ES2: The Legal Breakdown (Law school style questions and model answers)

Criminal Law Exam Question: Sarah discovers Mark embezzling funds from their company. Sarah confronts Mark and threatens to report him. Mark offers Sarah a share of the stolen money if she remains silent. Sarah accepts the money and keeps quiet. Jane, unaware of Mark's actions, discovers a discrepancy and reports it. Mark and Sarah are arrested. Analysis: Actus Reus: Mark: Unauthorized taking and use of company funds. Sarah: Acceptance of stolen money and agreement to remain silent. Mens Rea: Mark: Intent to permanently deprive the company of its money. Sarah: Intention to benefit from the crime and conceal it. Concurrence: Mark: Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea. Sarah: Agreement to the deal and acceptance of money. Principal, Accomplice, or Accessory: Mark: Principal in the embezzlement. Sarah: Accomplice after the fact and accessory after the fact. Causation and Harm: Mark: Direct causation of financial loss to the company. Sarah: Indirect perpetuation of harm by concealing the crime. Conclusion: Mark is criminally liable for embezzlement. Sarah is criminally liable as an accomplice and accessory after the fact. The principles of actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, and parties to a crime apply. Civil Procedure Law Exam Question: Sarah files a lawsuit in California against John (Nevada resident) and XYZ Corp. (incorporated in Delaware, principal place of business in California). Sarah seeks $150,000 for breach of contract and a federal civil rights violation. John and XYZ Corp. want to remove the case to federal court. Analysis: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Federal question jurisdiction over civil rights claim. Potential supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim. Diversity Jurisdiction: Lack of complete diversity due to XYZ Corp. being a California citizen. Removal: Removal not proper based on diversity jurisdiction. Supplemental Jurisdiction: Federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Remand: Federal court may remand the state law claim. Conclusion: Federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim. Diversity jurisdiction is lacking. Case can be partially removed, with the state claim potentially remanded.