U.S. v. CAMPOS 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 possession with intent to distribute. The trial court granted a new trial, finding the verdict against the evidence’s weight. The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by improperly discounting substantial circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s intent.
Legal Significance: A district court abuses its discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 when it grants a new trial by substituting its own view of the evidence for the jury’s, especially when substantial circumstantial evidence supports the verdict. This power must be used sparingly to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
U.S. v. CAMPOS 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
Police searched Erick Arias Campos’s residence and found a box in his bedroom containing 50.6 grams of methamphetamine, a .38-caliber firearm, ammunition, and false identification documents bearing his name and photograph. Campos admitted possessing the drugs but claimed they were for personal use. At trial, the government presented no direct evidence of distribution but relied on circumstantial evidence: the quantity of drugs, the firearm (a known “tool of the trade”), and the false documents. Campos testified he was a user who typically bought much smaller amounts and that he purchased the large quantity for a fraction of its market value. The jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute. The district court denied Campos’s motion for acquittal under Rule 29, finding the evidence legally sufficient. However, it granted his motion for a new trial under Rule 33, concluding that the evidence weighed heavily enough against the verdict that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court abuse its discretion by granting a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the grounds that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence, when substantial circumstantial evidence supported the element of intent to distribute?
Yes. The district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial. 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 ali
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
Did the district court abuse its discretion by granting a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the grounds that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence, when substantial circumstantial evidence supported the element of intent to distribute?
Conclusion
This case clarifies the high threshold for granting a new trial under 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
Legal Rule
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, a court may grant a 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. E
Legal Analysis
The Eighth Circuit held that the district court committed a clear error 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 ipsu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A district court’s authority to grant a new trial under Fed.