only constitutes a misdemeanor.
Continue reading “Durham v. State”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Abbot (Defendant), was convicted of atrocious assault and battery upon his next-door neighbor, arising out of a dispute over a shared driveway. The neighbor initiated the dispute, although the Defendant landed first punch.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Defendant only has duty to retreat before the use of deadly force and only when he knows he can do so with complete safety.
Continue reading “State v. Abbot”
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant fatally shot man in alley behind defendant’s house during the course of a quarrel pertaining to the victim’s attempt to take the windshield wipers off of defendant’s junked car.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. One who is the aggressor in a conflict that results in death does not have available to him the justification of self-defense.
Continue reading “United States v. Peterson”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Kelly (Defendant), stabbed to death her allegedly abusive husband. At her trial, the Defendant claimed self-defense and sought to call a psychiatric witness who would testify that she suffered from battered-woman’s syndrome.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Expert testimony on battered-woman’s syndrome is relevant to the issue of a defendant’s state of mind at the time of the murder where there is evidence of a past history of abuse.
Continue reading “State v. Kelly”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Norman (Defendant), shot her husband several times in the back of the head while he slept. The Defendant claimed perfect self-defense as a complete justification for the homicide.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Expert testimony that defendant suffered from battered-woman’s syndrome causing her to believe that her husband would inevitably kill her does not rise to the level of the imminent harm required for a defense of justifiable homicide.
Continue reading “State v. Norman”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Peterson (Defendant), fatally shot a man in an alley behind his house during the course of a quarrel pertaining to the victim’s attempt to take the windshield wipers off of the Defendant’s junked car.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The use of lethal force in self-defense is lawful where a reasonable person would have believed, the defendant actually did believe, there was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and that retreat was not an available option.
Continue reading “United States v. Peterson”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Goetz (Defendant), a passenger on a New York subway, fired his gun at a group of youths who approached him and asked him for money, believing they intended to rob him.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. New York’s defense of justification to a charge of attempted murder requires a showing that defendant reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary to protect himself. The belief must not be merely reasonable to defendant himself; rather, it must be an objectively reasonable belief
Continue reading “People v. Goetz”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendants, Elliot and five other individuals (Defendants), were convicted of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a law passed specifically to target the complex nature of organized crime.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. RICO prosecution only requires that there is evidence that conspirators each agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in advancing the purposes of a criminal enterprise by committing two or more predicate crimes.
Continue reading “United States v. Elliott”
View this case and other resources at:
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Garcia (Defendant), conspired with another individual to hire a person to killer her husband. The individual whom which she conspired was in fact a police informant who never had any intention of actually assisting the Defendant in carrying out her plans.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under Indiana law, conspiracy conviction does not require that the conspirators actually agreed to carry out the conspiracy. So long as the Defendant believes herself that there is agreement among the conspirators to carry out the conspiracy, the conviction must stand.
Continue reading “Garcia v. State”
Brief Fact Summary. In a single narcotics conspiracy prosecution, smugglers, middlemen and two groups of retailers in different cities were all grouped together. The Defendants, Bruno and various others (Defendants), maintained that the evidence showed a number of separate conspiracies as opposed to a single common conspiracy.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where one group of alleged co-conspirators has no contact with another group of alleged co-conspirators, the presence of a common conspiracy is still possible insomuch as the one group can have foreseen the participation of the other group for the criminal enterprise to be successful.
Continue reading “United States v. Bruno”
Brief Fact Summary. A man and woman were both convicted of violating the Mann Act (the Act) insomuch as they conspired together to transport an unmarried woman from one state to another for purposes of sexual intercourse.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Conspiracy between man and woman to violate the Act cannot exist because the Act does not punish a woman for acquiescing in the illicit transport for sex purposes, but only the man for transporting her. Absent involvement of the woman, the man cannot be in a conspiracy by himself and with himself alone.
Continue reading “Gebardi v. United States”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Lauria (Defendant), operated an answering service and knew that some of his customers were prostitutes who used the service to pick up calls from potential clients.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A supplier becomes part of a criminal conspiracy when, knowing that his goods are being used for unlawful purposes, there is direct evidence that he intends to participate in the furtherance of the crime, or where an inference of intent can be drawn through either (a) his special interest in the activity or (b) the aggravated nature of the crime itself.
Continue reading “People v. Lauria”
Brief Fact Summary. The Government charged the Defendants, Gus Kotteakos, Michael Lekacos and Nathan Regenbogen (Defendants), as part of a single general conspiracy to obtain loans on false pretenses, even though they had no contact or knowledge of co-conspirators and were only connected to them through their use of a common individual to secure the fraudulently-induced loans.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Defendants’ use of an individual to secure fraudulent government loans constituted a distinct conspiracy and could not be grouped as a component in a larger general conspiracy solely on account of the fact that others also used the same individual for the same purposes.
Continue reading “Kotteakos v. United States”
Brief Fact Summary. Film distributors were convicted of conspiring together with two movie theater chains to artificially control admission prices in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (the Act).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Evidence of agreement between conspirators need not be direct, but may be inferred from the acts taken by conspirators.
Continue reading “Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Alvarez (Defendant), was convicted of conspiring to transport marijuana to the United States from Columbia based on his participation in unloading the drugs from a pick-up truck prior to their being put on a United States bound airplane.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Evidence of agreement in a conspiracy may be inferred from indirect evidence such as participation in overt acts that further the conspiracy.
Continue reading “United States v. Alvarez”
Brief Fact Summary. A hearsay statement of co-conspirator was admitted at trial against the Defendant, Krulewitch (Defendant), for conspiracy to promote prostitution in violation of federal law.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Hearsay statements by a co-conspirator not made in furtherance of an objective of the conspiracy charged in the indictment are not admissible as evidence against a defendant.
Continue reading “Krulewitch v. United States”
View this case and other resources at:
Brief Fact Summary. Two brothers were convicted of violations of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The Defendant challenged his conviction for the substantive offenses on the basis that the evidence only showed he had been a party to a criminal conspiracy.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The acts of one conspirator done in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy are attributable to all co-conspirators.
Continue reading “Pinkerton v. United States”
View this case and other resources at:
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant partners were convicted of violating a law prohibiting the sale of items on credit as a result of an employee’s sale of sewing machines without the requisite down payment.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An Employer is chargeable with willfulness or guilty knowledge of employee who violates law in the course of performing his job.
Continue reading “Gordon v. United States”
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendants, a food corporation and its CEO (Defendants), were convicted of keeping food sold in interstate commerce in a rodent-infested warehouse, in violation of federal regulations.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A CEO is liable as the responsible corporate officer for violations of law committed by the corporation, which he either had the ability to prevent before the fact, or the opportunity to promptly correct after the fact.
Continue reading “United States v. Park”