1. 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 Coke

2. Civil Contempt: When individuals refuse to comply with a court order.
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.

3. 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 command

4. 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.

5. Witness tampering / Jury tampering
Cannot corruptly, by threats or force, or by threatening communication influence, intimidate or impede any witness or juror.

6. 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.

7. 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

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

9. 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.

10. Affirmative DEFENSES
Justification: Act was not wrong, it was justified under the circumstances.
Excuses: although the act was wrong, the defendant had a good excuse

11. 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 evil

12. 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.

13. NECESSITY HOLLY COLLINS' 1993 LETTER CRIES OUT FOR HELP
Hello, 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
NECESSITY

14. Zimmerman

15. 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.

16. DURESS

17. INSANITY?

18. INSANITY

19. Entrapment

20. Woods v. State of Texas

21. Ignorance of the law

22. Intoxication

23. 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 limitation

24. Activity: Which defense is valid?

25. Justification 1. Self defense:
Created before the creation of police forces. Enabled people to legally provide for their own safety.
If faced with deadly situation “retreat to a safe location” “retreat to the wall of the castle”

26. Paving the way for self defense
"Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.“
-United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

31. 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 intruder

32. Defense of others?
Defense of property?

35. 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 Donlon

37. 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 NECESSARY

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. Which tests fit mark’s case?
The 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.

42. Use of Insanity defense
Only used in 1% of all criminal cases brought before the courts
Is only successful 25% of the time.

43. 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.

44. Diminished Capacity Does not have the capacity to form mens rea
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, age

45. Are Juveniles capable of forming Intent?

46. Should the insanity defense be abolished ? WHY or why not?