This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - chaser
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  7 8 9
« on: March 28, 2005, 07:00:25 PM »
I think we can concede that these are "hard" questions.
I was intrigued by the second question, and I did some research. "B" is de facto wrong--because 24 states allow "renunciation" by statute, and 2 allow it by stare decisis.
California does not recognize the concept of "renunciation"--to wit, what he did when he put the money back.
The Model Penal Code allows "renunciation" as long as the renunciation was motivated by conscience, and not new information that the defendant might get caught. The case at hand prima facie appears to fit this type of renunciation.
However, under MPC, the defendant could still have accomplice liability even if he renounces and an accomplice still continues to take steps towards the substantive crime. There was no accomplice in the case at hand, but this would appear to be good fodder for a future hypo.
« on: March 24, 2005, 07:18:49 PM »
On the second one, see LARCENY (SUPRA).
There are two ways to "play" this question, and one leads to the "correct" answer (Model Penal Code), and one is the Great Kreskin method, wherein I attempt to guess what your professor THINKS is the right answer, as he doesn't seem to believe in the Model Penal Code (which is his perogative; it's not a LAW, just a MODEL.)
GREAT KRESKIN: I'm leaning towards "A," because the "carrying away" can be as little as an inch, and he had INTENT to permanently deprive in the metaphysical second that he "CARRIED AWAY."
MODEL PENAL CODE:
Section 5.01 Criminal Attempt.
(4) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose. When the actor's conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt under Subsection (1)(b) of this Section, it is an affirmative defense that he abandoned his effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation or his criminal purpose. The establishment of such defense does not, however, affect the liability of an accomplice who did not join in such abandonment or prevention.
Within the meaning of this Article, renunciation of criminal purpose is not voluntary if it is motivated, in whole or in part, by circumstances, not present or apparent at the inception of the actor's course of conduct, whihc increase the probability of detection or apprehension or shich make more difficult the accomplishment of the criminal purpose. Renunciation is not complete if it is motivated by a decision to postpone the criminal conduct until a more advantageous time or to transfer the criminal effort to another but similar objective or victim.
The only answer which comes close to the spirit of this code is "C," but the professor has worded this "answer" really weakly.
However, George "renounced" his crime, and his renunciation was not motivated by, for instance, "new information that he was going to get caught" or "postponing the larceny until a better time," et cetera.
The "real world" answer would be "C," as any DA in a major US metro would have to be crazy to prosecute someone for taking toll booth change and putting it back.
However, the "academic/hypothetical" answer might be "A," as all of the elements of Larceny were executed, and they were executed with INTENT--only you could argue that "permanently deprive" only existed for a brief moment, and this might make the "crime" inchoate.
FOOTNOTE: In California, the defendant is almost certainly guilty of LARCENY, as California does not recognize "RENUNCIATION."
« on: March 24, 2005, 07:12:26 PM »
This is my answer to the first one:
(What makes this question interesting is that your professor ascribes to an antiquated, MINORITY VIEW--as the "correct" answer is not listed.)
LARCENY: The trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another, with the intent to deprive the owner thereof.
According to the Model Penal Code, he committed ATTEMPTED LARCENY, because he took a SUBSTANTIAL STEP towards the commission of LARCENY, which was rendered IMPOSSIBLE because of LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY--i.e., you can't permanently deprive someone else of something that is yours.
(Modern jurisdictions in Anglo-American courts focus on INTENT however.)
However, "D" is the only answer that comes close. "D" would be correct in jurisdictions that recognize LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY, which is the majority rule in PEOPLE V. JAFFE, but is now a minority view.
(People v. Jaffe occurred in approximately 1902.)
« on: February 10, 2005, 10:21:20 PM »
« on: January 18, 2005, 08:20:13 PM »
I think "guilty female" would be "femina rea."
("Mens" is obviously "mind," in case that wasn't a joke--like the organization Mensa.)
Anyway, a great, free Latin dictionary is at:http://www.freedict.com
« on: January 17, 2005, 02:17:19 PM »
"Actus non facit reum nisi uxor sit rea."
Solon, after his wife wrecked the charriot.
« on: January 10, 2005, 05:45:23 PM »
St. Thomas University in Miami is very receptive to DL J.D. applicants for LL.M., and is ABA approved.
After that, I would just apply to any ABA school that offers LLM; which is in an area geographically you want to practice. What subjects they offer the LL.M IN is also a factor. Like, for instance, the University of Arizona offers one in "Indigenous Peoples Rights." You are either highly interested in that subject...or you are not.
Some offer "general" LL.M.'s. Needless to say, you've got to think of a topic you want to write a 150 page thesis on, citing 50 references (or whatever the requirements are.) Here's a topic: "Should DL be legal in this state?" Then conclude, "Yes." Get published, and send it to a state legislator, and some influential people on the bar commitee of the state!
The worst-case scenario is that they turn you down and you lose the time and nominal money for the application fee.
(Okay...maybe somebody somewhere will insult you. But if you can't recover from that, you shouldn't be a lawyer anyway [debatably].)
(If you passed the California bar, I'll bet you are more qualified to practice law than many of the other LL.M. students currently in the school.)
« on: January 10, 2005, 12:50:50 PM »
I think there are some pretty good DL schools in Great Britain, where you could get the equivalent common law degree.
I might be mistaken, but I think there is even a way that you could become a Solicitor in the UK by DL--though I don't think a Barrister.
(They have a two-tiered sort of "caste system.")
I think there is a pretty good common law DL school even in the Netherlands.
For a complete list, get the book "The Law School Bible," by Peter Loughlin, for about 30-bucks on http://www.amazon.com
. (Plus, he lists a bunch of other "tricks." It's worth the $30--expecially, if someday you can end up billing $500 per hour!) (His actual Web page is http://www.thelawschoolbible.com
« on: January 07, 2005, 10:07:27 PM »
Good point. And a lot of our laws have their origins in secular, Roman Empire philosophy.
Seneca the Elder, for instance, invented the "hypothetical"; Solon invented "trial by jury"; ad infinitum.
Some of those Roman concepts endure so well because they AREN'T contingent on a particular religion.
« on: January 07, 2005, 09:51:39 PM »
You're right--I just hope you can't "psychoanalyze" these, like a "free-association" test.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  7 8 9