Graham v. United States 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: An attorney told his client he needed money to bribe police. The client paid, but the attorney kept the funds. The court affirmed the attorney’s larceny conviction, finding he fraudulently obtained possession for a specific purpose, not title to the money.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the distinction between larceny by trick and false pretenses, holding that when money is given to an agent for a specific purpose (even an illegal one), the victim retains title, and the agent’s conversion constitutes larceny.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The complaining witness, Francisco Gal, an immigrant with limited English proficiency, hired the appellant, an attorney named Graham, after an arrest for disorderly conduct. Gal was concerned the arrest would impede his application for U.S. citizenship. Gal testified that Graham told him he needed $2,000 to bribe the police, in addition to a $200 legal fee, stating “money is talk.” Gal subsequently paid Graham a total of $2,100. Graham met with the arresting officer, who then assured Gal he was not in any trouble. The officer testified that Graham never offered or gave him any money. Graham admitted keeping the entire sum but contended it was his legal fee for services. He denied ever mentioning a bribe. Graham was indicted and convicted of grand larceny under the D.C. Code and appealed, arguing that Gal had voluntarily transferred complete title to the money, precluding a larceny conviction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an individual commit larceny by trick when they fraudulently obtain money from another by representing it will be used for a specific purpose, such as a bribe, but intend from the outset to convert the money to their own use?
Yes. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient 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
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 an individual commit larceny by trick when they fraudulently obtain money from another by representing it will be used for a specific purpose, such as a bribe, but intend from the outset to convert the money to their own use?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear application of the elements of larceny by 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 ullamc
Legal Rule
One who obtains money from another upon the representation that he will 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 consequa
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the common law distinction between larceny by 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 ad
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Larceny by trick occurs when a defendant fraudulently obtains possession of