United States v. Philip Berrigan, in No. 72-1938, and Elizabeth McAlister Appeal of Elizabeth McAlister In 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: Defendants were convicted of attempting to smuggle letters from prison. The court reversed most convictions, holding that since a government informant acted with the warden’s knowledge, completing the crime was legally impossible. Attempting to do what is not a crime is not a criminal attempt.
Legal Significance: This case establishes a key precedent in federal criminal law, holding that legal impossibility—where the intended act, even if completed, would not be a crime—is a valid defense to a charge of attempt, distinguishing it from factual impossibility.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Father Philip Berrigan, an inmate at a federal penitentiary, and Sister Elizabeth McAlister exchanged several letters through a fellow inmate, Boyd Douglas. The letters discussed anti-war activities, including a plot to kidnap a high-level government official. Unbeknownst to the defendants, Douglas was a government informant. The first letter (Count IV) was smuggled out before prison officials became aware of the scheme. However, for all subsequent letters (Counts V-X), Douglas acted with the full knowledge and cooperation of the prison warden. The warden’s staff intercepted, read, and copied these letters before allowing Douglas to deliver them. The defendants believed all the letters were being smuggled secretly, in violation of prison rules. They were charged and convicted of attempting to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1791, which, as implemented by 28 C.F.R. § 6.1, criminalizes sending anything from a federal prison “without the knowledge and consent of the warden.”
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a defendant be convicted of attempting to commit a crime when, due to circumstances unknown to the defendant, a required legal element of the substantive offense is absent, making the crime legally impossible to complete?
The convictions on Counts V through X are reversed. The court held 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 v
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
Can a defendant be convicted of attempting to commit a crime when, due to circumstances unknown to the defendant, a required legal element of the substantive offense is absent, making the crime legally impossible to complete?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the defense of legal impossibility in federal criminal attempt Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut e
Legal Rule
Under federal criminal law, which is purely statutory, a defendant cannot be 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the fundamental elements of the law 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The defense of discriminatory prosecution is a question of law for