assume you are applying the law of an American jurisdiction that follows the general common law principles we have covered in class, that defines “first degree” murder according to the original Pennsylvania statute of 1794 (casebook, p.381), that for the mens rea of complicity follows both Gladstone (casebook, p.595) and Luparello (casebook, p.604), and which, for purposes of the felony murder rule and misdemeanor manslaughter rule, treats assault as “merging” with the killing of the person assaulted (i.e., assault is not an “independent” felony). When asked a question in a MPC jurisdiction or under the MPC, assume you are applying the law of an American jurisdiction that has adopted verbatim the Model Penal Code reproduced in the Appendix of your casebook, with any modifications stated in the particular question.
· The Criminal Jury
· Sentencing
o Punishment
§ Shaming
o Proportionality
o Sentencing Guidelines
o Plea Bargain
· Criminal Liability
o Voluntariness Requirement
o Rule of Lenity
o Vagueness Doctrine
· Actus Reus
o Voluntariness Requirement
o Liability for Omissions
· Mens Rea
o Common Law Mens Rea
o MPC Mens Rea
§ Strict Liability
§ Vicarious Liability
§ Application/Interpretation of MPC Mens Rea
§ Willful Blindness
· Mistake of Fact
o Common Law Mistake of Fact
o MPC Mistake of Fact
· Intoxication
· Mistake of Law
o Official Reliance
· Causation
· Homicide
o Intentional Killings
o Provocation Mitigation
o Unintentional Killings
o Felony Murder Rule
· Death Penalty
· Rape
· Inchoate Crimes
o Attempt
o Impossibility
· Liability For the Conduct of Another
o Complicity
o Conspiracy
· Affirmative Defenses
o Justification Defenses
§ Self-Defense
§ Protection of Property/Law Enforcement
§ Necessity
o Excuse Defenses
§ Duress
§ Insanity
§ Infancy/ Environmental Deprivation
§ Entrapment
The Criminal Jury
Right to a Jury is federally protected by the 6th Amendment and protected in states by the 14th Amendment. It is enacted to solve disputes of fact and a trial can be prevented from going to a jury if the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.
14th amendment- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
6th amendment- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.
Trial by jury is granted to prevent oppression by the government (against arbitrary decisions, overzealous, eccentric or biased judges) and many people feel more comfortable being judged by a group of their peers.
There are problems with the limits of how the 6th amendment applied
o unanimity (not required in all states, unless the jury is only made up of 6 people)
o number of jurors (determined to be 6)
o whether the jury is really made up of a group of peers
Pros of Jury
Cons of Jury
Educational Value
Don’t know the law
Individualizes Justice
Expensiv
f jury nullification (DeSacia v. State), (United States v. Powell).
Special Verdict- The concern in requiring the jury to answer a series of questions in addition to finding a judgment is that the judge might be leading the jury to one conclusion. As a result, judges are only allowed to use special verdicts when they use general question that will lead to general verdicts (Appellate courts are wary). (U.S. v. Spock)
Double Jeopardy- No one can be tried twice for the same crime (except in different sovereignties, so could do federal and state, but usually won’t)
Right to Jury- If the maximum authorized punishment is 6 months or greater (Baldwin v. New York) then it is a serious crime and therefore person has a right to a jury, individual states can’t experiment where it violates the rights of its people (Duncan v. Louisiana)
· United States v. Moylan- To encourage individuals to determine which laws they will obey based on their own moral judgment will lead to anarchy
· People v. Fernandez- Judge told jury that they didn’t have the right to find a defendant not guilty if they believed that he had committed the crime. This was upheld, even though they could have nullified the decision.
· People v. Engelman- Proper to instruct jury to tell the judge if one of the jurists is considering nullification, even though this would pressure minority—viewpoint jurists to accept majority decision.
