Connection lost
Server error
UNITED STATES v. FEOLA 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: Defendants planned to rob drug buyers who were actually undercover federal agents. The Court held that neither the substantive crime of assaulting a federal officer nor the conspiracy to do so requires knowledge that the victim is a federal officer.
Legal Significance: Establishes that for conspiracy to commit a federal offense, the government need only prove the level of mens rea required for the underlying substantive crime, rejecting any requirement of specific “anti-federal” intent.
UNITED STATES v. FEOLA 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
Respondent Feola and his co-conspirators devised a plan to sell sugar instead of heroin to prospective buyers. Their plan included using force to rob the buyers of their cash if the initial ruse failed. The intended buyers were, unbeknownst to Feola’s group, undercover federal narcotics agents. When one agent became suspicious, the conspirators’ attempt to assault and rob the agents was thwarted. Feola and the others were subsequently charged with, and convicted of, both assaulting federal officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 and conspiracy to commit that offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The trial court instructed the jury that knowledge of the victims’ federal status was not required for conviction on either count. The Court of Appeals affirmed the substantive conviction but reversed the conspiracy conviction, holding that it required proof of scienter regarding the victim’s official status, creating a circuit split.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Must the government prove that a defendant knew his intended victim was a federal officer to secure a conviction for conspiracy to assault a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 371?
No. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals. A conviction for conspiracy 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 fug
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
Must the government prove that a defendant knew his intended victim was a federal officer to secure a conviction for conspiracy to assault a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 371?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the principle that conspiratorial liability generally 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
Legal Rule
To sustain a conviction for conspiracy to violate a federal statute under 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
Legal Analysis
The Court began its analysis by establishing the mens rea for the 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.