The writer is very fast, professional and responded to the review request fast also. Thank you.
Presentation/PPT
27/08/2022
Discussion Chapter 5: Criminal Defenses
Two Prosecutions—Two Different Results
In 2002, Brian David Mitchell and his accomplice and wife, Wanda Barzee, kidnapped fourteen-year-old Elizabeth Smart from her home. Mitchell, a so-called street preacher, and Barzee held Smart captive for nine months, tethering her to a metal cable, subjecting her to daily rapes, and forcing her to ingest alcohol and drugs (Dobner, J., 2010). At one point, they transported Smart across state lines to California. Mitchell was put on trial for kidnapping and sexual assault in the state of Utah. The trial court found Mitchell incompetent to stand trial, and did not make a ruling forcing him to submit to medication to remedy the incompetency (Dobner, J., 2010). Unlike Mitchell, Barzee was involuntarily medicated pursuant to a state court order (by the same judge that heard Mitchell’s incompetency claim), and pleaded guilty to federal and state kidnapping, sexual assault, and illegal transportation of a minor for sex, receiving two fifteen-year sentences, to be served concurrently (Dobner, J., 2010). The
federal government also instituted a prosecution against Mitchell for kidnapping and taking Smart across state lines for sex. The US District Court judge held a competency hearing and found that Mitchell was
competent to stand trial (Winslow, B., 2010). Mitchell pleaded not guilty by reason of
insanity. Throughout the trial, Mitchell was often removed from the courtroom for loudly singing Christmas carols and hymns. A serious of experts testified regarding Mitchell’s psychological ailments, including a rare delusional disorder, schizophrenia, pedophilia, and antisocial personality disorder. Nonetheless, the jury
rejected the insanity defense and convicted Mitchell of kidnapping and transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of illegal sex (Dobner, J., 2010).
If Mitchell had not committed federal crimes, he might
still be awaiting trial in Utah.
1. What is the purpose of putting Mitchell on trial rather than delaying the trial for mental incompetency? Is this purpose
ethical?
Exercise: Chapter 5: Criminal Defenses
Answer the following questions and make sure your response is 100 words or more for each.
1. Carol is on trial for battery, a general intent crime. Carol puts on a defense that proves her conduct was accidental,
not intentional. Is this an affirmative defense? Why or why not?
2. Read
State v. Burkhart, 565 S.E.2d 298 (2002). In
Burkhart, the defendant was convicted of three counts of murder. The defendant claimed he acted in self-defense. The jury instruction given during the defendant’s trial stated that the prosecution had the burden of disproving self-defense. However, the instruction did not state that the prosecution’s burden of disproving self-defense was
beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the Supreme Court of South Carolina uphold the defendant’s conviction for the murders?
3. Read
Hoagland v. State, 240 P.3d 1043 (2010). In
Hoagland, the defendant wanted to assert a
necessity defense to the crime of driving while under the influence. The Nevada Legislature had never addressed or mentioned a necessity defense. Did the Supreme Court of Nevada allow the defendant to present the necessity defense?
Case Study: Chapter 5: Criminal Defenses
*
Please make sure that your response is 100 words or more for each question/statement. *
You are a law professor searching for cases to illustrate certain legal concepts for your students. Read the prompt, review the case, and then decide which
legal concept it represents.
1. The defendant’s vehicle matched the description of a vehicle seen in the vicinity of a burglary before the burglary, during the burglary, and after the burglary. The defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was an accomplice to the burglary. Does this case illustrate the legal concept of
accomplice act,
accomplice intent, or
both? Read
Collins v. State, 438 So. 2d 1036 (1983). The case is available at this link:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8573128029213310764&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1Links to an external site.
.
2. The defendants, foster parents, were found guilty as accomplices to the felony murder of their two-year-old foster daughter. Although both defendants testified that the victim died from injuries experienced after a fall from a swing, medical experts reported that the victim’s injuries were inconsistent with that testimony and appeared to be the result of child abuse. The jury convicted the defendants as accomplices to felony murder after a jury instruction stating that an omission to act could constitute the criminal act element for accomplice liability when there is a duty to act, and parents have a legal duty to come to the aid of their children. Does this case illustrate the legal concept of
omission to act,
statutory interpretation, or
both? Read
State v. Jackson, 137 Wn. 2d 712 (1999). The case is available at this link:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1412039.htmlLinks to an external site.
.
3, The defendant, an electrical contracting company, was found guilty of violating OSHA regulations that led to an employee’s death. The victim, an apprentice in training, touched a live electrical wire and died from electrocution. The OSHA statute in question required “willful” conduct on behalf of the company. The jury instruction on willful stated that a company acted willfully or knowingly if individual employees of that company acted knowingly. The evidence indicated that some employees knew or were aware of live wiring in the vicinity of the accident. The defendant appealed and claimed that the jury instruction should have stated that a company acted willfully or knowingly if individual employees acted knowingly
and had a
duty to report that knowledge to the company. Does this case illustrate the legal concept of
criminal intent,
vicarious liability, or
both? Read
U.S. v. L.E. Meyers Co., 562 F.3d 845 (2009). The case is available at this link:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2854285863509787279&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrLinks to an external site.
.
4. The defendant was convicted of both first-degree murder and accessory after the fact to that murder. The trial court did not instruct the jury that the offenses were mutually exclusive and that they could only convict the defendant of one or the other. The defendant appealed on the basis that he was entitled to a jury instruction that prevented a conviction on both murder and accessory after the fact to murder. Does this case illustrate the legal concept of the
criminal elements required for accessory after the fact, the
criminal elements required for murder, or
both? Read
State v. Melvin, No. 382PA09 (North Carolina 2010). The case is available at this link:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-supreme-court/1549865.ht
The writer is very fast, professional and responded to the review request fast also. Thank you.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more