Law School podcast

ES2: The Legal Breakdown (Law school style questions and model answers)

5/7/2024
0:00
12:51
Manda indietro di 15 secondi
Manda avanti di 15 secondi

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.

--- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Altri episodi di "Law School"