Connection lost
Server error
UNITED STATES v. GIRARD 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 DEA agent and a former agent were convicted for selling confidential agency records. The court held that intangible information from a government computer system constitutes a “thing of value” under the federal theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 641.
Legal Significance: This case established that intangible property, specifically confidential government information, is a “thing of value” subject to theft and conversion under 18 U.S.C. § 641. This expanded the statute’s application beyond tangible goods to include valuable data and information.
UNITED STATES v. GIRARD 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
Appellant Girard, a former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent, conspired with appellant Lambert, a current DEA agent, to sell confidential information from the DEA’s computerized records. Girard offered to sell DEA reports to an individual named Bond, who was secretly a government informant. The DEA provided Bond with four names to request from Girard. To identify the inside source, the DEA monitored its computer system for access to these specific names. The monitoring revealed that Lambert accessed the records using a DEA computer terminal and provided the information to Girard. Girard and Lambert were subsequently charged with, and convicted of, conspiracy and the unauthorized sale of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. On appeal, the appellants argued that § 641 applies only to tangible property or documents, not to the sale of intangible information.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does confidential, intangible information stored in a government computer system constitute a “record… or thing of value” that can be unlawfully sold or converted under 18 U.S.C. § 641?
Yes. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that confidential information from 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 exercitati
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 confidential, intangible information stored in a government computer system constitute a “record… or thing of value” that can be unlawfully sold or converted under 18 U.S.C. § 641?
Conclusion
This decision solidified the principle that federal theft statutes apply to intangible Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad min
Legal Rule
The phrase "thing of value" in 18 U.S.C. § 641 is broadly 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 reprehender
Legal Analysis
The Second Circuit rejected the appellants' narrow interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 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 si
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: The unauthorized sale of intangible confidential government information from a