searchfortruth.info > Legal

Legal

Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine

by

This is a study of a body of doctrine, the doctrine of complicity, that determines when one person is liable for a crime committed by another. Doctrine may be studied in several ways depending on the question asked. One question asks what the doctrine is in some jurisdiction. This is the question primarily addressed by treatise writers. Another question asks whether the doctrine serves the purposes of the law and, to the extent it does not, how it should be altered. This is the question addressed by those engaged in revising the law. I do not mean that these questions can be answered independently of one another, only that they are different questions. In any event, the question this study addresses is distinguishable from both. It asks how the doctrine of complicity can best be interpreted as a coherent concept. This entails articulating the relationships between different parts of complicity...

Read More!

Legal versus Moral Complicity

by

Abstract

Since the publication of Kadish’s article ‘Complicity, Cause, and Blame’ in 1985, legal scholars have taken great interest in the notion of complicity and have produced a significant number of publications on the subject. With the exception of Christopher Kutz, these scholars have largely ignored the moral, as opposed to legal, aspects of complicity. In this paper I make an attempt to compare the moral and legal notions of complicity. I will argue that, unless one takes a position of strict consequentialism, the moral notion of complicity casts a wider net than the legal notion. This is a point of no small importance. People need to realize that if they skirt the boundaries of legal complicity, their behavior might well still qualify as complicity on moral grounds.

1. Since the publication of Kadish’s article ‘Complicity, Cause, and Blame’ in 1985, legal scholars have taken great interest in the notion of...

Read More!

Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview

by

Summary

Zacarias Moussaoui, members of the Colombian drug cartels, members of organized crime, and some of the former Enron executives have at least one thing in common: they all have federal conspiracy convictions. The essence of conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to engage in some form of prohibited misconduct. The crime is complete upon agreement, although some statutes require prosecutors to show that at least one of the conspirators has taken some concrete step or committed some overt act in furtherance of the scheme. There are dozens of federal conspiracy statutes. One, 18 U.S.C. 371, outlaws conspiracy to commit some other federal crime. The others outlaw conspiracy to engage in various specific forms of proscribed conduct. General Section 371 conspiracies are punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years; drug trafficking, terrorist, and racketeering conspiracies all carry the same penalties as their underlying substantive offenses, and...

Read More!

Civil Conspiracy and the Rule of Law: A Proposal for Reappraisal and Reform

by

I. INTRODUCTION

A civil conspiracy is a group of two or more persons acting together to achieve an unlawful objective or to achieve a lawful objective by unlawful or criminal means.”

. . . . “[T]here must also be some illegal or tortious act committed by at least one of the parties to carry out the objectives of the agreement.

A. The Nature of the Problem and Questions Posed This article considers the doctrine of civil conspiracy, which has been used to impose expansive liability on defendants, in certain cases with limited (if any) fault, through a form of vicarious liability where each coconspirator is jointly and severally liable for the acts of the other.

Civil conspiracy has also been applied inconsistently in various places throughout the United States: for example, some states restrict its scope, through a concept of “duty limitations” while others do not, and some states are still

Read More!

Impulsive versus Premeditated Aggression: Implications for Mens Rea Decisions

by

Science can provide more information about the nature of aggressive acts, and therefore the mens rea of criminal offenses, than is commonly assumed. For example, progress has been made in classifying aggression as impulsive or premeditated within the context of the role of conscious experience in controlling behavior. This review of the status of the scientific ability to distinguish conscious from unconscious acts and more specifically impulsive from premeditated aggressive acts is organized around four themes: (i) How is aggression defined and measured in general? (ii) How does the distinction between impulsive and premeditated aggression relate to the legal concept of mens rea? (iii) How do various scientific disciplines con-tribute to the mind/body discourse? (iv) What risk factors are associated with impulsive and premeditated aggression respectively? The authors conclude that the most promising approach to researching the nature of behavioral intention and motivation is to apply a discipline neutral model that integrates the data from multiple disciplines, collectively designated the cognitive neurosciences. Copyright#2003 John...

Read More!

Fourth Amendment–Protective Sweep Doctrine: When Does the Fourth Amendment Allow Police Officers to Search the Home Incident to a Lawful Arrest

by

I. INTRODUCTION

In Maryland v. Buie,' the Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment permits an officer executing an arrest warrant in a private awelling to search rooms other than the room in which the arrest is made, whenever the searching officer possesses a reason- able belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the adjacent rooms harbor another individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. The majority based its approval of this "protective sweep" on the "reasonable suspicion" exception to traditional fourth amendment searches first articulated in Terry v. State of Ohio. The majority thus extended the Terry holding, which permits officers to conduct a protective, warrantless search of a person, to "protective sweeps" conducted by police officers incident to a lawful, in home arrest. Conversely, the Buie dissent argued that the Terry test does not extend to searches of the home and that the fourth amendment war- rant and probable cause requirements should be applied to protective...

Read More!

Prisoners Of The Mind | The Inappropriateness Of Comparing The Involuntarily Committed Mentally Ill To Pretrial Detainees In Fourth Amendment Analyses

by

INTRODUCTION

In addition to substandard conditions of confinement, the invo- luntarily committed experience a stunning lack of privacy while insti-tutionalized. One commentator relates a former patient’s description of life in an institution as follows:

Everything is taken from you, you share a door-less room with as many other “crazy” women as the number of beds that can be fitted in al- lows . . . . There is one bathroom with two (door-less, of course) toilet compartments . . . and never, never any privacy at all. It is also a place where patients are instantly robbed of credibility.

Nevertheless, surprisingly little litigation has taken place over searches of psychiatric patients. One recent case, however, suggests that such claims are likely to be unsuccessful. In Serna v. Goodno, an entire treatment facility of “sexually dangerous persons” was subject to visual body cavity searches because hospital staff suspected the presence of a cellular phone in the ward.These suspicionless...

Read More!

Comprehensive Representation: A Holistic Approach to White Collar Criminal Defense

by

I. Introduction

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a defense attorney failed to adequately represent his client, José Padilla, a non-citizen, but lawful permanent resident of the United States, because he did not advise Mr. Padilla that entering a guilty plea could result in deportation. The majority opinion states:

It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant whether a citizen or not is left to the ‘mercies of incompetent counsel.’ Richardson, 397 U.S. at 771. To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.

Padilla marks “the first time that the Court has applied the 1984 Strickland standard to a lawyer’s failure to advise a client about a consequence of conviction that is not part of the sentence imposed by the court.” One legal scholar suggests that even if Padilla is limited to cases with the risk

Read More!

Crafting a Closing Argument

by

How can trial lawyers develop persuasive and effective closing arguments that will resonate with jurors? Here is a step-by-step guide to developing and organizing winning closing arguments that will give jurors all the tools they need to decide a case in your client's favor. Published in the Litigation magazine, Volume 33, No. ...

Read More!

Fraud in the Inducement/ Fraud in the Procurement Law and Legal Definition

by

Fraud in the inducement is the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to act to his/her disadvantage, such as signing an agreement. The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act. A person is induced to enter into a transaction with a false impression of the risks, duties, or obligations involved. There is intentional misrepresentation of a material risk or duty reasonably relied on, thereby injuring the other party without vitiating the contract itself. For example, A tells his mother to sign a deed giving him her property, and his mother refuses to do so. A falsely tells her that the bank will foreclose on the property unless she signs it over to him. If A’s mother signs the deed because of this statement from A, and A tries to enforce the deed,..

Read More!

Indigent Defense: International Perspectives and Research Needs

by

The U.S. Constitution guarantees all criminal defendants the right to be represented by counsel. Those defendants who cannot afford a lawyer have the right to have counsel appointed free of charge.[1] A considerable majority of criminal defendants in the United States fall into this category; yet, there are insufficient resources to meet their legal needs.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has characterized the funding for indigent defense services as "shamefully inadequate" and found that the system "lacks fundamental fairness and places poor persons at constant risk for wrongful conviction."[2] Public defenders represent the majority of indigent defendants in nonfederal cases,[3] but public defender offices are significantly understaffed and underfunded. In 2007, the Bureau of Justice Statistics examined caseloads in public defender offices and found that the majority of offices exceeded the recommended number of cases per attorney under the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice's Standards and Goals and employed insufficient numbers of support staff.

Read More!