In reading United States v. Langley, consider the following questions:

1. What was the defendant charged with in this case?

2. What are the key facts?

3. Was there a trial? What was the result? What action of the judge is being challenged here?

4. What is the key issue being addressed in this case?

5. Is there a state of mind in this statute? If so, where is it found? What does the prosecution argue with regard to state of mind? The defense? What did the trial court decide?

6. Is the federal court analysis consistent with Washington? Explain.

7. Is the issue here the same as in X-Citement Video? If not, how is it different? Does the court reach the same result? Why or why not?

8. What is the key presumption involving statutory interpretation relied on by the majority? By Judge Phillips? Which do you think is more appropriate in this case and why?

9. Why does Justice Phillips concur and dissent? Is it that he just can’t make up his mind? Explain.

10. On what additional rules or principles of statutory interpretation/construction does the court rely? The dissent?

11. How does the majority distinguish Staples and X-Citement Video? Are these distinctions persuasive? How dies Judge Phillips use these cases? What do you think of his analysis?

12. What is the difference between knowledge of a "raw fact" and knowledge of a "legal implication"? Why does it matter? Are you persuaded it should?

13. Which discussion of legislative history do you fine more persuasive?

14. Write a jury instruction for the dissent’s interpretation of the statute.

15. Why is there no state of mind for the interstate commerce element?

16. Have you learned any new rules from this case regarding the interpretation of criminal statutes with regard to mens rea requirements? If so, what are they?

17. Note at least two additional things from the case (not already asked for) that you believe are important or confusing. Why do you think they matter?