Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Constitutional Law Keyed to Feldman

View this case in different Casebooks

Constitutional Law Keyed to Levinson Constitutional Law Keyed to Shanor Constitutional Law Keyed to Choper Constitutional Law Keyed to Varat Constitutional Law Keyed to Chemerinsky Constitutional Law Keyed to Stone Constitutional Law Keyed to Farber Constitutional Law Keyed to Gershman Constitutional Law Keyed to Maggs Constitutional Law Keyed to Barnett Criminal Law Keyed to Abrams Constitutional Law Keyed to Barnett

McDonald v. City of Chicago

Citation:

561 U.S. 742 (2010)

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

The Court in Heller held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and the District of Columbia’s law that banned the possession of handguns in the home was held unconstitutional. Chicago had a similar law to that of Columbia and argued that its laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application the States.

Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*

Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.

*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue

The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - Which formulation most precisely captures the Malone court’s conception of “implied malice” as a culpability proxy without intent to kill?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Malice is satisfied whenever lethal harm ensues from an unlawful act, regardless of the actor’s appreciation of risk.

Incorrect. This is wrong because outcome alone is insufficient; the court insisted on conscious risk creation.

(B) Malice is inferred from conduct evidencing a conscious embrace of a gravely unjustifiable risk to human life, such that the law treats the indifference as functionally equivalent to homicidal purpose.

Correct! Malone treats deliberate engagement with an egregious, unjustifiable risk as evidencing a depraved indifference that the law deems equivalent to malice aforethought. This allows murder liability without purpose to kill when the actor’s indifference to lethal risk is extreme.

(C) Malice requires proof that the actor believed death was more likely than not, even if he hoped to avoid it.

Incorrect. This is wrong because “more likely than not” certainty is not required; grave, consciously disregarded risk suffices.

(D) Malice attaches only upon proof of express animus or a specific homicidal aim.

Incorrect. This is wrong because express animus is unnecessary for implied malice.

Q.2 - Assume the victim verbally consented to “Russian Poker,” urged the defendant on, and both participants alternated handling the loaded revolver before the fatal shot. Under Malone’s logic, which conclusion most accurately states the legal effect of the victim’s participation?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The victim’s consent transforms the episode into mutual combat, precluding a murder conviction and capping liability at manslaughter.

Incorrect. This is wrong because Malone does not reclassify such conduct as mutual combat to cap culpability.

(B) The victim’s participation negates foreseeability, thereby defeating the malice element.

Incorrect. This is wrong because consent does not erase foreseeability of death from a loaded gun at contact range.

(C) The bilateral risk-taking renders culpability symmetrical and thus bars criminal liability altogether.

Incorrect. This is wrong because symmetry of risk does not eliminate individual criminal liability.

(D) Consent does not negate implied malice where the defendant’s acts manifest a wicked indifference to life; the creation of an extreme, unjustifiable risk to another remains murder-grade culpability.

Correct! The court’s rationale rejects consent as a negation of malice where the defendant’s conduct exhibits wicked disregard for life; the legal wrong is the creation of a lethal, unjustifiable risk to another. Participation by the victim does not dissolve the actor’s malice when the risk is extreme and consciously embraced.

Q.3 - Viewed through a Model Penal Code lens, what is the most defensible doctrinal translation of Malone’s result?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The facts instantiate “recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” (§210.2(1)(b)), elevating the killing to murder despite the absence of purpose or knowledge.

Correct! Under the MPC, pointing a loaded gun at a person and repeatedly pulling the trigger exemplifies recklessness so grave that it manifests extreme indifference, satisfying murder under §210.2(1)(b). The absence of purpose or knowledge is immaterial where the actor consciously courts lethal risk.

(B) The case is best classified as negligent homicide (§210.4) because the defendant miscalculated risk rather than consciously embraced it.

Incorrect. This is wrong because negligence involves failure to perceive risk, whereas Malone involves conscious engagement with it.

(C) The opinion is incompatible with the MPC because it imposes strict liability whenever firearms are involved.

Incorrect. This is wrong because neither Malone nor the MPC imposes strict liability for firearm use.

(D) The conduct fits only manslaughter (§210.3) since the actor lacked a purpose to kill and believed the gun likely would not fire.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the MPC elevates recklessness of this magnitude to murder, not mere manslaughter.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

Topic Videos

McDonald v. City of Chicago

2m 6s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

McDonald v. City of Chicago

4m 27s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Outline

State Power (Federalism)

Topic Refresher Course

Substantive Due Process

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

McDonald v. City of Chicago