Crimes against the Justice System - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Crimes against the Justice System

Intent: ensure the integrity and proper function of the Criminal Justice System.

“Though the bribe be small, yet the fault is great”

--Edward CokeSlide2

Contempt of court

Civil Contempt

: When individuals refuse to comply with a court order.

Chadwick v

Janecka

Criminal contempt

: criminal offense; needs to punish those who disrupt the integrity of the court.Slide3

Elements of criminal contempt

Misbehavior of any person that obstructs the administration of justice

Misbehavior of any of its officers

Disobedience or resistance to lawful writ, process, rule decree or commandSlide4

Perjury / subornation of perjury

Lying under oath / asking or persuading someone to lie under oath.

Bronston

v U.S.:

perjury does not apply to truthful evasive answers. Questioner must pin down specific questions.

False Statement Act:

Crime to lie to the FBI. The lie must influence or sway the outcome of a case.Slide5

Witness tampering / Jury tampering

Cannot corruptly, by threats or force, or by threatening communication influence, intimidate or impede any witness or juror.Slide6

Obstruction of justice

Interference with the orderly administration of law and justice.

Law is vague so it will cover any scheme that is concocted to interfere with the justice system.Slide7

Requirements to be charged with obstruction

Judicial procedure must be pending

Defendant knows that judicial procedure is pending

Actions were corruptly influential or they impede the proceedings

EXAMPLES: hiding witnesses, destroying evidence, evasive testimony Slide8

Bribery

Giving something of value to a public official with the intention of influencing that official

.Slide9

Defense

Persons accused of a crime

do not

have to prove innocence. The burden lies with the state to prove

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defense wins if they have created reasonable doubt.Slide10

Affirmative DEFENSES

Justification:

Act was not wrong, it was justified under the circumstances.

Excuses:

although the act was wrong, the defendant had a good excuseSlide11

Justification

Self defense:

Necessity:

action was wrong but was necessary to prevent a situation that would be considerably worse.

a. did not intentionally cause circumstances

b. could not achieve objectives using an alternative choice

c. chose the lesser evilSlide12

Excuse defenses

Duress

: Committed a crime under immediate danger and had the well grounded belief that the threat would be carried out and had no chance to escape.

Insanity

: if as a result of mental illness a person did not know what they were doing or what they were doing was wrong.

Entrapment

: police induce a person to commit a crime they would not normally commit.

Ignorance of the law

;

Mistake of fact

: accident

Intoxication

: when a person unknowingly ingest alcohol or drugs . Intoxication defense.Slide13

HOLLY COLLINS' 1993 LETTER CRIES OUT FOR HELPHello, my name is Holly-Ann Collins and I am pleading with you to please help me protect my children! My ten year old son and eight year old daughter are being abused by their father and the law will not protect them. I am violating a court order by speaking out. I risk being arrested, but I must continue to seek protection for my children.

I have evidence, including taped conversations, which prove that court officials deliberately made false statements to the court under oath. The judge ignored this evidence. He accused me of suffering from personality disorders, even though he states that he doesn't know what they are. I have undergone several psychological evaluations. They confirm that I do not I have a personality disorder, and that my reactions are consistent with someone who has been severely abused. Even the court appointed psychologist has come to my defense and believes that the court erred grievously.

I have been advised by my attorney and legal advocate that this is not the proper way to attain assistance, but I am a mother who fears for the lives of my children. Please help us! I no longer have faith in the system, but I know in my heart that there has to be someone out there who can and will help us if they just knew about what the Court was doing to innocent children.

I am so tired of fighting. I am only 28, but I feel so old. I have been abused my whole life. The court failed to protect me as a child, but I can not let the same thing happen to my children.

Please, just read the information I provided. Give me a chance to prove that we are telling the truth. Please help us. Please help my children. Even if you will not help, I strongly recommend that you hold onto this information, because I know that he will eventually kill me, one of the children or all of us. He has already attacked me with a knife. I have the scars and medical documentation. Please do not wait for an autopsy report to convince you that we need protection.

This might appear to be a dramatization to you, but it is our reality. My children and I live with the threat of death every day. It is a horrible way to live. The fear itself is even worse than the beatings.

Sincerely,

Holly-Ann Collins

NECESSITYSlide14

ZimmermanSlide15

Martha Lewis

Dora, Alabama

An Alabama woman said she was forced to shoot an intruder that broke into her home this week in order to protect herself and her daughters.Slide16

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/05/pizza.bomb/

DURESSSlide17

INSANITY?Slide18

INSANITYSlide19

EntrapmentSlide20

Woods v. State of TexasSlide21

Ignorance of the lawSlide22

IntoxicationSlide23

statute of limitations

Charge and prosecution of a crime must be brought within a certain period of time that begins from the start of the criminal act.

WHY?

Evidence may become obscure

Memories of witnesses fade

Negated if:

Defendant runs: statute of limitations stops

Charge is brought against defendant

DNA restarts limitationSlide24

Activity: Which defense is valid?Slide25

Justification Defense

SELF DEFENSE:

Created before the creation of police forces. Enabled people to legally provide for their own safety.Slide26

Justification:

Self defense

MUST ESTABLISH THREE THINGS:

Reasonably believed that force was required

for your own protection.

Harm was about to happen

and the attacker was willing and able to hurt you.

The force used was reasonable

, no more than was necessary to prevent the person from inflicting harm.Slide27

Deadly Force : self defense

Deadly force may only be used when you reasonably believe the attacker is about to kill you or inflict great bodily harm.

Deadly force was the

only way to prevent harm.Slide28

Self Defense in the United States

Duty to retreat

Castle Law

Stand Your Ground Slide29

Duty to Retreat

Must retreat from the situation if you feel threatened (use of deadly force is considered a last resort); may not use deadly force if you are safely inside your home.  Slide30

Paving the way for self defense

1921 Supreme Court decision in

Brown v. United States

.

Under this ruling, the justification of force as self-defense was determined by the

defendant's reasonable belief of immediate danger, not on whether it was reasonably possible to escape

or disarm the assailant.

"

Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.“

-United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell HolmesSlide31

Results

States began to back off from the duty to retreat and instituted

“Castle Laws”

Castle Doctrine

protects the use of deadly force against intruders inside the home, or castle, since there is no expectation of retreat by the homeowner.

This, too, was expanded in several states by so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws where deadly force used in self-defense, particularly through firearms, is justified anywhere without a duty to retreat.Slide32
Slide33

Deadly force in the home

The intruder is about to unlawfully enter the home

The intruder intends to commit a felony or injure an occupant

Deadly force is necessary to stop the intruderSlide34
Slide35

Stand your Ground

The duty to retreat outside of the home is removed.

Allowed to use deadly force if you “know or have reason to believe "that an intruder is making an unlawful forcible entry into a dwelling.

DO NOT NEED TO PROVE THAT THE PERSON FEARED HARM OR THAT DEADLY FORCE WAS NECESSARYSlide36
Slide37

Defense of others?

Defense of property?Slide38
Slide39
Slide40

Domestic abuse as a defense

Must show that they had the right to use deadly force.

Examples.

Does someone who is asleep pose imminent danger?

Lisa

DonlonSlide41

The Insanity Defense

The

M’Naghten

Rule

:

because of mental illness the defendant did not know what they were doing or what they were doing was wrong.

Irresistible Defense Rule

:

Crime was committed because insane impulse controlled their will.

Durham Rule:

the crime was a product of

of

mental disease or a mental defect.

Model Penal Code Test

:

defendants are insane because of mental disease if:

Lacked capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct

Lacked capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of the law

Committed to mental facilities and will not be released until they can prove that they are sane and pose no threat to society.

Slide42

Which tests would apply?

Mark:

During his trial for murdering a friend, the defendant Mark made the following statement: I knew that what I was doing was wrong, but I couldn’t help myself. During the night of April 30,

Beelze

-bub, grand duke of Hell, came to me with biddings from the master. He told me to kill my friend. I resisted, but his will was too strong and finally I had to do what I was told.

 Slide43

Which tests fit mark’s case?

T

he

M’Naghten

Rule

: No. There is no evidence that Mark did not know what he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong.

The Irresistible Impulse Rule

: Yes. If Mark’s statement is true, he was acting under an insane impulse and he could not control himself.

The Durham Rule

:

Yes. If it could be shown that Mark’s act was a product of mental disease or defect.

Model Penal Code Test

:

Yes, If it could be shown that because of a mental disease or defect that he lacked substantial capacity to conform to the requirements of the law.Slide44

Use of Insanity defense

Only used in 1% of all criminal cases brought before the courts

Is only successful 25% of the time.Slide45

Guilty but mentally ill

Person is not insane but was mentally ill at the time of the crime.

Sentence is served in a mental facility. If person recovers the remaining time is spent in prison.

Insanity defense is no longer a valid defense in Utah, Kansas, Idaho, and Montana. More states are leaning toward this decision.Slide46

Diminished Capacity

Defendant has a significant impaired ability to understand the wrongfulness of his actions or control the behavior that the defendant knows is wrong. (Used in sentencing phase to alleviate harsh sentences)

Does not have the capacity

to form

mens rea

Name some circumstances in which this defense may be used.

Extreme emotional disturbance, low IQ, ageSlide47

Are Juveniles capable of forming Intent?Slide48

Should the insanity defense be abolished ?

WHY

or why not?