Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Yermian 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 defense contractor employee lied on a security clearance form. The Supreme Court held that for a conviction of making false statements to the government, the prosecution did not need to prove he knew the form was going to a federal agency.
Legal Significance: Establishes that for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the mens rea of “knowingly and willfully” applies only to the falsity of the statement, not to the jurisdictional element of federal agency involvement.
United States v. Yermian 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 Esmail Yermian was hired by Gulton Industries, a defense contractor, for a position requiring a Department of Defense security clearance. On a security questionnaire worksheet provided by his employer, Yermian knowingly made false statements, concealing a prior mail fraud conviction and fabricating his employment history. These false statements were then typed onto an official “Department of Defense Personnel Security Questionnaire.” Yermian signed the official form, which included a certification that his answers were true and that he understood false statements could subject him to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Gulton Industries then mailed the form to the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office. At trial for violating § 1001, Yermian admitted he knew the statements were false but argued as his sole defense that he lacked actual knowledge that the questionnaire would be transmitted to a federal agency. The district court instructed the jury that the government must prove Yermian “knew or should have known” the information was for a government agency. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that proof of actual knowledge was required.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a conviction for making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 require the prosecution to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge that the statements were made in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency?
No. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding 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 i
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 conviction for making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 require the prosecution to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge that the statements were made in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the principle in federal criminal law that jurisdictional elements 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 es
Legal Rule
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the government must prove that the defendant 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
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis was grounded in statutory interpretation. Examining the plain language 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, cons
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 does not require the