Part IV contextualizes the dispute over they jurys query within a larger

Part iv contextualizes the dispute over they jurys

This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 61 pages.

Part IV contextualizes the dispute over they jury's query within a larger discussion of collective responsibility and its role in the "War on Crime." The Conclusion and Postscript offer some thoughts on the dangers-both present and future-of our national obsession with war. 5 See FED. R. CRiM. P. 31 (stating that a jury in a federal criminal case cannot convict unless it unanimously finds that the Government has proved each element of the crime); see Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 366, 369 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring) ("[T]he Justices of this Court have recognized, virtually without dissent, that unanimity is one of the indispensable features offederal jury trial."); Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748 (1948) ("Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply"). 2006] 181
Image of page 3
Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law The willingness of the prosecution and the court to treat Andersen, the incorporeal legal entity,6 as an entifled, malevolent actor and its agents like automata made strategic sense at the time. It also fits within the rhetoric of war, which tends to entify nations and attribute to them a malevolence that can only truly be found within the minds of individuals. This bellicose rhetoric depicts the opponent as not just a defendant but an enemy threatening the motherland. And, when dealing with enemies of state, the niceties of due process often dwindle in importance. Personifying ideas and/or corporate entities in this manner resembles the phenomenon of Associated Will-Rousseau's characterization of the process by which a single entity is abstracted from a group of individuals, usually citizens of a nation. 7 One most often encounters Associated Will in times of war and, indeed, much of international criminal law is based on the notion of national identity and collective guilt. 8 As discussed below, Associated Will plays an important role in wars between nations and international adjudications but has (or should have) little applicability to internal conflicts. Incorporating it into domestic criminal prosecutions undermines the rights and safeguards that protect society against excesses of state vigilance. 6 Though Andersen was organized as a limited partnership rather than a corporation, prosecutors treated it, for all intents and purposes, as a corporation. This approach is congruent with the United States Code, 1 U.S.C. § 1 (2000), the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 8AlI n.1 (1991), and legal precedent; see United States v. AP Trucking Co., 358 U.S. 121, 123 (1958). See also Sterling P.A. Darling, Jr., Note, Afitigating the Impressionability of the Incorporeal Mind: Reassessing Unanimity Followiing the Obstruction of Justice Case of United States v. Arthur Andersen, L.L.P., 40 ANi. CRiM. L. REv. 1625, 1642-3 & n.109 (2003) (noting same). Indeed, Andersen, the legal entity, fits within the broader definition of a corporation as "[A] group or succession of persons established in accordance with legal rules into a legal or juristic person that has legal personality distinct from the natural persons who make it up ... " BLACK'S
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture