Morissette v. United States Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
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 man took spent bomb casings from a government range, believing they were abandoned. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction for “knowing conversion,” holding that the trial court improperly eliminated the essential element of criminal intent from the jury’s consideration.
Legal Significance: This case established the foundational principle that unless Congress explicitly states otherwise, federal statutes codifying common-law crimes are presumed to include the traditional common-law requirement of criminal intent (mens rea).
Morissette v. United States 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
The defendant, Morissette, was a scrap iron collector who went deer hunting on a government practice bombing range. To offset his expenses, he openly collected three tons of spent bomb casings that were rusting in exposed piles. He believed the casings were abandoned. Morissette was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 641, which criminalizes one who “knowingly converts” government property. At trial, Morissette testified that he believed the property was abandoned and had no wrongful or criminal intent. The trial court refused to submit the question of intent to the jury, ruling that Morissette’s belief was not a defense. The court instructed the jury that the only necessary intent was the intent to take the property, which Morissette admitted, and that criminal intent was presumed from the act of taking itself. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute created a strict liability public welfare offense that did not require proof of criminal intent.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a federal statute that codifies a common law larceny-type offense but is silent on the element of specific criminal intent thereby eliminate the traditional mens rea requirement for that crime?
Reversed. The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 641 requires proof of 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 a federal statute that codifies a common law larceny-type offense but is silent on the element of specific criminal intent thereby eliminate the traditional mens rea requirement for that crime?
Conclusion
This case is a cornerstone of American criminal law, establishing a strong 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 n
Legal Rule
When a federal statute is silent on the mental element required for 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 labo
Legal Analysis
Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, established a crucial distinction between two 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 nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- When a federal statute codifies a common-law crime, courts will read