Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Patricia Lynn Opager 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 claimed entrapment in a drug case. The court reversed her conviction because the trial judge wrongly excluded business records offered to disprove a key government witness’s testimony, holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) does not bar such evidence.
Legal Significance: Establishes that Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) does not bar extrinsic evidence used to contradict a witness’s testimony on a material issue. Such evidence is offered for substantive impeachment by contradiction, not merely to attack the witness’s general character for truthfulness.
United States v. Patricia Lynn Opager 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
Patricia Opager was convicted of possessing and distributing cocaine. At trial, she asserted an entrapment defense, arguing she was pressured into the sale by a government informant, Phillip Posner. To rebut this defense by showing Opager’s predisposition, the prosecution called Posner, who testified that he had observed Opager engage in cocaine transactions in 1974 while they were co-workers at a beauty salon. To impeach this specific testimony, the defense sought to introduce the salon’s business records, including payroll documents and appointment books. The defense contended these records would prove that Opager and Posner did not, in fact, work together in 1974, thereby making it impossible for Posner to have witnessed the events he described. The district court excluded the records, ruling they constituted inadmissible extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of conduct offered to attack a witness’s credibility under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 608(b). The government had also defied a court order to disclose Posner’s whereabouts to the defense before trial, preventing a pre-trial interview that might have revealed the nature of his testimony.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) prohibit the admission of extrinsic evidence that is offered not to attack a witness’s general character for truthfulness, but to contradict and disprove the witness’s testimony regarding a specific fact material to the case?
No, the trial court erred in excluding the business records. The court 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
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 Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) prohibit the admission of extrinsic evidence that is offered not to attack a witness’s general character for truthfulness, but to contradict and disprove the witness’s testimony regarding a specific fact material to the case?
Conclusion
This case clarifies the scope of FRE 608(b), establishing the critical principle 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 l
Legal Rule
Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) is inapplicable to the admission of relevant 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
Legal Analysis
The Fifth Circuit distinguished between two methods of impeachment. The first, governed 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- F.R.E. 608(b) does not bar extrinsic evidence used to contradict a