Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Leonard Dimaria 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’s statement about his intent to buy “cheap” cigarettes, made upon arrest, was wrongly excluded. The court held it was admissible under the state-of-mind hearsay exception, as its credibility is a question for the jury, not the judge.
Legal Significance: Clarifies that under FRE 803(3), a defendant’s exculpatory statement of then-existing intent is admissible, and its self-serving nature or potential falsity goes to weight, not admissibility, a determination reserved for the jury.
United States v. Leonard Dimaria 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
Following the hijacking of a truckload of cigarettes, law enforcement observed the defendant, Leonard DiMaria, meeting with co-conspirators. Days later, DiMaria was arrested at a storage yard while directing the loading of cases of the stolen cigarettes from trailers into a rental van. Upon arrest, DiMaria stated to an FBI agent, “I only came here to get some cigarettes real cheap.” The defense sought to introduce this statement at trial to argue that DiMaria believed he was purchasing untaxed “bootleg” cigarettes, not stolen ones, thereby negating the requisite guilty knowledge for the charge of possessing stolen goods. The trial court excluded the statement as inadmissible hearsay, leading to DiMaria’s conviction on charges of possession of stolen goods and conspiracy.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a defendant’s contemporaneous, exculpatory statement regarding his purpose for being at a crime scene fall within the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3), even if the statement is self-serving?
Yes. The trial court erred in excluding the defendant’s statement. The statement 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
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 defendant’s contemporaneous, exculpatory statement regarding his purpose for being at a crime scene fall within the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3), even if the statement is self-serving?
Conclusion
This case establishes that the FRE 803(3) state-of-mind exception must be applied Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam
Legal Rule
A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind, such as intent, 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
Legal Analysis
The Second Circuit reasoned that DiMaria's statement—"I only came here to get 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 lab
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Issue: Whether a defendant’s exculpatory statement, “I only came here to