United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
486 F.2d 1139 (1973)
Moore (defendant) was convicted for possession of heroin. At trial, the prosecution conceded that Moore was an addict. There was conflicting evidence as to whether he was engaged in the trafficking of heroin. The trial court refused to permit defendant’s expert witness to testify on the nature of Moore’s heroin addiction and declined to instruct the jury that a non-trafficking heroin addict could not be convicted under the law. Moore was found guilty and appealed, arguing the conviction was improper because of his inability to control himself and refrain from using heroin.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkey, J.)
Concurrence (Leventhal, J.)
Dissent (Wright, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 236,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.