Common Law Bilateral Rule Applies In Mpc
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- CRIMINAL1
Example wrong choices
14691_church-keyboard-heist · CRIMINAL · Choice AYes, because a conspiracy requires two guilty participants.
Why it's attractive
The call asks whether Martha's motion should be granted. A says yes because conspiracy requires two guilty participants. But under the MPC, Martha's guilt turns on her own agreement — not on whether Stephen is convicted. A's rule is not the law in an MPC jurisdiction.
Why it's wrong
The call asks whether Martha's motion should be granted. A says yes because conspiracy requires two guilty participants. But under the MPC, Martha's guilt turns on her own agreement — not on whether Stephen is convicted. A's rule is not the law in an MPC jurisdiction.
14691_church-keyboard-heist · CRIMINAL · Choice BYes, because but for Stephen's conduct, no conspiracy would have occurred.
Why it's attractive
B says Martha's motion should be granted because but for Stephen's conduct there would be no conspiracy. But the call is about whether Martha can be convicted of conspiracy — not about whether Stephen caused the conspiracy. Martha's own agreement is what makes her guilty. B answers a different question.
Why it's wrong
B says Martha's motion should be granted because but for Stephen's conduct there would be no conspiracy. But the call is about whether Martha can be convicted of conspiracy — not about whether Stephen caused the conspiracy. Martha's own agreement is what makes her guilty. B answers a different question.
14691_church-keyboard-heist · CRIMINAL · Choice DNo, because Martha was not aware of Stephen's status.
Why it's attractive
D says Martha's motion should be denied because she was not aware of Stephen's status. But awareness of Stephen's status is not an element of conspiracy under the MPC. What matters is whether Martha agreed to commit theft — and she did. D raises a non-issue.
Why it's wrong
D says Martha's motion should be denied because she was not aware of Stephen's status. But awareness of Stephen's status is not an element of conspiracy under the MPC. What matters is whether Martha agreed to commit theft — and she did. D raises a non-issue.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →