Question: 1 . Did Hanousek have the required mental state ( mens rea ) to be convicted of a crime? Why or why not? 2 .
Did Hanousek have the required mental state mens rea to be convicted of a crime? Why or why
not?
Which theory discussed in the chapter would enable a court to hold Hanousek criminally liable for
violating the statute regardless of whether he participated in directed, or even knew about the
specific violation?
Could the quarrys backhoe operator who punctured the pipeline also be charged with a crime in this
situation? Explain.
Suppose that, at trial, Hanousek argued that he could not be convicted because he was not aware of
the requirements of the CWA. Would this defense be successful? Why or why not?
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
1 Expert Approved Answer
Step: 1 Unlock
Question Has Been Solved by an Expert!
Get step-by-step solutions from verified subject matter experts
Step: 2 Unlock
Step: 3 Unlock
