How would you respond to this case;

Response as the Defense Attorney:

Joe could not possibly be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the offense of Attempted Credit Union Robbery due to the fact that he did not meet either of the elements of "attempt" that are defined by The Model Penal Code (MPC). In the MPC, for an offense to be considered to have been attempted, it requires two things: the intent to commit the offense and taking a substantial step toward the commission of said offense. While one can assume that Joe had gathered the latex gloves and his hunting rifle to commit the Credit Union Robbery, Joe never used these items in the commission of an offense and just happened to have them his locked trunk while attempting to buy a soda at a gas station when the Police took him into custody. With Joe never taking a substantial step toward committing the alleged offense and no way to prove he had an actual intent of committing the offense, he should be found not guilty as the probable cause was only based on circumstantial "evidence".

Joe should also be found not guilty of the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Credit Union Robbery due to him not meeting the elements of the offense of conspiracy as defined by the MPC. The elements of conspiracy are an agreement between two or more people, the intent to carry out an act that is unlawful, a culpable intent on the part of the defendants, and, depending on the jurisdiction, preparation, an overt act, or a substantial step in furtherance of the conspiracy. While Joe and Fred have been alleged to have agreed to commit an offense and were also alleged to have the intent to commit it, they never made any overt act to commit the offense. While Joe may have been in possession of several items commonly used in robberies, and with Frank who he is alleged to be conspiring with, he was arrested for this conspiracy charge at a convenience store buying soda, not at the bank, so Joe made no overt act to commit he offense of Robbery and all the evidence in this case is also circumstantial and a stretch, at best.

Response as the Prosecutor:

Joe should be found guilty of Attempted Credit Union Robbery due to him meeting the elements of "attempt" that are found in The Model Penal Code (MPC). Joe met the elements of attempt due to him and Fred clearly having the intent to commit this offense due to Joe approaching Fred for help, Fred agreeing to help Joe, and then Fred going and telling Suzy that he was about to come into some money due to the robbery. Joe then took substantial steps toward committing the offense by conducting surveillance, noting the bank's security presence, placing articles into his vehicle to assist in committing the offense, and even setting a specific date to commit the offense. This shows that a reasonable and prudent person could say beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe attempted to commit the offense of Robbery of the Credit Union, and had it not been for Suzy reporting the offense and the swift actions of the Police, they robbery would have occurred.

Joe should also be found guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Credit Union Robbery due to him satisfying the elements of "conspiracy" as determined by The Model Penal Code (MPC). Joe made an agreement with Fred, which satisfies the first element. Joe and Fred showed their intent to carry out the act of robbery due to them setting a specific date to commit the offense and with Fred telling Suzy that he was about to come into some money due to the robbery they intended to commit. Joe also took substantial steps in furthering the conspiracy by placing the gloves and rifle in his vehicle and conducting surveillance of the credit union to enhance their chances at success by studying the different hours and how hardened their target was by notating their level of security personnel. As I stated above, had it not been for the reporting of the conspiracy by Suzy and the swift actions of the Police, this robbery would have been committed.