Criminal Law Exam Question:
Sarah discovers Mark embezzling funds from their company.
Sarah confronts Mark and threatens to report him.
Mark offers Sarah a share of the stolen money if she remains silent.
Sarah accepts the money and keeps quiet.
Jane, unaware of Mark's actions, discovers a discrepancy and reports it.
Mark and Sarah are arrested.
Analysis:
Actus Reus:
Mark: Unauthorized taking and use of company funds.
Sarah: Acceptance of stolen money and agreement to remain silent.
Mens Rea:
Mark: Intent to permanently deprive the company of its money.
Sarah: Intention to benefit from the crime and conceal it.
Concurrence:
Mark: Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea.
Sarah: Agreement to the deal and acceptance of money.
Principal, Accomplice, or Accessory:
Mark: Principal in the embezzlement.
Sarah: Accomplice after the fact and accessory after the fact.
Causation and Harm:
Mark: Direct causation of financial loss to the company.
Sarah: Indirect perpetuation of harm by concealing the crime.
Conclusion:
Mark is criminally liable for embezzlement.
Sarah is criminally liable as an accomplice and accessory after the fact.
The principles of actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, and parties to a crime apply.
Civil Procedure Law Exam Question:
Sarah files a lawsuit in California against John (Nevada resident) and XYZ Corp. (incorporated in Delaware, principal place of business in California).
Sarah seeks $150,000 for breach of contract and a federal civil rights violation.
John and XYZ Corp. want to remove the case to federal court.
Analysis:
Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
Federal question jurisdiction over civil rights claim.
Potential supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim.
Diversity Jurisdiction:
Lack of complete diversity due to XYZ Corp. being a California citizen.
Removal:
Removal not proper based on diversity jurisdiction.
Supplemental Jurisdiction:
Federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Remand:
Federal court may remand the state law claim.
Conclusion:
Federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim.
Diversity jurisdiction is lacking.
Case can be partially removed, with the state claim potentially remanded.
Weitere Episoden von „Law School“
Verpasse keine Episode von “Law School” und abonniere ihn in der kostenlosen GetPodcast App.