CRIMINAL LAW Objective: Know the rights a person has when arrested Recognize a person’s potential criminal liability for the actions of others Understand the justifiability of the common defenses to criminal charges Bellwork: Should criminals (previously convicted) give up their rights that are afforded to non-criminals? What would this mean?

 The state must prove a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Sometimes even when this is done the defendant may escape criminal liability by subsequently establishing a defense.  A defense often allows the defendant to escape liability.

 The defendant must provide evidence to support any defense.  There are two types of defenses:  Procedural defenses  Substantive defenses

 Will and Zack were arrested for possession of cocaine. Both signed confessions at the police station. At their trial, they claimed that their right to due process had been violated. They said they had not been advised of their right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present when questioned.  If true is this a good defense?

 Procedural Defenses are based on problems with the way the evidence is obtained or the way the accused person is arrested, questioned, tried, or punished.  Ignorance is not a defense!  Will & Zack if truly not informed of their rights, then their procedural rights were violated and this is a valid defense.

 Substantive defenses disprove, justify, or excuse the alleged crime.  Most substantive defenses discredit the facts that the state sought to establish.  Alibis, Self Defense, Criminal Insanity, and Immunity are some examples of Substantive defenses.

 Self Defense – the use of force which appears reasonably necessary to the victim to prevent death, serious bodily harm, rape or kidnapping.  Only applies to member’s of one’s family and to other which you have a legal duty to protect.  You may NOT use deadly force if non-deadly force appears reasonably sufficient.  ONLY non-deadly force may be used to protect or recover property!

 Criminal Insanity – generally exists when the accused does not know the difference between right and wrong.  This means they don’t have criminal intent and if they don’t have criminal intent there is no crime.  The defense must prove criminal insanity

 Immunity is freedom from prosecution even when one has committed the crime charged.  Sometimes a criminal is granted immunity in exchange for an agreement to testify about the criminal conduct of other criminals.  Sometimes the government grants immunity to a witness to remove the risk of self incrimination. ▪ If they witness still refuses to testify they can be held in contempt of court (an action which hinders the administration of justice, it is punishable with prison)  Some foreign dignitaries have blanket immunity.

 Let’s read together and summarize the story of Lena Baker.  Next class we will watch a video on Lena Baker’s story, it is sensitive to watch so I want you to be prepared with facts from the case beforehand.