Criminal Law 11th Edition Joel Samaha - Solutions

If you were a juror, could you in good conscience say that Schnopps was adequately provoked?Explain your answer, relying on the facts in the case, the court’s opinion, and the text prior to the excerpt.
Consider the following remarks made after the convictions in the original trial (Greenhouse 1985, 1):a. Following the conviction in the original trial, then attorney Richard M. Daley said the verdicts meant that employers who knowingly expose their workers to dangerous conditions leading to injury
Do you agree that it’s inconsistent to find that the corporation had one state of mind and the individuals another?
On remand, would you find the defendants guilty of murder? Explain your answer.
Why did the court reverse and remand the case?
List all the evidence for and against the corporations’ and the individuals’ liability for murder and involuntary manslaughter.
Do you agree with the court’s decision? Support your answer.
Summarize the court’s arguments supporting its conclusion that the “inherently dangerous” rule doesn’t apply to the facts and circumstances in this case.
Summarize the court’s arguments for adopting the “inherently dangerous felony” rule.
Summarize the court’s arguments for concluding that Dr. Phillips’s conduct caused the victim’s death.
List all the facts and circumstances relevant to decide whether Dr. Phillips was guilty of felony murder.
If he’s not guilty, should he be guilty of some lesser degree of criminal homicide? Give a preliminary answer now; then, when we get to manslaughter, you can give a more informed answer.
In your opinion, is Thomas guilty of murder? If so, what degree—first or second degree? Explain your answer.
According to the court, what’s the mental element required for second-degree murder?
List all the facts relevant to proving Daniel Thomas’s mental attitude.
Summarize the arguments in favor of and against classifying this as a “heinous, cruel, and atrocious” murder.
List the facts in the case that are relevant to deciding whether this was a “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” murder.
How does the court define “heinous, atrocious, or cruel”?
Assuming Snowden is guilty of first-degree murder, should he be sentenced to death? Consider the lists of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the “The Death Penalty” section(pp. 309–310). Which items on the list might apply to him? Explain your answer, based on the facts in the case.
In your opinion, did Ray Snowden commit firstdegree murder?
Sort and arrange the facts of the case according to the definitions of the three terms in (1).
How does the court define the terms “willful,”“deliberate,” and “premeditated”?
Which side do you agree with? Back up your answer with specific facts and circumstances and the arguments in the case and the text.
Summarize the arguments of the defendant and the Connecticut Supreme Court against criminal solicitation.
Summarize the arguments of the trial court and the prosecution in favor of criminal solicitation.
List the facts and circumstances relevant to deciding whether Ernest Schleifer is guilty of criminal solicitation.
Do you think the forfeiture was excessive?
Summarize the U.S. Supreme Court’s arguments supporting the forfeiture.
Summarize Ferris Alexander Sr.’s arguments that the forfeiture was an excessive fine.
List all of the specific items in the forfeiture.
According to the court, what “fundamental principle of our justice system” would the government’s definition of “agreement” violate? Do you agree? Explain your answer.
In your opinion, was there an agreement to assault Romero, Valenzuela, and Baumea with dangerous weapons? Back up your answer with relevant facts and arguments from the case excerpt.
Summarize the reasons the court rejected the government’s arguments and ordered that Garcia should go free.
Summarize the government’s evidence and arguments that support the conclusion that Garcia was part of an agreement to assault Romero, Valenzuela, and Baumea with dangerous weapons.
State the two parts of the element of agreement in conspiracy, according to the court of appeals.
The court said a jury could have concluded Randen’s pregnancy was either an extraneous factor he couldn’t benefit from or an intrinsic factor that caused Le Barron to renounce voluntarily his intention to rape. If you were a juror, how would you have voted on whether the pregnancy was an
Is Le Barron equally dangerous, whichever reason led to interrupting the rape? Explain.
Why did Le Barron abandon his attempt to rape Randen? Because he believed it was morally wrong to rape a pregnant woman? Or did the pregnancy simply repel him sexually? Does it matter? Explain your answer.
Describe the details surrounding Le Barron’s decision to abandon the attempted rape of Randen.
At what point, if any, did his acts cross the line from preparation to the actus reus of attempt under Wisconsin law?
List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Le Barron had the intent to rape Jodean Randen.
Some states punish attempts at the same level as completed crimes because people bent on committing crimes shouldn’t benefit at all from a stroke of luck. Do you agree? Defend your answer with arguments from the case excerpt and the text.
Is the Wisconsin rule punishing attempts that are about half the actions needed to complete the crime a good idea?
What if Damms knew the gun was unloaded?Should he still be guilty of attempted murder?Explain your answer.
Should it matter why the gun was unloaded?Explain your answer.
In your opinion, is the majority or dissent right?Explain your answer in terms of what effect impossibility should have on liability for criminal attempt.
Summarize the dissent’s arguments that the unloaded gun wasn’t an extraneous factor but an impossibility that prevents Damms from attempting to murder Marjory Damms.
Summarize the majority’s arguments that the unloaded gun was an extraneous factor, a stroke of luck Damms shouldn’t benefit from.
List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Damms had taken enough steps to attempt to murder Marjory Damms according to the Wisconsin statute.
List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Ralph Damms intended to murder Marjory Damms.
Now, you be the judge. Write an opinion deciding the case, relying on your answers to 2 and 3.
Now, assume you’re the defense attorney. On the facts and circumstances available from the excerpt, argue that the case went no further than preparation.
Assume you’re the prosecutor. On the facts and circumstances available from the excerpt, argue that the case went far enough beyond preparation to satisfy the actus reus element.
List all of the facts and circumstances relevant to deciding whether George Lee Mims Sr. attempted to rob the bank.
Did Kimball specifically intend to rob the store?Back up your answer with the relevant facts and portions of the opinion.
List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Kimball specifically intended to rob the store.
If you were a juror, which version would you believe? Explain your answer.
Summarize Susan Stanchfield’s version and then James Kimball’s version of what happened in the Alpine Party Store.
Apart from the legal and constitutional arguments, do you think it’s good public policy to make parents criminally liable for their children’s crimes? Defend your answer.
Summarize all of the arguments of the majority and dissenting opinions. Which side do you agree with? Defend your answer.
Exactly what does the New Hampshire statute prohibit?
In your opinion, should Peter Tomaino be liable for Billie Doan’s acts? Back up your answer with facts from the case and the arguments from the state, Tomaino, and the court.
Summarize the Ohio Court of Appeals’ reasons for rejecting vicarious liability under the Ohio statute referred to in (1).
Summarize the events that led to Tomaino’s prosecution.
State the elements of the Ohio statute relevant to Peter Tomaino’s liability for Billie Doan’s acts.
In your opinion, was Zeta Chi guilty of selling alcohol to a minor? Of prostitution? Back up your answer with facts and arguments from the court’s opinion.
Summarize the court’s arguments upholding the trial court’s conviction in each of the offenses.
List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Zeta Chi, through its officers, was acting within its authority in each of the crimes.
State the elements of vicarious liability according to New Hampshire law.
Summarize the reasons the dissent couldn’t go along with the majority. Do you agree with the dissent? Defend your answer.
Do you agree with the court that Chism is guilty of being an accessory after the fact? Back up your answer with facts in the case.
Summarize the court’s conclusions regarding the evidence of each of the elements.
List all the facts stated by the court, and then match them to each of the elements of the statute.
Identify the elements of accessory after the fact according to the Louisiana statute.
Do you agree with the court that however morally reprehensible her behavior, she, nonetheless, wasn’t an accomplice? Defend your answer.
According to the court, why isn’t Mrs. Ulvinen guilty of murder?
List all the facts after the murder that a jury could infer proved Mrs. Ulvinen participated before or during the murder itself.
List all the facts (including words) surrounding Mrs. Ulvinen’s behavior before or during the murder that might make her an accomplice.
Now, assume you’re a juror. Would you vote to convict or acquit? Defend your answer.
Assume you’re the defense attorney, and argue Phipps didn’t have the specific intent to kill his wife’s boyfriend.
Assume you’re the prosecutor, and argue Phipps had the specific intent to kill his wife’s boyfriend.
List all the evidence supporting the claim that David Phipps suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Summarize the court’s arguments for admitting evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder.
State the exact rule the court adopted regarding post-traumatic stress disorder.
What facts led the Court to conclude that Oliver was entrapped but DePasquale wasn’t?
State the test for entrapment according to Nevada law.
Should it matter whether he appreciated what he did as long as he knew what he did was wrong?Explain your answer
Did K.R.L. know what he was doing intellectually yet not sufficiently appreciate what he was doing? What facts support this conclusion?
Was the trial judge or the Supreme Court of Washington right in the ruling on the capacity of K.R.L. to form criminal intent? Back up your answer with facts from the case.
If the defendant did have such knowledge, the law will still excuse him if two conditions concur:a. If the mental disease caused the defendant to so far lose the power to choose between right and wrong and to avoid doing the alleged act that the disease destroyed his free will andb. If the mental
If so, did the defendant know right from wrong with respect to the act charged? If not, the law excuses the defendant.
At the time of the crime, was the defendant afflicted with “a disease of the mind”?
In your opinion, was Darren Odell entitled to the defense of insanity, according to the Minnesota statute? Back up your answer with facts and arguments in the case excerpt
Summarize the court’s arguments for its decision.
List all the facts relevant to each element of the test.
State the elements in Minnesota’s version of the right-wrong test.
Has your opinion of the insanity defense changed after reading the excerpt? Explain your answer.
In your opinion, were the conditions Judge Friedman attached to the furlough “fair”? Back up your answer with details from the case.
Summarize Judge Friedman’s reasons for attaching additional conditions to Hinckley’s furloughs.
Summarize the arguments for and against St. Elizabeth’s proposal for John Hinckley’s furloughs.

Showing 100 - 200 of 1146

Criminal Law 11th Edition Joel Samaha - Solutions

Step by Step Answers