EX PARTE WASHINGTON Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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 was convicted of trafficking cocaine. He argued the state must prove he knew the drugs weighed over the statutory minimum. The Alabama Supreme Court held that knowledge of the specific quantity is not an element of the crime; only knowledge of possession is required.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that under Alabama’s drug trafficking statute, the quantity of a controlled substance is a strict liability element. The mens rea of “knowingly” applies only to the possession of the substance, not to its specific weight.
EX PARTE WASHINGTON 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
Stanley Frieson Washington was indicted and convicted by a jury for trafficking in cocaine in violation of § 13A-12-231(2), Ala. Code 1975. The statute criminalizes any person who “knowingly sells, manufactures, delivers or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine.” At trial, Washington requested a jury instruction that would have required the State to prove he knew the quantity of cocaine he possessed was 28 grams or more. The trial court refused to give the requested instruction. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the State is not required to prove the defendant’s knowledge of the drug’s weight. The Supreme Court of Alabama granted certiorari to resolve the issue of statutory interpretation regarding the mens rea element of the trafficking offense.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the mens rea requirement of “knowingly” in Alabama’s drug trafficking statute, § 13A-12-231(2), apply to the quantity of the controlled substance, thereby requiring the State to prove the defendant knew the substance weighed 28 grams or more?
No. The court held that the mens rea of “knowingly” modifies only 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 fu
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the mens rea requirement of “knowingly” in Alabama’s drug trafficking statute, § 13A-12-231(2), apply to the quantity of the controlled substance, thereby requiring the State to prove the defendant knew the substance weighed 28 grams or more?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the majority view that in drug trafficking prosecutions, 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 i
Legal Rule
Under § 13A-12-231(2), Ala. Code 1975, the State must prove 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 nostr
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that 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 te
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The State is not required to prove a defendant knew the