Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Arrington, Derrek 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: The D.C. Circuit affirmed Arrington’s conviction for assaulting federal officers with a dangerous weapon (a car), clarifying the intent required under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) for non-inherently dangerous objects.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) does not require proof that a defendant specifically intended to use an object as a weapon, only that they intentionally used the object in a manner that made it dangerous.
United States v. Arrington, Derrek 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
Defendant Derrek Arrington was stopped by U.S. Park Police officers for a missing front license plate. Officers observed suspected drug paraphernalia. When asked to exit his vehicle, Arrington instead reached for the gear shift. As officers reached in to restrain him and turn off the ignition, Arrington accelerated, dragging one officer (Daniels) at least 50 feet. A high-speed chase ensued, ending when Arrington crashed and fled on foot. During a subsequent struggle, Officer Daniels was shot. Arrington testified he drove off because he felt threatened and denied physical contact with officers before accelerating, claiming the gun discharged accidentally. He was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b) for using a dangerous weapon (his car) to forcibly assault, resist, or interfere with federal officers. He appealed, challenging the jury instructions regarding the elements of § 111(b) and the sufficiency of the evidence for the § 111(b) conviction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) for using a dangerous weapon (an automobile) require the government to prove that the defendant specifically intended to use the object as a weapon, beyond intending to use the object and using it in a dangerous manner?
Affirmed. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) does not require 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
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
Does a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) for using a dangerous weapon (an automobile) require the government to prove that the defendant specifically intended to use the object as a weapon, beyond intending to use the object and using it in a dangerous manner?
Conclusion
This case reinforces a broad interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(b), particularly 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 e
Legal Rule
To violate 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), a defendant must (1) forcibly; (2) 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
Legal Analysis
The court rejected Arrington's argument that for an object not inherently dangerous, 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. 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 eius
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.