Connection lost
Server error
Roy v. United States Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An accomplice who intended to aid an illegal gun sale cannot be convicted of an armed robbery committed by the principal, as the robbery was not a “natural and probable consequence” of the planned sale. The court reversed the accomplice’s robbery conviction.
Legal Significance: This case significantly narrows the “natural and probable consequences” doctrine of accomplice liability, requiring more than mere foreseeability and distinguishing between the intended crime and a “qualitatively different” offense committed by the principal.
Roy v. United States Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Nakia Roy arranged for an informant, Peppi Miller, to purchase an illegal handgun from his associate, Steve Ross. Roy negotiated the price and directed Miller to a schoolyard to complete the transaction with Ross. Roy remained nearby but was not present for the exchange. In the schoolyard, Ross initially handed the gun to Miller, then took it back, pointed it at Miller, and robbed him of the purchase money. At trial, the government argued Roy was guilty of armed robbery as an accomplice, proceeding on two theories: (1) that Roy intentionally participated in the robbery, and (2) that the robbery was a “natural and probable consequence” of the illegal gun sale he did intend to facilitate. Roy was convicted of armed robbery, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence (PFCV), and carrying a pistol without a license (CPWOL). He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the robbery and PFCV convictions.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can an accomplice be convicted of armed robbery under the “natural andprobable consequences” doctrine when he intended to aid and abet an illegal gun sale, but the principal unexpectedly committed a robbery instead?
No. The evidence was insufficient to convict Roy of armed robbery and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can an accomplice be convicted of armed robbery under the “natural andprobable consequences” doctrine when he intended to aid and abet an illegal gun sale, but the principal unexpectedly committed a robbery instead?
Conclusion
The case establishes a key limitation on the "natural and probable consequences" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Legal Rule
An accomplice is liable for a crime committed by the principal, even Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commo
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed Roy's accomplice liability under two distinct theories. First, it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excep
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Evidence was insufficient to convict a defendant of armed robbery as