Duress is a defense against criminal charges. It is raised when the defendant alleges that they were forced to commit a crime. The common law approach to duress-as opposed to the MPC approach-has three requirements:
1. The threatened injury must induce a fear that an ordinary man would yield to.
2. The impending danger must be imminent.
3. The threat must be of death or serious bodily injury.
Additionally, duress can be raised if the threat was directed at a loved one. However, duress is not a valid defense against homicide.
State v. Toscano (1977, New Jersey)
Facts
Toscano was a chiropractor who was pressured to defraud an insurance company. Toscano was ordered to falsify documents, or else he and his wife would be harmed. He complied, and did not make financial gains from the insurance fraud.
The jury was never given an instruction on duress, because the trial judge did not feel danger was imminent. Toscano was found guilty of insurance fraud.
Question
Should the jury have received instructions on duress?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
The New Jersey Supreme Court tossed out the common law approach, and adopted the MPC approach instead. Under the MPC, the threat of danger need not be imminent.
And the winner is...
Toscano, sort of. The case was sent back for retrial, this time with the proper jury instruction.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Showing posts with label Criminal Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criminal Law. Show all posts
Monday, April 20, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Accomplice liability is the legal theory used to charge people with aiding and abetting. The accomplice can be charged as a principle even through they didn't physically commit the crime. So if you aid the Hamburglar, you can also be charged with hamburglary.
Accomplice liability usually requires a purposefully mens rea, although some jurisdictions use knowingly for serious crimes like rape and murder. You cannot recklessly/negligently aid and abet.
Hicks v. United States (1893)
Facts
Hicks and Culvert were sitting on horses when Row walked up. Row raised his rifle twice and each time pointed it at Culvert. Hicks said, "Take off your hat and die like a man." Hicks was also taking off his own hat and laughing. Row shot and killed Culvert. Hicks and Row rode off together.
Hicks was indicted for murder under accomplice liability. A jury instruction expressed that Hicks was guilty if his actions encouraged Row to shoot Culvert. Hicks argued that he feared for his own life, and was only trying to diffuse the situation with humor.
Question
Was this jury instruction correct?
Holding
No
Reasoning
The instruction should have added that the defendant had to intend to encourage the killing.
And the winner is...
The case was sent back for retrial.
State v. Gladstone (1980, Washington)
Facts
An undercover agent was trying to buy pot from Gladstone. Gladstone wasn't holding, but he drew the agent a map to another dealer. The agent went and bought pot. Gladstone was charged with aiding and abetting the other dealer in selling drugs.
Question
Was there intent to sell drugs?
Holding
No
Reasoning
Gladstone was knowing, but not purposeful. The state did not produce evidence that Gladstone cared whether there was a drug deal. His alleged ambivalence set him free. Plus, that's just good customer service.
People v. Luparello (1987, California)
Facts
Luparello was jealous because his former lover married someone else. He thought he could locate the couple through an acquaintance named Martin. Luparello convinced his friends to go beat the information out of Martin. They showed up at Martin's residence with guns and a sword (in 1987!), lured him outside, and ultimately shot and killed him.
Luparello was charged with aiding and abetting murder. He argued that the murder was unplanned, unintended, and unrequested.
Question
Is Luparello liable for murder?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
California used a "natural and foreseeable consequences" test. Death was a natural and foreseeable consequence of Luparello's request.
Notes
This is a minority view. As in the previous two cases, the MPC would not honor this principle because it establishes only negligence and at most recklessness. I mostly just included this case because of the ridiculous sword-wielding business.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Accomplice liability usually requires a purposefully mens rea, although some jurisdictions use knowingly for serious crimes like rape and murder. You cannot recklessly/negligently aid and abet.
Hicks v. United States (1893)
Facts
Hicks and Culvert were sitting on horses when Row walked up. Row raised his rifle twice and each time pointed it at Culvert. Hicks said, "Take off your hat and die like a man." Hicks was also taking off his own hat and laughing. Row shot and killed Culvert. Hicks and Row rode off together.
Hicks was indicted for murder under accomplice liability. A jury instruction expressed that Hicks was guilty if his actions encouraged Row to shoot Culvert. Hicks argued that he feared for his own life, and was only trying to diffuse the situation with humor.
Question
Was this jury instruction correct?
Holding
No
Reasoning
The instruction should have added that the defendant had to intend to encourage the killing.
And the winner is...
The case was sent back for retrial.
State v. Gladstone (1980, Washington)
Facts
An undercover agent was trying to buy pot from Gladstone. Gladstone wasn't holding, but he drew the agent a map to another dealer. The agent went and bought pot. Gladstone was charged with aiding and abetting the other dealer in selling drugs.
Question
Was there intent to sell drugs?
Holding
No
Reasoning
Gladstone was knowing, but not purposeful. The state did not produce evidence that Gladstone cared whether there was a drug deal. His alleged ambivalence set him free. Plus, that's just good customer service.
People v. Luparello (1987, California)
Facts
Luparello was jealous because his former lover married someone else. He thought he could locate the couple through an acquaintance named Martin. Luparello convinced his friends to go beat the information out of Martin. They showed up at Martin's residence with guns and a sword (in 1987!), lured him outside, and ultimately shot and killed him.
Luparello was charged with aiding and abetting murder. He argued that the murder was unplanned, unintended, and unrequested.
Question
Is Luparello liable for murder?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
California used a "natural and foreseeable consequences" test. Death was a natural and foreseeable consequence of Luparello's request.
Notes
This is a minority view. As in the previous two cases, the MPC would not honor this principle because it establishes only negligence and at most recklessness. I mostly just included this case because of the ridiculous sword-wielding business.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Friday, April 3, 2009
Attempt, Part 2
For a defendant to be guilty of attempt, they must go beyond mere preparation. We want to give people a chance to turn back. But where is the line separating preparation from attempt? It’s important to define attempt somewhere short of the actus reus. We can’t have police standing idly by while murders take aim at their victims.
Let’s use Lost as an example. When the Oceanic 6 met Ben on the dock, Sayid gave Ben a warning. Something along the lines of “If I ever see you again, it’s going to be very unpleasant for both of us.” Although that is a little vague, let’s pretend that we now have clear evidence of intent to murder.
Sayid soon found himself back on the island, where he met young Ben. I suppose this is where he began planning/preparing. After tricking Ben into letting him out of the cage, Sayid took Jin’s pistol and shot Ben in the chest. (For the sake of this example, we'll also have to pretend that Ben isn’t purposefully setting up all these little mousetraps. He freaking WANTED Sayid to travel back in time and shoot him.)
At what point did Sayid's actions cross the line from planning to attempted murder? There are a number of tests to help us distinguish preparation from attempt.
The Dangerous Proximity Test looks at how close the victim is to danger. Under this test, once Sayid had possession of the weapon, and was close enough to shoot Ben, he had completed attempted murder. Sayid would be guilty of attempted murder the moment he took Jin’s gun.
The Equivocality Test looks only at physical actions of the defendant. These actions must speak for themselves, and show clear intent to commit a crime. This test can push the line forward or backward relative to the Dangerous Proximity Test. I’m guessing a jury made up of Losties would not convict Sayid of attempted murder until the moment he pointed the gun at Ben. I think this action shows a clear intent to attempt murder, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most jurisdictions, as well as the MPC, use the Substantial Step Test. Prosecution will attempt to show a substantial step that is strongly corroborative with attempt. The defendant must produce a compelling and innocent explanation, or they will be found guilty. Sayid could come up with pretty solid explanations for his behavior until he pointed the gun at little Ben. For instance, he might argue that he took Jin’s gun for protection (Smokie, polar bear, Others).
People v. Rizzo (1927, New York)
Facts
A group of men were driving around looking for a specific guy they wanted to rob. They were arrested before finding him.
Question
Was this attempted robbery?
Holding
No
Reasoning
New York was using the Dangerous Proximity Test. The victim was not in dangerous proximity because they couldn’t find him.
State v. Duke (1998, Florida)
Facts
Duke was trying to pick up a child in a chat room for sex. But the “child” was an undercover detective. They made a plan to meet in a parking lot, where Duke would flash his headlights. Duke showed up and flashed his headlights.
Question
Was this attempted statutory rape?
Holding
No
Reasoning
Again, Dangerous Proximity Test. No child was present.
Notes
This case is held up as an example of why the Dangerous Proximity Test does not work. We must put people in harms way to get convictions.
United States v. Jackson (1977)
Facts
Three defendants were in a conspiracy to rob a bank. They picked a day, and went to the bank with weapons and masks. After looking around they decided it wasn’t the best time. They made a plan to come back in a week.
In the meantime, one of the men was arrested for something else. He told the police about the conspiracy.
The men came back the next week with weapons, masks, and a fake license plate. They were arrested and charged with attempted robbery.
Question
Was this attempted robbery?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
Substantial Step Test. The jury strongly inferred an attempt to rob the bank. The defendants were unable to come up with a compelling and innocent explanation.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Let’s use Lost as an example. When the Oceanic 6 met Ben on the dock, Sayid gave Ben a warning. Something along the lines of “If I ever see you again, it’s going to be very unpleasant for both of us.” Although that is a little vague, let’s pretend that we now have clear evidence of intent to murder.
Sayid soon found himself back on the island, where he met young Ben. I suppose this is where he began planning/preparing. After tricking Ben into letting him out of the cage, Sayid took Jin’s pistol and shot Ben in the chest. (For the sake of this example, we'll also have to pretend that Ben isn’t purposefully setting up all these little mousetraps. He freaking WANTED Sayid to travel back in time and shoot him.)
At what point did Sayid's actions cross the line from planning to attempted murder? There are a number of tests to help us distinguish preparation from attempt.
The Dangerous Proximity Test looks at how close the victim is to danger. Under this test, once Sayid had possession of the weapon, and was close enough to shoot Ben, he had completed attempted murder. Sayid would be guilty of attempted murder the moment he took Jin’s gun.
The Equivocality Test looks only at physical actions of the defendant. These actions must speak for themselves, and show clear intent to commit a crime. This test can push the line forward or backward relative to the Dangerous Proximity Test. I’m guessing a jury made up of Losties would not convict Sayid of attempted murder until the moment he pointed the gun at Ben. I think this action shows a clear intent to attempt murder, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most jurisdictions, as well as the MPC, use the Substantial Step Test. Prosecution will attempt to show a substantial step that is strongly corroborative with attempt. The defendant must produce a compelling and innocent explanation, or they will be found guilty. Sayid could come up with pretty solid explanations for his behavior until he pointed the gun at little Ben. For instance, he might argue that he took Jin’s gun for protection (Smokie, polar bear, Others).
People v. Rizzo (1927, New York)
Facts
A group of men were driving around looking for a specific guy they wanted to rob. They were arrested before finding him.
Question
Was this attempted robbery?
Holding
No
Reasoning
New York was using the Dangerous Proximity Test. The victim was not in dangerous proximity because they couldn’t find him.
State v. Duke (1998, Florida)
Facts
Duke was trying to pick up a child in a chat room for sex. But the “child” was an undercover detective. They made a plan to meet in a parking lot, where Duke would flash his headlights. Duke showed up and flashed his headlights.
Question
Was this attempted statutory rape?
Holding
No
Reasoning
Again, Dangerous Proximity Test. No child was present.
Notes
This case is held up as an example of why the Dangerous Proximity Test does not work. We must put people in harms way to get convictions.
United States v. Jackson (1977)
Facts
Three defendants were in a conspiracy to rob a bank. They picked a day, and went to the bank with weapons and masks. After looking around they decided it wasn’t the best time. They made a plan to come back in a week.
In the meantime, one of the men was arrested for something else. He told the police about the conspiracy.
The men came back the next week with weapons, masks, and a fake license plate. They were arrested and charged with attempted robbery.
Question
Was this attempted robbery?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
Substantial Step Test. The jury strongly inferred an attempt to rob the bank. The defendants were unable to come up with a compelling and innocent explanation.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Attempt
This is the first of two posts on attempted crimes.
The word “attempt” implies intentional action. When considering attempt, the mens rea of the statute is automatically raised to knowingly. Therefore you cannot negligently or recklessly attempt a crime.
Hypothetical
A man builds a catapult, and is launching flaming projectiles out of his backyard. He lives in a crowded neighborhood, and accidentally kills someone a few blocks away. This would be depraved heart murder. But if his neighbor survived, it would not be attempted murder. Again, recklessly does not satisfy attempt.
Solicitation
In some states, you have to attempt the crime yourself to be charged with attempt. But most states, as well as the MPC, say soliciting a hitman completes attempted murder.
Abandonment
This is a defense to attempt. It is based on the defendant arguing that they abandoned the crime before completion. Abandonment works in the majority of states and under the MPC. The abandonment must be of the defendants own free will. You can’t abandon the attempt because the crime is going poorly.
Factual Impossibility
This is when you attempt to commit a crime, but fail because you don’t have all your facts straight. An example would be trying to poison someone with a substance that is not poison. Or, a pedophile has sex with a “minor”, only to find out that the victim is actually of legal age. Under the MPC, such acts successfully complete attempt.
Smallwood v. State (1996, Maryland)
Facts
Smallwood was HIV positive, and had been warned by counselors not to have unprotected sex. He raped several women without wearing a condom. Among other charges, he was prosecuted for attempted murder.
Smallwood argued against this charge, contending that he was merely being reckless. The state argued that his actions were the equivalent of firing a loaded gun. Previous case law within Maryland stated that “use of a deadly weapon at a body part is sufficient for attempted murder.”
Question
Was this attempted murder?
Holding
No
Reasoning
The natural and probable result of firing a gun at someone is death and therefore murder. The state did not present convincing evidence that the natural and probable result of unprotected sex with an HIV carrier is death.
Notes
The prosecution should have had an expert to testify that this type of sex leads to HIV and death X% of the time.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
The word “attempt” implies intentional action. When considering attempt, the mens rea of the statute is automatically raised to knowingly. Therefore you cannot negligently or recklessly attempt a crime.
Hypothetical
A man builds a catapult, and is launching flaming projectiles out of his backyard. He lives in a crowded neighborhood, and accidentally kills someone a few blocks away. This would be depraved heart murder. But if his neighbor survived, it would not be attempted murder. Again, recklessly does not satisfy attempt.
Solicitation
In some states, you have to attempt the crime yourself to be charged with attempt. But most states, as well as the MPC, say soliciting a hitman completes attempted murder.
Abandonment
This is a defense to attempt. It is based on the defendant arguing that they abandoned the crime before completion. Abandonment works in the majority of states and under the MPC. The abandonment must be of the defendants own free will. You can’t abandon the attempt because the crime is going poorly.
Factual Impossibility
This is when you attempt to commit a crime, but fail because you don’t have all your facts straight. An example would be trying to poison someone with a substance that is not poison. Or, a pedophile has sex with a “minor”, only to find out that the victim is actually of legal age. Under the MPC, such acts successfully complete attempt.
Smallwood v. State (1996, Maryland)
Facts
Smallwood was HIV positive, and had been warned by counselors not to have unprotected sex. He raped several women without wearing a condom. Among other charges, he was prosecuted for attempted murder.
Smallwood argued against this charge, contending that he was merely being reckless. The state argued that his actions were the equivalent of firing a loaded gun. Previous case law within Maryland stated that “use of a deadly weapon at a body part is sufficient for attempted murder.”
Question
Was this attempted murder?
Holding
No
Reasoning
The natural and probable result of firing a gun at someone is death and therefore murder. The state did not present convincing evidence that the natural and probable result of unprotected sex with an HIV carrier is death.
Notes
The prosecution should have had an expert to testify that this type of sex leads to HIV and death X% of the time.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Quick Guide to Homicide
Just in case you are thinking about offing someone.
Here's a list of the five criminal charges associated with homicide, from most severe to least severe.
1st Degree Murder
You intentionally kill someone. It was premeditated.
2nd Degree Murder
You intentionally kill someone. It was not premeditated.
Voluntary Manslaughter
You intentionally murder someone, but you were provoked. Words alone do not count as provocation. Also, provocation cannot occur if you had sufficient time to “cool off.”
OR
You intend to hurt someone, and accidentally kill them.
OR
You unintentionally kill someone, but your actions show a depraved indifference to human life (a.k.a. depraved heart murder).
*The above charges are considered murder. The charges below are just homicide.
Involuntary Manslaughter
You unintentionally kill someone as a result of your reckless behavior. You understood the dangers of your actions, but did not bother to cease or alter what you were doing. A reasonable person would not have behaved in such a dangerous way.
Negligent Homicide
You unintentionally kill someone as a result of your negligent behavior. You did not understand the risks involved in your behavior. A reasonable person would have understood how dangerous your actions were.
*Felony Murder Rule
Not every state has this rule, and the interpretation of felony murder can look quite different from state to state. In a nutshell, if someone dies as a result of your felonious behavior, you can be charged with murder.
Here's a list of the five criminal charges associated with homicide, from most severe to least severe.
1st Degree Murder
You intentionally kill someone. It was premeditated.
2nd Degree Murder
You intentionally kill someone. It was not premeditated.
Voluntary Manslaughter
You intentionally murder someone, but you were provoked. Words alone do not count as provocation. Also, provocation cannot occur if you had sufficient time to “cool off.”
OR
You intend to hurt someone, and accidentally kill them.
OR
You unintentionally kill someone, but your actions show a depraved indifference to human life (a.k.a. depraved heart murder).
*The above charges are considered murder. The charges below are just homicide.
Involuntary Manslaughter
You unintentionally kill someone as a result of your reckless behavior. You understood the dangers of your actions, but did not bother to cease or alter what you were doing. A reasonable person would not have behaved in such a dangerous way.
Negligent Homicide
You unintentionally kill someone as a result of your negligent behavior. You did not understand the risks involved in your behavior. A reasonable person would have understood how dangerous your actions were.
*Felony Murder Rule
Not every state has this rule, and the interpretation of felony murder can look quite different from state to state. In a nutshell, if someone dies as a result of your felonious behavior, you can be charged with murder.
The Felony Murder Rule
If you kill someone while you are committing a felony, you can be charged with felony murder. The rule is applied with strict liability. It doesn't matter if the death is a result of recklessness, negligence, or even a freak accident.
Example
A man commits armed robbery (felony). While driving away from the crime he follows all applicable traffic laws. His brakes go out due to a defective part, and he runs down a pedestrian. He can be charged with felony murder.
Now let's pretend that his brakes were fine, but he was driving recklessly. That would provide the state with two options for charges. They could pursue involuntary manslaughter (criminal recklessness), or felony murder. Murder is the more serious charge. It's also the easier conviction due to strict liability. The state simply has to prove the original felony, and that the defendant caused the pedestrian's death.
People v. Stamp (1969, California)
Facts
Stamp robbed a man, then ran away. A few minutes later the obese victim had a heart attack and died.
Question
Was this murder?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
Again, strict liability.
Notes
In this case, it would be hard to get any homicide conviction absent the FMR.
Limitations
Many states don't even have a felony murder rule, and some other states have a compromised version. The rule is really aimed at involuntary homicides, since intentional killings will merit murder charges on their own. Often, the rule doesn't hold up well. Remember, we have specific reasons for punishing crime.
You cannot deter someone from being involved in freak accidents. Some rehabilitation, retribution, and incapacitation will be provided as a result of the original felony conviction. And it's a bit strange to reinforce being-careful-when-you-commit-felonies as a societal norm.
Some states use the Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule instead. It works like felony murder, but with a softer sentence. It basically falls as the least severe of all homicide chargers, beyond even negligent homicide.
Inherently Dangerous Theory
Under this theory, felony murder is invoked only if the felony is inherently dangerous. There are two interpretations of inherent danger.
Some jurisdictions base inherent danger on the category of felony. So things like mail fraud and driving without a license do not provide grounds for felony murder.
Other jurisdictions use a case by case examination. Owning an unregistered handgun is a felony. Cleaning the weapon is not a dangerous activity. If it goes off and kills someone, the FMR is not in play. But waving a pistol around and threatening someone is inherently dangerous. If the pistol goes off and kills the person, you are looking at involuntary manslaughter. If that pistol is unregistered, hello felony murder.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Example
A man commits armed robbery (felony). While driving away from the crime he follows all applicable traffic laws. His brakes go out due to a defective part, and he runs down a pedestrian. He can be charged with felony murder.
Now let's pretend that his brakes were fine, but he was driving recklessly. That would provide the state with two options for charges. They could pursue involuntary manslaughter (criminal recklessness), or felony murder. Murder is the more serious charge. It's also the easier conviction due to strict liability. The state simply has to prove the original felony, and that the defendant caused the pedestrian's death.
People v. Stamp (1969, California)
Facts
Stamp robbed a man, then ran away. A few minutes later the obese victim had a heart attack and died.
Question
Was this murder?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
Again, strict liability.
Notes
In this case, it would be hard to get any homicide conviction absent the FMR.
Limitations
Many states don't even have a felony murder rule, and some other states have a compromised version. The rule is really aimed at involuntary homicides, since intentional killings will merit murder charges on their own. Often, the rule doesn't hold up well. Remember, we have specific reasons for punishing crime.
You cannot deter someone from being involved in freak accidents. Some rehabilitation, retribution, and incapacitation will be provided as a result of the original felony conviction. And it's a bit strange to reinforce being-careful-when-you-commit-felonies as a societal norm.
Some states use the Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule instead. It works like felony murder, but with a softer sentence. It basically falls as the least severe of all homicide chargers, beyond even negligent homicide.
Inherently Dangerous Theory
Under this theory, felony murder is invoked only if the felony is inherently dangerous. There are two interpretations of inherent danger.
Some jurisdictions base inherent danger on the category of felony. So things like mail fraud and driving without a license do not provide grounds for felony murder.
Other jurisdictions use a case by case examination. Owning an unregistered handgun is a felony. Cleaning the weapon is not a dangerous activity. If it goes off and kills someone, the FMR is not in play. But waving a pistol around and threatening someone is inherently dangerous. If the pistol goes off and kills the person, you are looking at involuntary manslaughter. If that pistol is unregistered, hello felony murder.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Unintentional Killings
In this post we will learn about two final classifications of homicide, negligent homicide (criminal negligence) and involuntary manslaughter (criminal recklessness).
-These are unintentional acts, whereas murder and voluntary manslaughter are intentional acts.
-For both charges, the court uses the reasonable person standard. The question is, would an ordinary, reasonable person have acted differently?
-Negligent homicide occurs when the defendant was unaware of risks. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant ignored the risks.
-Involuntary manslaughter is considered the more severe offense.
Hypothetical Case for Involuntary Manslaughter
Let’s say a killer is chasing you. You are trying to escape in your car. After running a stop sign, you kill a pedestrian. You were completely aware that running a stop sign was dangerous. Therefore, you were reckless. But you have you committed involuntary manslaughter? The case will hinge on proving whether you acted as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence, considering the circumstances. If Sayid Jarrah was on your ass, no jury would convict you.
Actual Case for Negligent Homicide
State v. Williams (Washington, 1971)
Facts
The defendants were parents of an infant child. The father had a 6th grade education, and the mother had an 11th grade education. They were both Native American. The child became fussy and sick. They thought it was a tooth ache, and give him an aspirin. They did not take the child to the doctor, because his cheek was blue. They feared the doctor would suspect child abuse. The child died from gangrene.
The court believed that the parents loved their child, and simply did not realize the risk. They were convicted of negligent homicide.
Question
Was this negligence homicide?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
The reasonable person standard is objective. The jury decided that a reasonable person would have sought medical care for their child.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
-These are unintentional acts, whereas murder and voluntary manslaughter are intentional acts.
-For both charges, the court uses the reasonable person standard. The question is, would an ordinary, reasonable person have acted differently?
-Negligent homicide occurs when the defendant was unaware of risks. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant ignored the risks.
-Involuntary manslaughter is considered the more severe offense.
Hypothetical Case for Involuntary Manslaughter
Let’s say a killer is chasing you. You are trying to escape in your car. After running a stop sign, you kill a pedestrian. You were completely aware that running a stop sign was dangerous. Therefore, you were reckless. But you have you committed involuntary manslaughter? The case will hinge on proving whether you acted as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence, considering the circumstances. If Sayid Jarrah was on your ass, no jury would convict you.
Actual Case for Negligent Homicide
State v. Williams (Washington, 1971)
Facts
The defendants were parents of an infant child. The father had a 6th grade education, and the mother had an 11th grade education. They were both Native American. The child became fussy and sick. They thought it was a tooth ache, and give him an aspirin. They did not take the child to the doctor, because his cheek was blue. They feared the doctor would suspect child abuse. The child died from gangrene.
The court believed that the parents loved their child, and simply did not realize the risk. They were convicted of negligent homicide.
Question
Was this negligence homicide?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
The reasonable person standard is objective. The jury decided that a reasonable person would have sought medical care for their child.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
More on Murder
Intentional killings based on provocation fall under voluntary manslaughter, a lesser charge to first or second degree murder.
Girouard v. State (1981, Maryland)
Facts
Mr. Girouard and his wife had been married for two months. He found out she was cheating on him, and an argument ensued. Girouard’s wife stated “I never did want to marry you and you are a lousy fuck and you remind me of my dad.” She then threatened to report him for domestic abuse (not true). He stabbed her 19 times and killed her.
Girouard was convicted of second degree murder. He appealed for manslaughter, on the grounds that he was provoked.
Question
Was this provocation?
Holding
No
Reasoning
Words alone are not sufficient to complete provocation. We want a society where people can handle some harsh verbal abuse without going vigilante. Plus, it’s too easy to claim verbal provocation after the fact since the victim is dead.
And the winner is…
Maryland
Hypothetical
Hearing about an affair is not provocation. Walking in on an affair is provocation.
Cooling Time Doctrine
If too much time elapses between the provoking event and homicide, you are looking at a murder charge. Voluntary manslaughter is not in play. Application of this doctrine differs among jurisdictions.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Girouard v. State (1981, Maryland)
Facts
Mr. Girouard and his wife had been married for two months. He found out she was cheating on him, and an argument ensued. Girouard’s wife stated “I never did want to marry you and you are a lousy fuck and you remind me of my dad.” She then threatened to report him for domestic abuse (not true). He stabbed her 19 times and killed her.
Girouard was convicted of second degree murder. He appealed for manslaughter, on the grounds that he was provoked.
Question
Was this provocation?
Holding
No
Reasoning
Words alone are not sufficient to complete provocation. We want a society where people can handle some harsh verbal abuse without going vigilante. Plus, it’s too easy to claim verbal provocation after the fact since the victim is dead.
And the winner is…
Maryland
Hypothetical
Hearing about an affair is not provocation. Walking in on an affair is provocation.
Cooling Time Doctrine
If too much time elapses between the provoking event and homicide, you are looking at a murder charge. Voluntary manslaughter is not in play. Application of this doctrine differs among jurisdictions.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Monday, March 23, 2009
Talking Murder
What is first degree murder?
Murder with the element of premeditation.
State v. Guthrie (1995, West Virginia)
Facts
Guthrie had some serious psychological issues, especially about his nose. He would stare in the mirror dozens of times a day fixated on his nose. He was also a manic depressive and experienced panic attacks.
One day at work some of Guthrie’s coworkers were fooling around together. Guthrie was not participating. One of the men snapped a towel and hit him in the nose. Guthrie pulled out a knife and stabbed the guy to death. Damn.
Guthrie was convicted of murder in the first degree. He appealed that there was a lack of premeditation.
Question
Was premeditation present?
Holding
No
Reasoning
There must be some separation of time between the formation of intent and the act.
And the winner is…
Guthrie
What is the punishment distinction between 1st and 2nd?
Usually first degree murder is death eligible (if the state has the death penalty). Second degree murder is not death eligible.
What is second degree murder?
In general, intentional but not premeditated. Spur of the moment, impulse murder. However, there are two other ways to enter into second degree murder:
Depraved Heart Murder
Death results from an individual's reckless indifference to human life.
Intent to Inflict Bodily Harm
Second degree murder is in play if you intend to hurt someone but accidentally kill them.
Commonwealth v. Malone (1946, Pennsylvania)
Facts
Two minors decide to play Russian Roulette. One boy is 17, the other is 13. The older boy chambered the round. The younger boy shot himself in the head and died.
The 17 year-old was convicted of 2nd degree murder.
Question
Is this 2nd degree murder?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
The defendant acted with a depraved heart, and showed a reckless indifference for human life. “When an individual commits an act of gross recklessness, for which he must reasonably anticipate that death to another is likely to result.”
And the winner is…
Pennsylvania
Let’s talk about drunks, man…
Say we’re both doing 100 in a 35, and we both kill a pedestrian. I’m drunk, you’re sober. We are both charged with 2nd degree murder, based on our reckless indifference for human life. You have no defense. I argue that I was too drunk to understand the consequences of my actions. There is no reckless indifference because I didn’t understand the risks.
In general, if you aren’t aware of a risk you are negligent but not reckless. But the MPC makes a special exception for individuals who are intoxicated. If you are voluntarily drunk, you can’t use that as an excuse. You can still be nailed for recklessness offenses.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Murder with the element of premeditation.
State v. Guthrie (1995, West Virginia)
Facts
Guthrie had some serious psychological issues, especially about his nose. He would stare in the mirror dozens of times a day fixated on his nose. He was also a manic depressive and experienced panic attacks.
One day at work some of Guthrie’s coworkers were fooling around together. Guthrie was not participating. One of the men snapped a towel and hit him in the nose. Guthrie pulled out a knife and stabbed the guy to death. Damn.
Guthrie was convicted of murder in the first degree. He appealed that there was a lack of premeditation.
Question
Was premeditation present?
Holding
No
Reasoning
There must be some separation of time between the formation of intent and the act.
And the winner is…
Guthrie
What is the punishment distinction between 1st and 2nd?
Usually first degree murder is death eligible (if the state has the death penalty). Second degree murder is not death eligible.
What is second degree murder?
In general, intentional but not premeditated. Spur of the moment, impulse murder. However, there are two other ways to enter into second degree murder:
Depraved Heart Murder
Death results from an individual's reckless indifference to human life.
Intent to Inflict Bodily Harm
Second degree murder is in play if you intend to hurt someone but accidentally kill them.
Commonwealth v. Malone (1946, Pennsylvania)
Facts
Two minors decide to play Russian Roulette. One boy is 17, the other is 13. The older boy chambered the round. The younger boy shot himself in the head and died.
The 17 year-old was convicted of 2nd degree murder.
Question
Is this 2nd degree murder?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
The defendant acted with a depraved heart, and showed a reckless indifference for human life. “When an individual commits an act of gross recklessness, for which he must reasonably anticipate that death to another is likely to result.”
And the winner is…
Pennsylvania
Let’s talk about drunks, man…
Say we’re both doing 100 in a 35, and we both kill a pedestrian. I’m drunk, you’re sober. We are both charged with 2nd degree murder, based on our reckless indifference for human life. You have no defense. I argue that I was too drunk to understand the consequences of my actions. There is no reckless indifference because I didn’t understand the risks.
In general, if you aren’t aware of a risk you are negligent but not reckless. But the MPC makes a special exception for individuals who are intoxicated. If you are voluntarily drunk, you can’t use that as an excuse. You can still be nailed for recklessness offenses.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Strict Liability...
...is when an actus reus alone is grounds for conviction (no criminal intent needed). In this post we’ll determine when strict liability is appropriate.
Morrissette v. United States (1952)
Facts
Mr. Morrissette took old bomb casings from what turned out to be a military site. He believed they were abandoned, and used them to make metal products. Morrissette was sued in federal court for conversion. The statute in question stated “knowingly convert government property.”
Question
Is strict liability appropriate?
Holding
No
Reasoning
Strict liability is only appropriate for public welfare offenses. This offense does not qualify, and therefore a mens rea (knowingly) is required.
And the winner is…
Morrissette
What makes an action a “public welfare offense”?
This is determined by a combination of 5 issues.
1. Old School vs. New School
Simple, classic crimes like murder and theft require a criminal intent. New school crimes are more likely to fall under strict liability.
2. Severity of Punishment
Strict liability is more often applied to crimes that result in modest fines and penalties. If the penalty is harsh, criminal intent is more necessary.
3. Reputation
If a conviction will seriously damage an individual's reputation, a criminal intent is more likely required.
4. Omission
Strict liability is more allowable in crimes of omission. Crimes of commission require criminal intent.
5. Public Protection
Crimes that serious threaten public welfare can result in strict liability.
It's easy to see why strict liability did not apply to Morrisette. Theft is a classic crime, as well as an act of commission. He did not threaten public welfare. A conviction would have resulted in him being labeled a thief. I don't know what penalties were in play, but lets assume they were quite harsh.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Man, five posts in one day! I love PTO.
Morrissette v. United States (1952)
Facts
Mr. Morrissette took old bomb casings from what turned out to be a military site. He believed they were abandoned, and used them to make metal products. Morrissette was sued in federal court for conversion. The statute in question stated “knowingly convert government property.”
Question
Is strict liability appropriate?
Holding
No
Reasoning
Strict liability is only appropriate for public welfare offenses. This offense does not qualify, and therefore a mens rea (knowingly) is required.
And the winner is…
Morrissette
What makes an action a “public welfare offense”?
This is determined by a combination of 5 issues.
1. Old School vs. New School
Simple, classic crimes like murder and theft require a criminal intent. New school crimes are more likely to fall under strict liability.
2. Severity of Punishment
Strict liability is more often applied to crimes that result in modest fines and penalties. If the penalty is harsh, criminal intent is more necessary.
3. Reputation
If a conviction will seriously damage an individual's reputation, a criminal intent is more likely required.
4. Omission
Strict liability is more allowable in crimes of omission. Crimes of commission require criminal intent.
5. Public Protection
Crimes that serious threaten public welfare can result in strict liability.
It's easy to see why strict liability did not apply to Morrisette. Theft is a classic crime, as well as an act of commission. He did not threaten public welfare. A conviction would have resulted in him being labeled a thief. I don't know what penalties were in play, but lets assume they were quite harsh.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Man, five posts in one day! I love PTO.
Is ignorance an allowable defense?
Mistake of Law
A few summers ago, I rented a house in Wilmington, NC with a guy from Maine. One night the cops caught him drinking in his car, and were all set to write him a ticket. Andy told them that drinking in your car was legal in Maine, as long as the engine is off. Therefore, he didn't know he was breaking the law. And they let him walk!
This is a Mistake of Law defense, and it is not valid in any court. When you engage in an activity, it’s your responsibility to know the relevant laws. Andy waived the right to live by Maine law when he moved to North Carolina for the summer. I’m sure the police knew this, but they must have felt bad for the guy.
Just in case you ever visit Maine, let me point out that Andy was probably lying about being allowed to drink in your car.
Mistake of Fact
Ignorance can only be a defense if it applies to fact patterns, and even this defense is not absolute. Imagine buying a rifle on Craigslist, only to be arrested later for possession of a stolen gun. You have a solid Mistake of Fact defense, because you honestly didn’t know the weapon was stolen.
Bear in mind that Mistake of Fact is intricately tied to mens rea (criminal intent). If the statute in your jurisdiction was "knowingly possess a stolen gun", your case is airtight. What if the statute stated "negligently possess a stolen gun", and the gun was covered in blood when you received it? You probably aren’t getting away with that one.
A bit on Strict Liability
Some acts are sufficiently wicked that strict liability comes into play, which makes the fact pattern irrelevant. For example, some states use strict liability for statutory rape. A defendant might claim that his victim told him she was 18, and that he was mistaken about her factual age. Under strict liability, he is still guilty.
We’ll delve much deeper into strict liability in the next Criminal Law post.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
A few summers ago, I rented a house in Wilmington, NC with a guy from Maine. One night the cops caught him drinking in his car, and were all set to write him a ticket. Andy told them that drinking in your car was legal in Maine, as long as the engine is off. Therefore, he didn't know he was breaking the law. And they let him walk!
This is a Mistake of Law defense, and it is not valid in any court. When you engage in an activity, it’s your responsibility to know the relevant laws. Andy waived the right to live by Maine law when he moved to North Carolina for the summer. I’m sure the police knew this, but they must have felt bad for the guy.
Just in case you ever visit Maine, let me point out that Andy was probably lying about being allowed to drink in your car.
Mistake of Fact
Ignorance can only be a defense if it applies to fact patterns, and even this defense is not absolute. Imagine buying a rifle on Craigslist, only to be arrested later for possession of a stolen gun. You have a solid Mistake of Fact defense, because you honestly didn’t know the weapon was stolen.
Bear in mind that Mistake of Fact is intricately tied to mens rea (criminal intent). If the statute in your jurisdiction was "knowingly possess a stolen gun", your case is airtight. What if the statute stated "negligently possess a stolen gun", and the gun was covered in blood when you received it? You probably aren’t getting away with that one.
A bit on Strict Liability
Some acts are sufficiently wicked that strict liability comes into play, which makes the fact pattern irrelevant. For example, some states use strict liability for statutory rape. A defendant might claim that his victim told him she was 18, and that he was mistaken about her factual age. Under strict liability, he is still guilty.
We’ll delve much deeper into strict liability in the next Criminal Law post.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Looking Out for #1
When can omission of an act satisfy Actus Reus?
Pope v. State (1979, Maryland)
Facts
Mr. Pope witnessed a woman with mental illness beat her child severely. He did nothing to stop the beating. Pope and the mother then went to church. When they returned to her home, the child was dead. Mr. Pope was prosecuted for child abuse.
Question
Is Pope’s omission culpable?
Holding
No
Reasoning
The default rule in America is that citizens have no duty to help others. This general rule applies to both civil and criminal actions. The thinking is that rescue is not without risk. Some states have made exceptions.
And the winner is…
Pope, also America-bashers
Notes
-The prosecution must establish a duty to act before they can convict someone for omission.
Five common ways to establish a duty:
1. Explicit - when a statute explicitly states the duty
2. Relationship - special relationships such as father/son or captain/ship’s passengers
3. Contractual – think lifeguards, firefighters, and personal trainers
4. Seclusion – occurs when someone voluntarily takes responsibility for care and secludes the individual needing care from others
5. Cause of Peril - if a person creates peril they automatically have a duty to protect others from harm
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Pope v. State (1979, Maryland)
Facts
Mr. Pope witnessed a woman with mental illness beat her child severely. He did nothing to stop the beating. Pope and the mother then went to church. When they returned to her home, the child was dead. Mr. Pope was prosecuted for child abuse.
Question
Is Pope’s omission culpable?
Holding
No
Reasoning
The default rule in America is that citizens have no duty to help others. This general rule applies to both civil and criminal actions. The thinking is that rescue is not without risk. Some states have made exceptions.
And the winner is…
Pope, also America-bashers
Notes
-The prosecution must establish a duty to act before they can convict someone for omission.
Five common ways to establish a duty:
1. Explicit - when a statute explicitly states the duty
2. Relationship - special relationships such as father/son or captain/ship’s passengers
3. Contractual – think lifeguards, firefighters, and personal trainers
4. Seclusion – occurs when someone voluntarily takes responsibility for care and secludes the individual needing care from others
5. Cause of Peril - if a person creates peril they automatically have a duty to protect others from harm
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Limeys and Drug Mules
The most common criminal defense is the “I didn’t do it.” Much less common are actus reus defenses. Somewhere in the middle are mens rea (criminal intent), which we will explore in this post.
Under the Model Penal Code, there are four mens reas commonly attached to statutes:
1. Purposely
2. Knowingly
3. Recklessly
4. Negligently
These terms are hierarchical. If you “knowingly” break a statute that says “recklessly”, you have indeed committed a crime. And if no mens rea is attached to a statute, recklessly is assumed.
Regina (the Queen) v. Cunningham (1957, England)
Facts
A bugger attempts to knick from his future mother-in-law’s gas meter, which was full of coins. The scallywag didn’t bother to turn of the gas. The gas started spilling into the house and nearly killed the poor lady. Blimey!
Question
Can this tosser be charged with attempted murder?
Holding
No
Reasoning
He had a mens rea for robbery, not murder.
And the winner is…
Cunningham
Note
Under the MPC, the mens rea “recklessly” could be applied. But either way, the prosecution would need to establish an intent to murder. On the flipside, if you intend to perform an act that violates the law, your motive for doing so is irrelevant.
Conscious Avoidance, the Ostrich Defense
United States v. Jewel (1976)
Facts
Mr. Jewel drove a car into the U.S. with 110 pounds of weed in a hidden compartment. He was aware of the secret compartment. He had some clues that his car was full of weed, but he consciously avoiding knowing for certain. The statute in question had the word knowingly attached.
Question
Can conscious avoidance substitute for knowingly?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
The MPC says “when knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of a defense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence. Unless he actually believes that it does not exist.”
And the winner is…
America!
Note
Technically, the federal criminal court has not adopted the MPC. But much of the code is used for federal law.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Under the Model Penal Code, there are four mens reas commonly attached to statutes:
1. Purposely
2. Knowingly
3. Recklessly
4. Negligently
These terms are hierarchical. If you “knowingly” break a statute that says “recklessly”, you have indeed committed a crime. And if no mens rea is attached to a statute, recklessly is assumed.
Regina (the Queen) v. Cunningham (1957, England)
Facts
A bugger attempts to knick from his future mother-in-law’s gas meter, which was full of coins. The scallywag didn’t bother to turn of the gas. The gas started spilling into the house and nearly killed the poor lady. Blimey!
Question
Can this tosser be charged with attempted murder?
Holding
No
Reasoning
He had a mens rea for robbery, not murder.
And the winner is…
Cunningham
Note
Under the MPC, the mens rea “recklessly” could be applied. But either way, the prosecution would need to establish an intent to murder. On the flipside, if you intend to perform an act that violates the law, your motive for doing so is irrelevant.
Conscious Avoidance, the Ostrich Defense
United States v. Jewel (1976)
Facts
Mr. Jewel drove a car into the U.S. with 110 pounds of weed in a hidden compartment. He was aware of the secret compartment. He had some clues that his car was full of weed, but he consciously avoiding knowing for certain. The statute in question had the word knowingly attached.
Question
Can conscious avoidance substitute for knowingly?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
The MPC says “when knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of a defense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence. Unless he actually believes that it does not exist.”
And the winner is…
America!
Note
Technically, the federal criminal court has not adopted the MPC. But much of the code is used for federal law.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
More on Drunk Law
In order to be found guilty of a crime, the following three elements must be present:
Actus Reus – voluntary act requirement (can be satisfied by omitting an act)
Mens Rea – criminal intent
Concurrence - act and state of mind must occur at the same time
In the post we will look at actus reus.
Martin v. State (1944, Alabama)
Facts
Mr. Martin was intoxicated in his home. The police dragged Martin out of his house onto a public road, where he became loud and obnoxious. He was arrested and charged with public drunkenness.
Question
Was his action voluntary?
Holding
No
Reasoning
Martin’s “loud and obnoxious” behavior is voluntary because "any action that result from intoxication is considered voluntary." However, he was dragged involuntarily into public.
And the winner is…
Martin
What if this case occurred today in a Model Penal Code state?
What a great question! I’m glad I asked. Martin would be guilty. The MPC breaks each statute down into attendant circumstances, actions, and results (if any).
The statute in question during Martin’s trial would be broken down as follows:
Attendant Circumstances
1. while intoxicated or drunk
2. in any public place
3. where one or more people are present
Actions
1. appears
2. manifests a drunken condition
Results
none
Under the MPC, only one action must be voluntary in order to satisfy mens rea. In Martin’s case, manifesting a drunken condition was voluntary. The fact that his appearance in public was involuntary does not matter.
So can the cops just drag me out of a bar and arrest me in the street?
It sure sounds that way, but I seriously doubt it. Until we find out for sure, try not to be such a jackhole when you drink.
What? Oh, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Actus Reus – voluntary act requirement (can be satisfied by omitting an act)
Mens Rea – criminal intent
Concurrence - act and state of mind must occur at the same time
In the post we will look at actus reus.
Martin v. State (1944, Alabama)
Facts
Mr. Martin was intoxicated in his home. The police dragged Martin out of his house onto a public road, where he became loud and obnoxious. He was arrested and charged with public drunkenness.
Question
Was his action voluntary?
Holding
No
Reasoning
Martin’s “loud and obnoxious” behavior is voluntary because "any action that result from intoxication is considered voluntary." However, he was dragged involuntarily into public.
And the winner is…
Martin
What if this case occurred today in a Model Penal Code state?
What a great question! I’m glad I asked. Martin would be guilty. The MPC breaks each statute down into attendant circumstances, actions, and results (if any).
The statute in question during Martin’s trial would be broken down as follows:
Attendant Circumstances
1. while intoxicated or drunk
2. in any public place
3. where one or more people are present
Actions
1. appears
2. manifests a drunken condition
Results
none
Under the MPC, only one action must be voluntary in order to satisfy mens rea. In Martin’s case, manifesting a drunken condition was voluntary. The fact that his appearance in public was involuntary does not matter.
So can the cops just drag me out of a bar and arrest me in the street?
It sure sounds that way, but I seriously doubt it. Until we find out for sure, try not to be such a jackhole when you drink.
What? Oh, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Intro to Criminal Law
Today we'll begin delving into criminal law. This is just a quick overview of terms and ideas. We'll look at each of these items in depth over the next few months. I hope this series enhances your television viewing experience.
What is the Model Penal Code?
A set of rules and regulations detailing how men should care for their jumbly bits.
Just kidding.
A law is not a law unless it's written down. The problem is that verbiage becomes inconsistent as more and more laws are added. The Model Penal Code is self-contained and consistent within itself. Over thirty states, including Ohio, have adopted the Model Penal Code to some degree. Even non-MPC states are greatly influenced by this code.
What are some important terms that the MPC uses consistently?
1. purposefully/intentionally
2. knowingly
3. recklessly
4. negligently
What are the bedrocks of criminal law?
1. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. (Do you really believe this?)
2. Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. In most cases, 12 jurors must be unanimous.
Why is it "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal law, and just "a preponderance of evidence" in civil law?
In civil lawsuits, erroneous verdicts in favor of either side are equally bad. In criminal cases, it is much worse to convict an innocent person then to let a guilty person go free.
Why do we punish criminals?
1. deterrence
2. rehabilitation
3. to reaffirm societal norms
4. retribution
5. incapacitation
Are these reasons important?
Yes. Your typical district attorney has too many cases, and can't possibly prosecute them all. Part of the selection process is determined by the reasons listed above. Consequently, criminal defense lawyers will use said reasoning to try and prevent their cases from reaching trial.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
What is the Model Penal Code?
A set of rules and regulations detailing how men should care for their jumbly bits.
Just kidding.
A law is not a law unless it's written down. The problem is that verbiage becomes inconsistent as more and more laws are added. The Model Penal Code is self-contained and consistent within itself. Over thirty states, including Ohio, have adopted the Model Penal Code to some degree. Even non-MPC states are greatly influenced by this code.
What are some important terms that the MPC uses consistently?
1. purposefully/intentionally
2. knowingly
3. recklessly
4. negligently
What are the bedrocks of criminal law?
1. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. (Do you really believe this?)
2. Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. In most cases, 12 jurors must be unanimous.
Why is it "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal law, and just "a preponderance of evidence" in civil law?
In civil lawsuits, erroneous verdicts in favor of either side are equally bad. In criminal cases, it is much worse to convict an innocent person then to let a guilty person go free.
Why do we punish criminals?
1. deterrence
2. rehabilitation
3. to reaffirm societal norms
4. retribution
5. incapacitation
Are these reasons important?
Yes. Your typical district attorney has too many cases, and can't possibly prosecute them all. Part of the selection process is determined by the reasons listed above. Consequently, criminal defense lawyers will use said reasoning to try and prevent their cases from reaching trial.
summarized from Life of a Law Student
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
