{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Crim Law - Spring 2004 - Garvey2

Crim Law - Spring 2004 - Garvey2 - Jing Lin Garvey Spring...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Jing Lin Garvey Spring 2004 Criminal Law outline Criminal Law Case Studies book (January 27; pages 1-13) Chapter 1: The Basic Requirement of Criminal Liability I. The Case of DeSean McCarty (Illinois, 1997) a. DeSean grew up in crime-infested area of Chicago. One day he traded couple of ounces of cocaine in exchange for the use of Griffin’s fiance’s car. He was supposed to give the car back but didn’t plan on giving it back to Griffin. Two days later, DeSean is near where he first got the car, saw a police car behind him, thought he was being followed, and takes off in his stolen car, thus arousing the suspicion of the police officer, Sean Laura. There was a chase; at one point he was above the speed limit. Eventually DeSean stopped and ran on foot. Laura ended up chasing him on foot and radios for backup. Backup comes in the form of fellow officer Brogdon, who accidentally runs Laura over. Laura dies as a result. They eventually track down DeSean and catches him. b. Possible charges: i. First degree murder—if death caused in course of forcible felony murder. 1. The only way you can prove this is to say D used force; ex: he fled on foot . 2. Also if death caused by intentional malice aforethought… ii. Second degree murder iii. Involuntary manslaughter (usually negligent homicide, but here defined as reckless homicide)—reckless, consciously disregards substantial risk of danger, causing death. iv. Possession of stolen vehicle v. Aggravated fleeing vi. Aggravated possession of stolen vehicle (if defined as forcible felony, murder follows) c. Notes: i. Proximate cause problem: must be cause of death to be manslaughter but there is no direct, but-for causation, so must be proximate. Yet intervening force of other officer might make not liable. ii. Reckless disregard: manslaughter exists when knew of substantial certainty of harm but went ahead anyway; slippery definition. How substantial and how much know? Just probability or almost certainty? iii. Facts: As a lawyer your job is to convince the jury of your side of the story, but in this book we do not have to be concerned with what facts are true, b/c they’ve all been predetermined at trial. II. The Case of Bernice J. and Walter L. Williams (Washington, 1968) a. The couple was married and had two children from Bernice’s previous relationships. Both were well below average in intelligence. Their youngest one-year old had a bad tooth which developed into gangrene in the cheeks and later pneumonia and died. The couple didn’t seek help because they were afraid that the Welfare workers will take the children away from them, and gave only aspirin to the child. b. Possible charges: i. Manslaughter—very broad definition, various sentencing ranges. 1. Can be negligent manslaughter. BUT if the child would have died anyway even if they had at first taken him to the doctor, they are negligent in failure to see risk of 1
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Jing Lin Garvey Spring 2004 death ONLY and cannot be charged with manslaughter at all, due to lack of direction causation.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}