Civil Law administrative o Wrong against individual group o Automobile accident wrong against a person o Plaintiff V Defendant o Plaintiff are people involved in the complaint o Defendant is defending o Vs is an adversarial lawsuit o Lawsuit o Name of the preceding o When you sue someone its called a lawsuit o Burden of Proof By a preponderance of the evidence o If arguments are equal the plaintiff will win o No burden of proof must be tipped beyond the scale o proponderance means the greater weight tipping scale could be 51 49 o The plaintiff has to prove this and they may have a lot of doubt but they have to be at more than 50 o If there is an equal side then they wont win the plaintiff has the burden of proof they have to tip the scale The plaintiff has to meet the burden of proof to tip the scale o Issue Liability o Liability simply means responsibility o How much are you responsible for o Monetary value o Penalty Money o How much do you have to pay o The plaintiff suffered all of these injuries so they should get a certain amount of money because of a certain amount of liability Criminal Law o Wrong against society o If you robbed a bank you are wronging society it makes everyone else fearful o State V Defendant o Society feels wronged because of this action o Prosecutor works for the state o Society as a whole is wrong which is why the entire state is against it o Can be phrased as the common wealth of Massachusetts or Virginia v defendant o Can also be phrased as the people of California V Defendant o If it is a federal case It can be United States V John Doe o Prosecution o Known as the prosecution o They prosecute the defendant o Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable doubt o Much more popular and well known o Reasonable doubt is said to be debatable o Reasonable doubt on a scale from 1 100 must be in the 90s must be so beyond a reasonable doubt that it has to be true o If there is a doubt then consider everything because the penalties are much harsher in a criminal case o Issue Guilt Innocence o Basically are you guilty or are you innocent o Penalty Fine Jail Death o Currently 2 3 of the states offer the death penalty o Penalties are harsher due to the severity of the case o Death would be the most ultimate penalty you can get o The Florida Standard Jury Instruction o A reasonable doubt is not a possible doubt a speculative or imaginary or forced doubt such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt o Judge tells jury during a criminal case the above statute However English professors decided the language was so terrible and hard to understand that they published a revision After much debate it was decided that they were going to keep the original because so many people have been prosecuted under it that it wouldn t be fair to change it Would allow criminals to attempt to re try case because if the Supreme Court changed it something must be wrong with it therefore they kept it Even though they did not adopt the new revision they agree that it is better o Sums it up in the revision and said if you have a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty If you have no reasonable doubt you should find the defendant guilty o Came up with better instructions more focused on jury s understanding of reasonable doubt o Examples of Crimes o Tried to prove mens rea Andrea Yates case she drowned her five children in the bathtub and called the police showing intent she knew it was wrong which is why she called the police She was charged with two capital murder charges for the deaths of her five children tried to pull an insanity defense they found her not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect She explained that she had post partum psychosis after she gave birth to her children She was proven to be have previous depression and had been hospitalized before for this had weird dreams about this The court reached a guilty verdict because McNaughton rule said at the time and she called the police which meant she knew it was wrong They only charged her with 2 capital murders instead of 5 because if they lost the case they still have 3 more charges they can bring up o In our system you must have both mens rea and actus reus to prove guilt o Both must be there at time of committing the crime o Mens Rea Criminal Intent o If you prove No Mens Rea you are innocent o At the time they committed the act they had the criminal intent to commit the act Judges are not mind readers they do not know what is in the persons head at the time of the crime Use therapists and psychiatrists to prove o M Naughten Rule right wrong test If a person due to mental disease or defect is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time he she commits the criminal act that person IS NOT criminally responsible o Irresistible Urge Rule An irresistible impulse of a person due to mental disease or defect has uncontrollable urge to commit a criminal act the person is not criminally responsible Kleptomania compulsive stealing Pyromania uncontrollable urge to set fire o Can be either irresistible urge rule or M Naughten rule o Very hard to prove the law presumes you meant to do the act o Defined to be an easy way out o The presumption allows rebuttal just because they are charged doesn t mean that they actually intended to commit this act Attorney present case in the most favorable light When a person comes in and admits to a lawyer the lawyer goes through the case and a list of defenses to make sure they cant presume the intent o No Mens Rea Defenses admits you committed the crime but are one of these Insanity 916 15 Involuntary commitment of defendant adjuncated not guilty by reason of insanity A defendant who is acquitted of criminal charges because of a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity MAY BE involuntarily committed Jeff Reardon Case although he was found not guilty by reason of insanity attorney says No Mens Rea o Reardon was under the influence of 12 prescription pills and didn t know what he was Accident Mistake doing at the time M Naughton Rule he was depressed o Wasn t sent to a mental institution because he wasn t harmful to himself and not insane at the time of the trial Sexomnia Case Jan Luedke Sleep walks and he was drinking didn t know he was having sex with girl He was UNAWARE o Law states that if you weren t aware that …
View Full Document
Unlocking...