Reference no: EM133371500

Questions

1. Explain the M'Naghten Rule.

2. What is the main difference between the defenses of duress and necessity?

3. Explain the two types of intoxication defenses and provide an example?

4. What are the elements of self defense? (four types of defenses)

5. You (an officer) confront a suspect. As you approach from approximately 30 feet, the suspect pulls a small caliber pistol and begins firing at you. You unholster your weapon, drop to the ground, and instantly notice the suspect has begun to running away, what legal justification (case, constitutional protection), if any would justify you shooting the suspect?

6. Lyle and Eric Menendez were tried and convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder of their parents. There were two series of trials. The first trial, which had two separate juries, resulted in two hung juries. At the first trial, the brothers introduced evidence of sexual abuse by their father, and the court instructed the jury on imperfect self-defense. The imperfect self-defense jury instruction was based on the brothers' honest but unreasonable fear that their father would hurt or kill them (Menendez v. Terhune, 2010). The second trial took place in front of one jury and resulted in the convictions. During the second trial, some evidence of abuse was excluded, Lyle Menendez refused to testify, and there was no jury instruction on imperfect self-defense. After sentencing, the brothers petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus based on several claims, including the exclusion of the abuse evidence and failure to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense (Menendez v. Terhune, 2010). The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition on grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury instruction on imperfect self-defense and no foundation to support the admissibility of the evidence of abuse. The court held that the evidence confirmed there was no imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death when the brothers killed their parents.

The facts of the case are lurid. Evidence included the sexual abuse of both boys by their father, surreptitiously taped psychotherapy sessions, spending sprees, fabricated mafia hit stories, and alleged will tampering by the brothers after the parents were killed.

Do you think the Menendez case should have been treated as a "battered child syndrome" case, easing the requirement of imminence and allowing for a jury instruction on imperfect self-defense?