Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Wilford R. Gibson 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 corporate officer was convicted of fraud after the court admitted testimony about his salesmen’s misrepresentations. The court held the statements were not hearsay because they were offered to prove the existence of the fraudulent scheme, not for their truth.
Legal Significance: In a fraud prosecution, statements by agents are admissible against a corporate officer if the officer authorized or ratified the fraudulent sales program, even if the agents were not knowing participants in the scheme.
United States v. Wilford R. Gibson 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
Defendant Wilford R. Gibson was the president and sole stockholder of Gibson Marketing International, Inc. (GMI), a company that sold fast-food franchises. GMI induced investors to travel to its Arizona headquarters and purchase expensive “area distributorships” by making numerous promises regarding business services, including personnel training, advertising, site location, and purchasing accounts. These promises were largely unfulfilled. For example, GMI approved an underwater swamp as a suitable restaurant location and provided only a three-day training program. Evidence showed Gibson used substantial corporate funds for personal gambling and instructed employees to give false information to complaining investors. At trial for mail fraud, wire fraud, and inducing interstate travel for fraud, the government introduced testimony from investors detailing the misrepresentations made to them by GMI salesmen. Gibson objected, arguing the salesmen’s statements were inadmissible hearsay as to him and that their admission violated his Confrontation Clause rights.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a criminal prosecution of a corporate officer for a fraudulent scheme, are out-of-court statements made by the company’s salesmen to investors admissible against the officer to prove the existence of the scheme and the officer’s knowing participation?
Yes. The salesmen’s statements were properly admitted. The statements were not hearsay 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 par
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
In a criminal prosecution of a corporate officer for a fraudulent scheme, are out-of-court statements made by the company’s salesmen to investors admissible against the officer to prove the existence of the scheme and the officer’s knowing participation?
Conclusion
This case establishes that in a complex fraud prosecution, statements by non-conspirator 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
Legal Rule
Out-of-court statements are not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) when 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 occae
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in two steps. First, it determined that 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Statements by employees in a fraud prosecution are not hearsay if