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

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.