Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Dupre 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: A defendant charged with wire fraud sought to introduce expert psychological testimony that her religious delusions, stemming from Bipolar Disorder, prevented her from forming the intent to defraud. The court excluded the evidence, finding its potential to confuse the jury outweighed its probative value.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that while the Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) does not bar mental health evidence to negate mens rea, such evidence is still subject to strict scrutiny under the Federal Rules of Evidence and may be excluded if it resembles a prohibited volitional defense.
United States v. Dupre 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
Roberta Dupre was indicted for wire fraud and conspiracy for a scheme inducing investors to pay “advance fees” to release fictitious funds of former Filipino president Ferdinand Marcos. Dupre claimed she acted in good faith, believing she was guided by God. After the deadline for pretrial motions, Dupre gave notice of her intent to introduce expert testimony from a clinical psychologist. The psychologist’s report diagnosed Dupre with Bipolar Disorder with Psychotic Features and a personality disorder. The report concluded that these conditions caused Dupre to misperceive reality, particularly regarding the investment project, and that her “intense, pervasive religious beliefs” interfered with her ability to see the project realistically. The report noted that Dupre believed she was “led by the Lord” and specially selected by God for the project. However, it also stated that Dupre was of above-average intelligence, “clearly capable of good judgment,” and that her difficulties with reality testing were not pervasive. The government filed a motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is expert psychological testimony regarding a defendant’s mental disease admissible to negate the specific intent element of wire fraud, or must it be excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury or introducing an impermissible volitional defense?
The court granted the government’s motion to exclude the defendant’s proffered expert 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
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
Is expert psychological testimony regarding a defendant’s mental disease admissible to negate the specific intent element of wire fraud, or must it be excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury or introducing an impermissible volitional defense?
Conclusion
The case serves as a key example of how trial courts act 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 com
Legal Rule
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA), 18 U.S.C. § 17, 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
Legal Analysis
The court conducted a two-part analysis. First, it determined that the Insanity 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 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 si
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) does not bar defendants from