1. Themes
  2. Weaving of the Facts
  3. Time Frame
  4. Roles: Discretion of the Prosecutor
  5. Role of the Jury & The Courts: Matters of Fact v. Law
  6. Role of Trial and Appellate Court Judges
  7. Marginalization/Race
  1. Regina v. Dudley Stevens (Shipwrecked at Sea) p. 7-12
  2. Facts:
  3. Consideration of role of identity (captain, crew, & young eaten boy attracted by experience)
  4. Issue: Is there willful murder when they kill young boy who might not otherwise live without his consent? Is there a duty of Capt. To passengers/crew? Is there a duty to the young boy?
  5. Rule:
  6. Temptation is not an excuse
  7. You cannot allow compassion for the criminal to weaken the legal definition of the crime they committed.
  1. Basic Principles and Constitutional Limitations
  2. Basic Principles
  3. Elements of a Crime:
  4. Actus Reus: the prohibited act/social harm
  5. Mens Rea: the prohibited mental state
  6. Causation: links the actions with social harm
  7. Concurrence: requirement that the actus reus and mens rea occur at the same time
  8. Justifications
  9. General Deterrence: Punishment to deter others from committing ht esame or similar defenses.
  10. Specific Deterrence: Punishment to deter the individual defendant from committing the same crime in thefuture
  11. Rehab. (restorative justice): reform through vocational training, counseling, and drug counseling
  12. Incapacitation/Isolation: Incarceration to keep D away from society
  13. Retribution: Giving the D what he deserves
  14. Cases
  15. People v. Suite (unlicensed handgun in NYC) p 12-21

A)Facts

1)NY had a strict gun statute requiring all guns to be licensed

2)General Deterrence Case (deter unlicensed possesstion)

3)Issue: Whether a mandatory minimum sentence with the purpose of deterrence that carries significant jail time is excessive.

4)Enforcement of LHno leniency

B)Rule: Legislature has great latitude of deciding which ills of society require criminal sanctions and imposing punishments critical to each

C)Dissent:

1)Discussion of the objectives of punishments and fairness

2)Mandatory sentences prevents asking the following:

a)“Is it a proper exercise of discression to sentence a first offender who poses no threat to society?”

b)“Does the nature of the crime committed make it a serious threat to community?”

  1. C-Blecker (Lorton Central Prison Study) p 21

A)VA prison survey

B)Findings: Prisons are good for retribution, alone.

1)Retribution: Prison officers ignore prisoners criminal records and sever the essential retributive connection btw the past crime committed and punishment.

2)Gen. Deter.: The Criminal does not calculate the punishment before committing crime. Children visiting prison associate prison with “family closeness.” People think that engaging in criminal activity is an easy track to affluence/abundance.

3)Incapacitation: Inside prisons is more dangerous and noone’s incapacited (narcotics, theft, assault, and murder).

4)Spec. Deterence:

a)Prisons are (1) a refuge and (2) an accepted part of life.

b)It may work, ONLY, where family is the great motivator

5)Rehabil.: Recidivism (back out back in)

  1. C-Braithwaite ( ): pp1152-1155

A)Restorative justice (Rehabil.)

B)Goes beyond indiv. to involved community through the “healing circle.”

C)To make crime prevention work:

1)To create a supportive environment where difficult things becomes possible

2)Community ownership

3)Bring perspectives of stakeholder in (criminal’s girlfriend)

4)Allow citizens to freely choose to change behaviour (v. coercion)

5)Crime prevention should be transacted through networks of social support.

  1. C-White: 1083-1086

A)Looks at theories of punishment

B)abandons ends-means analysis.

C)Emphasizes that punishment derives meaning from community (blaming as preassure)

  1. Presumption of Innocence & Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
  2. Burden of Proof: “beyond a reasonable Doubt.”
  3. Burden of Production: Init. Responsibility to produce ev. In support of claim
  4. Burden of Persuasion: ultimate responsibility of proving that offense is committee or that elements of D are present/absent.

A)Offense: Prosecution bears the burden

B)Defenses:

1)Prosecution

a)All in Case in Chief/PF Defense

b)Affirmative Defenses, unless otherwise specified

2)Defense

a)Where specified by legislature

  1. Defense Strategies

A)Case in Chief/Prima Facie Defense: D only need create a “reasonable doubt” as to an element

B)Affirmative Defense: Acquittal b/c (1) it was justified, or (2) excuse

  1. Standards of Review
  2. Directed Verdict: Requires both:
  3. TJ asks whether prosecution has proved case “beyond a reasonable doubt, AND
  4. Sufficient evidence that a rational jury could decide that prosecution could prove defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
  5. Appeal After Conviction: Sufficiency of evidence asks whether rat. Jury “could have’ found D guilty beyond a reasonable doubty
  6. Cases:
  7. Curly v. US:

A)Facts pp 40-44

1)Violation of mail fraud statute

2)Motion for directed verdict on acquittal

B)Rule

1)How the case plays out with respect to sufficiency of evidence at the appellate level

2)If a reasonable person might fairly conclude that there is reasonable doubt then Judge cannot grant the motion.

  1. Role of the Jury
  2. 6th Am: accused in criminal cases enjoys right to “speedy and public trial by impartial jury”
  3. Federal Case: 12 jurors
  4. Jury Nullification: jury returns verdict contrary to law/court instructions
  5. Mistrial: Without unanimous verdit, judge requires mistrial
  6. Cases
  7. People v. Williamspp 46-54

A)Facts:

1)Trial for statutory rape

2)Judge asks juror “will you follow courts instructions?” Juror says “no.” He is dismissed

B)Rule:

1)Criminal is tried by the law of the land, not the law of the jury.

2)Jury nullification is okay but they can’t say that they are doing.

  1. C-Butler (race based nullification)

A)Selective jury nullification by Af. Am. for Af. Am. D’s b/c Am Criminal system is not just

B)Targe it drug crimes (not for violent crimes)

C)Jury nullification is part a political protest

  1. C-Leipold (Butler rebuttal)

A) Selective jury nullification will deter selection of Af Am jurors

B)“At the broadest philosophical level it is wrong” Race should not be the determining factor of innocence.

  1. Statutory Interpretation
  2. Goals: respecting the “plain language” of the statutory text; discern and effectuate the intent of the legislature or (for initiatives) the voters; and making sure that the interpretation of a particular statute in one case does not contradict its interpretation in another case.
  3. Noscitur a sociss the meaning of doubtful terms of phrases may be determined by reference to their relationship with other associated words or phrases.
  4. Ejusdem generis: where general words follow a specific enumeration of persons or things, the general words should be limited to those things specifically enumerated.
  5. Rule of Lenity: As a last resort, all doubts should be resolved in favor of defendant (based on fairness).
  6. Cases
  7. US v Dauray (possession of minor pornography photos)

A)Facts:

1)Issue was whether these photos fell within the statutory language “other matter.”

2)Statute: “any person who knowingly possesses 3 or more books, magazines, periodically…or other matter”

3)Resolution: Rule of leniety

B)Rule:

1)First, Plain meaning

a)Plain meaning itself

b)Statutory scheme

2)Second, Canons of Construction

a)Noscitur a sociss

b)Ejusdem Generis

c)Statutory Structure

d)Look at statute consistent with statutory amendments

e)Avoid any absurdity

3)Third, Legislative history

4)Fourth, Rule of lenity

  1. US v. Peterson Exercise
  1. Constitutional Limitations
  2. 14th Amendment:
  3. Due Process/Void for Vagueness Doctrine
  4. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville pp 74-79

A)Facts:

1)Convicted of violating vagrancy ordinance

B)Rule:

1)Ordinance void for vagueness b/c fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence that his conduct is forbidden under the statute and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrest.

  1. Colender v. Lawson pp 81-85

A)Facts

1)Loitering statute is unconstitutionally vague

2)Holding: struck down b/c too much discretion of police

B)Rule

1)To avoid Void for Vagueness doctrine:

a)Ordinary people must be able to understand what conduct is prohibited

b)Statute does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

2)C-Lindsay pp 79

a)P is educated black man who believes in physical fitness who had been stopped 17 times in LA.

  1. C- “Walking While Black” pp 86-91

A)Black man is stopped by officers who don’t believe that he’s sitting on the front porch of his own house

B)He says race is “an imprecise proxy for criminality

  1. City of Chicago v. Morales pp 91-98

A)Facts

1)Ordinance: “Gang congregation ordinance” to prevent loitering

2)First 2 yrs 42,000 arrested (first 2 yrs)

B)Rule

1)Vagueness invalidates a law for:

a)It fails to provide notice to ordinary people about prohibited conduct

b)It authorized and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

C)Reenacted law after it was struck down

1)Warn that they’re violating ordinance

2)Allow reasonable amount of time to allow dispersal.

  1. Equal Protection
  2. McCleskey v. Kemp pp 128-140

A)Facts

1)P convicted of armed robbery & murder

2)Baldus Study on race and capital punishment likelihood:

a)B murders W, most likely

b)B murder B, next “

c)W murder W, next “

d)W murder B, almost never.

B)Rule

1)Court affirmed the conviction and said P’s complaint (the data) should be addressed to Congress.

  1. C-“Justice isn’t Blind” by Moren pp 140-141

A)The race & gender of victims has more to do with sentence length then the crime

1)Bl/male victim gets shorter sentence

2)Wh/f victim gets longer sentence.

B)Study vehicular deaths.

  1. State v. Russell pp 141-149

A)Facts:

1)MN statute:

a)Person is guilty of 3rd degree offense if they possess crack.

b)NOTE (96% arrests for crack poss=blk; 79% arrests for powder cocaine poss=white)

2)SC of MN

B)Rule

1)Fed Rationale Basis Test: (statute would uphold, but not used)

a)A legit. Purpose for the legislation

b)It was reasonable for the lawmakers to believe that the use of the challenged statute would promote that purpose.

2)State Rationale Basis Test: (statute fails)

a)The distinction for the classification is genuine and substantial.

b)The classification must be relevant to the purpose of the law

c)The purpose of the statute must be one that the state can legitimately attempt to achieve.

3)Rationale for upholding:

a)Statute punishes with intent to sell.

b)Law has discriminatory impact

  1. C-State, Criminal Law, and Racial Discrimination Comment (Randall Kennedy) pp 1101-1104

A)Discusses State v. Russell: supports MN statute.

B)Those that champion the interests of Af Ams wrongly retard efforts to control criminality.

C)Facially race neutral law whose impact injures a group (blacks) as a whole.

  1. C-“Drugs: it’s a Question of Connections” (Tracy Meares) pp 1104-1109

A)Rebuts Randall Kennedy, above

B)Discrimination by drug enforcement reinforces stereotypes that compromise Af Am crime prevention efforts. (white police officer; black D).

  1. 8th Amendment:
  2. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
  3. Principle of Proportionality
  4. Coker v Georgia pp99-104
  5. Facts

A)Guy serving prison sentence escaped and raped a woman

  1. Rule

A)The death penalty is invalid for rape

B)Factors of excessive and unconstitutional punishment:

1)Makes no contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and only imposes needless pain and suffering

2)It is grossly out of proportion with the severity of the crime.

C)Dissent:

1)This person had raped, killed, and kidnapped different woman on multiple occasions

2)He was already serving 3 life terms and many other punishments

3)“The only effective punishment [would have been the death penalty]”

4)Wanted to use prior crimes cumulatively to charge death penalty

a)He could have gotten death penalty for other crimes.

  1. Ewing v. California pp 106-115 (compare to Ramirez, below)
  2. Facts

A)California 3 Strikes law was designed

1)Incapacitation

2)Deterrence of repeat offenders

B)Statute: w/ 2 or more prior serious or violent felony convictions he “must receive a life term.”

C)“Wobbler Crimes” Allow for prosecutorial discretion by allowing prosecutor to make a similarly related, past crime (misdemeanor) a felony if a subsequent similarly related crime (a felony) is committed.

  1. Rule

A)To determine whether a sentence is disportionate evaluate

1)Gravity of the offense and harshness of the penalty

2)The sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction

3)The sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions

B)Ewing Sentenct was not grossly disproportionate and did not violate the 8th Am.

  1. Ramirez v. Castro pp 116-127 (compare to Ewing, above)
  2. Facts

A)California 3 Strikes Law

B)P convicted of 3 shoplifting offensive

C)25yrs-life sentence

D)H: sentence was harsh b/c no possibility of parole

E)Prosecutor could have charged misdemeanor (max 6 mos jail); instead charged felony under wobbler.

  1. Rule:

A)Apply the Ewing Test to find it is grossly disproportionate.

  1. Federalism & the Supremacy Clause
  1. Actus Reus
  2. Basic Elements of Act Requirement:
  3. Prohibited Act that results in some kind of social harm.
  4. 5 principles:
  5. Person should not be convicted solely on basis of thoughts. (Wisconsin v. Mitchell)
  6. Act must not have been compelled or committed by the government.
  7. Act must have been voluntary.
  8. No liability for omission unless the person had a legal duty to act. (i.e. good Samaritan)
  9. Status crimes are unconstitutional (race motivated or gender motivated.)
  1. Thought Crimes
  1. C-Jail on the Precipice of Crime (Theis)
  2. Dalton kept a diary of pornographic and obscene thoughts.
  3. Dalton pleaded guilty to pandering obscenity involving a minor – which falls into Ohio’s pornography law.
  4. Dalton’s lawyer never raised a 1st amendment defense.
  5. Note: Thought crimes are prohibited under American law suggests that D must have committed some actual act, but this Ohio law criminalizes conduct leading up to the social harm. Thus, a thought crime.
  6. Wisconsin v. Mitchell (penalty enhancement for hate crime)
  1. Facts

A)Mississippi Burning movie – black men beat up white men who were selected on the basis of race.

B)Issue: Do laws expanding sentencing for hate crimes violate the 1st and 14th amendments? No.

  1. Rule: Hate crime statutes consists:

A)Prosecution requires that the individual committed some predicate offense set out in the statute.

B)With the animus specified in the current statute, which operates to enhance the punishment imposed for the predicate offense.

  1. Acting Under State Compulsion
  1. Martin v. State (Officers took drunk man on highway)
  1. Facts

A)Officer arrested drunk man in his home and took him on the highway

B)Drunk man violates public intoxication rule.

  1. Issue – Whether one can be convicted of a crime when directly brought to commit the crime by the police?
  2. Rule – State cannot force a person to commit a crime. (No voluntary element.) This constitutes an affirmative defense.
  1. Hypo – parachute man drunk on other property can be arrested.
  1. Unconsciousness Defense
  1. State v. Desina (epileptic seizure case)
  1. Facts:

A)Desina has epileptic seizure while driving and kills 4 kids.

B)Desina was aware of his convulsions and problems

C)Desina had not had a seizure in several months but had no way of knowing when a seizure would occur.

1)Dissent – narrow time frame because he was unconscious.

2)Majority – broad frame because he voluntarily drove.

D)Desina took medication to prevent seizures

E)Statute – “Criminal negligence in operation of a vehicle resulting in death provided that a person who operates or drives any vehicle of any kind in a reckless or culpably negligent manner, whereby a human being is killed is guilty of criminal negligence in the operation of a vehicle resulting in death.”

  1. Issue – When does the act become voluntary/intentional to make the crime?
  1. Hypo: Amnesia man held up a pizza parlor. Was the act voluntary?
  2. Hypo: Baker is on the highway, puts car in cruise control, car goes out of control, should he be prosecuted.
  3. C-Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law – Kelman Time Frame Article
  1. Hidden Interpretive Time Framing Construct - Effect of viewing criminal act’s time frame after the fact. (unconsciously shift from broad/narrow in evaluating liability.)
  2. Martin – majority looked at a narrow time frame. (Look how far back before the arrest.)
  3. Desina – majority looked at a broad time frame – once he decided to drive then they found him liable. Could have easily shifted to a narrow time frame.
  1. C- Epileptic Convicted of Assault Cleared (AP)
  1. Man with epilepsy that was convicted of assault for grabbing a woman’s arm during a seizure was cleared when he proved that he was not in control.
  2. Evidence was videotaped – contrast to Desina.
  1. Failing to Act – Liability for Omissions
  1. Rule:
  1. Liable if there is a legal duty to act
  2. Physically capable of acting
  3. Omission must cause the harm
  4. Knowledge of the circumstances (e.g. not the mother who left the child in the car by accident.)
  5. Defendant must have requisite mens rea.

A)Where mens rea is lacking, cannot be held criminally liable.

B)E.g. mother who sees drowning son, but cannot swim to rescue. However, she would have to make another attempt to rescue given the circumstances.

C)Must possess knowledge the situation requiring action is occurring.

  1. 5 situations where there is a legal duty to act:
  1. Special relationship between D and victim.

A)Husband / Wife

B) Parent / Child

C)Master/ Servant

3)With increasing special relationship, decreasing requirement of mens rea.

  1. When d enters into a contract that requires D to act in a certain way (e.g. taking care of the elderly)
  2. When there is a statutory duty to act (e.g. pay federal taxes.)
  3. When D creates the risk of harm to the victim.
  4. When D voluntarily assumes the care of the person in need of help.
  1. People v. Beardsley
  1. Facts

A)Woman is at a man’s house on a drug and drinking binge.

B)Woman orders morphine and conceals them from D

C)D tries to prevent woman from taking the morphine.

D)Woman passes out and dies

E)D is too intoxicated to help, but another young man gave her care in the meantime.

  1. Issue – Does a man who is aware of a woman’s present vulnerability who is present in her house give him a legal duty to care for her? No.
  2. Rule –Man’s relationship to woman did not fall under one of the special relationships as delineated by the law and did not assume care or control over her.

A)Dissenting idea – he did give the care of the woman to a young man. Did he assume care?

B)Did he possess the knowledge that she was physically at risk for death?

  1. Commonwealth v. Howard
  1. Facts:

A)Child dies because bf regularly beats the child and suggested child to sadistic abuse.

B)Mother knew of the abuse but did not stop the bf from beating the child.

  1. Issue: Whether the mother was guilty of involuntary manslaughter because her reckless actions caused the death of the daughter?
  2. Rule: Parent had a legal duty to protect the child and that the death was a direct result of the mother’s failure to protect the child from the boyfriend. At the very least, mother had to evict , discourage, or report him to the authorities.
  1. C- Motherhood and Crime (Roberts)
  1. Why should a mother forego all self interest to avoid all criminal liability?
  2. Criticizes traditional role of woman being the caretaker of a child and places too much burden on a mother.
  1. Commonwealth v. Pestinikas (caretakers of 92 year old)
  1. Facts

A)Caretakers agree to care for and provide for 92 year old.