Reference no: EM133318474

1. Larry is at home one night and hears someone breaking into his barn. He looks outside (his barn is not attached to his home) and sees two individuals leaving the barn with farm equipment. Larry grabs his firearm and runs outside. Larry shoots and kill each burglar without saying a word to them.
Was Larry justified in using deadly force? Why or why not?

2. Brad is an undercover police officer who is trying to infiltrate a street gang. The leader of the gang, Ed, discovers that Brad is a police officer and kidnaps Brad's wife. Ed threatens to kill her if Brad does not perform a bank robbery for the street gang. After performing the bank robbery, Brad is caught. Prosecutors want to charge Brad with robbery.

What would be Brad's primary defense against the robbery charge? Why?

3. Vinny and Mitchell are on a road trip together. Vinny enters a convenience store to buy a few groceries for his upcoming road trip, while Mitchell pumps some gas. Vinny starts to argue with the clerk about the prices in the store. During the heated argument, Vinny shoots the clerk, killing him. Vinny runs outside, Vinny tells Mitchell what happened and they speed away.

1. Assume Mitchell had no prior knowledge that a crime would be committed. Is Mitchell an accomplice or an accessory to the murder? Justify your reasoning.

2. Let's say instead of pumping gas, Mitchell acts as a lookout for Vinny. Is he now an accomplice or an accessory to the murder? Justify your reasoning.

3. Why is it important to know if Mitchell had prior knowledge that the crime would be committed?

4. Aaron committed a kidnapping and murder in 1990 and received 35 years in prison. In 2020, California voters approved a measure that make inmates convicted of kidnapping and murder automatically receive a life in prison sentence. Instead of being released in 2025, Aaron is now sentenced to life in prison.

Aaron wants to appeal this new sentence. What constitutional guideline governs this situation? Will Aaron be successful in his appeal? Why or why not? Explain your answer with legal reasoning.

5. Describe the legal principle of concurrence and list and define the two types of concurrence. How does actus reas and mens rea apply to this principal?

6. Karen is a middle school science teacher. Karen has engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with one of her students, a 12 year-old named Josh. Both Karen and Josh insist that the relationship was consensual. Josh maintains that he was not abused and wants to continue the relationship with his teacher. Authorities arrest Karen for statutory rape.

Is Karen guilty? Why or why not? Does it matter that Josh is a willing participant in the relationship? Explain your answer with legal reasoning.

7. Derek and Holly are married. Derek arrives home drunk one night, and starts beating Holly for not having his dinner ready. Holly is getting severely beaten and begins to fight back, as she is worried Derek will kill her. She grabs a kitchen knife and stabs Derek in the arm. Derek falls to the ground with Holly on top of him. Derek is in fear for his life. He grabs the knife out of his arm and stabs Holly in the neck, killing her.

Derek is claiming self-defense. He says he was in fear for his life when he stabbed Holly in the neck and he should not be charged with a crime. Is Derek correct? Can he be charged with a crime? Why or why not? Explain your answer with legal reasoning.

8. Steve is the owner of a hazardous waste disposal company, and Marcos is Steve's employee. Steve tells Marcos to dump hazardous waste in the forest. Marcos objects, but Steve says that he will fire Marcos if Marcos does not comply. Marcos dumps the hazardous waste, and is caught by the authorities. Marcos is claiming a duress defense, as he did not want to get fired for not listening to his boss, Steve.

Will the defense of duress work for Marcos? Why or why not? Explain your answer using legal reasoning.

9. Diane is a young, 20-year old student who is moving out of her father's house. As she is packing up her things in the attic, she finds evidence that her father killed a prostitute 30 years ago. She brings her discovery to the attention of her father and Diane destroys the evidence. The police arrest the father and Diane and charge Diane with an accessory to murder.

Diane claims that she cannot be held responsible for an act that was committed before she was born. Is Diane correct? Would an accomplice or an accessory charge be more appropriate? Explain your answer with legal reasoning.

10. Wells Fargo Bank is rolling out a wellness initiative, and have hired a doctor to conduct physical examinations and wellness checks on their employees. During one such visit, the doctor sexually assaults one of Wells Fargo's female employees.

Is Wells Fargo vicariously liable for the behavior of the doctor? Why or why not? Does it matter that the doctor was carrying out tasks that were assigned to him by Wells Fargo when the assault occurred? Explain your answer with legal reasoning.