Michael's J.D. combined with his history training means he can trace doctrines like felony murder and the evolution of mens rea standards back to their common law origins, giving students a richer understanding of why modern criminal statutes are structured the way they are. He also teaches across contract law and constitutional history, so when a criminal law question touches on due process or statutory construction, he can connect those threads quickly. His background in essay writing and argumentation carries over directly to building tight exam analyses under time pressure.

Michelle's biology training — particularly in neuroscience and anatomy — gives her a useful foothold in criminal law topics where science and legal doctrine collide, like evaluating competency questions or understanding how forensic evidence gets introduced and challenged in court. She's not a law school graduate, but her analytical rigor and 4.9 rating show she can break down complex material clearly, including walking students through how to isolate statutory elements and apply them to fact patterns.

Graduating magna cum laude and in the top ten percent of his class at Notre Dame Law School, James now practices law in Atlanta — meaning he teaches criminal law doctrines like homicide classifications, inchoate offenses, and defenses with the precision of someone who actually applies them. His English literature training at Northwestern sharpens how he breaks down judicial opinions, showing students how to extract the holding and reasoning that matter most when constructing exam answers. Rated 5.0 by students.

Between Cornell Law and a year at the Sorbonne studying comparative and international law, Trace developed a cross-jurisdictional perspective on criminal doctrine that most tutors can't offer — he can explain why American common law treats accomplice liability or felony murder differently than civil law systems do, and what that reveals about the policy choices embedded in each rule. His direct experience in criminal law practice, combined with trial advocacy training, means he teaches students to build case analyses the way litigators actually think through them.

Holding a PhD in Law and Management alongside a molecular biology background, Andrew brings an unusual analytical rigor to criminal law — he treats statutory elements and mens rea distinctions the way a scientist treats variables, isolating each component of an offense before assembling the full picture. That cross-disciplinary precision makes him especially effective at teaching students to dissect complex fact patterns and build structured legal arguments. Rated 4.8 by students.

Philosophy and psychology coursework gave Kenna a framework for thinking through the moral and behavioral questions that sit at the center of criminal law — why the law distinguishes levels of intent, how defenses like duress or necessity reflect competing ethical principles, and what culpability really means. She pairs that conceptual depth with strong writing and analytical skills honed across years of essay work, making her especially effective at teaching students to construct clean, well-reasoned legal arguments.

Studying criminology and psychology at Penn State with plans to work alongside law enforcement as a clinical psychologist, Kayla brings real academic grounding to criminal law concepts like mens rea, degrees of criminal liability, and the intersection of mental health with legal defenses. She unpacks case law and statutory interpretation in ways that connect theory to how the justice system actually operates.

Peter earned his Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School and brings real courtroom fluency to criminal law concepts like mens rea, Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure doctrine, and the Model Penal Code framework. He breaks down case holdings into the reasoning steps behind them, which makes outlining and exam prep far more efficient.

Arianna's neuroscience training gives her a distinctive angle on criminal law's trickiest territory — intent. Questions about mens rea, diminished capacity, and insanity defenses become more concrete when you understand the brain science behind volition and decision-making. She connects that scientific grounding to legal frameworks so students can analyze culpability questions with more depth than pure memorization allows.

A PhD in Law gives John the doctrinal depth to break down criminal law concepts like mens rea, actus reus, and the Model Penal Code's approach to inchoate offenses. He walks through case analysis the way law professors expect it — spotting issues, applying rules, and building arguments that hold up under scrutiny. Rated 5.0 by students.

As an Emory law graduate, Jenna knows criminal law from the inside — mens rea distinctions, Model Penal Code frameworks, inchoate offenses, and the nuances of homicide classifications that trip up first-year students. She breaks down case analysis by teaching students to isolate the rule, apply it to facts, and anticipate counterarguments in their exam answers.

From mens rea distinctions to the Model Penal Code's approach to homicide classifications, criminal law is full of overlapping doctrines that trip up first-year students. Gabrielle pairs her JD with an undergraduate degree in criminal justice, giving her a dual lens on topics like inchoate offenses, affirmative defenses, and accomplice liability. She unpacks case holdings by connecting them to the broader policy rationales professors love to test on exams.