Author Topic: Opening Arguments #TTTBE  (Read 23133 times)

st3class and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline HighPockets

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2099
Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« on: March 13, 2018, 08:18:53 PM »
I don't know if this would be better in Games than here. Would anyone be interested in discussing the bar exam questions, and taking a guess before the answers are revealed?

For People that don't listen, the host presents a question from a bar exam ( I don't know which state, come to think of it) on the Wednesday show, and then the answer is discussed the following Monday.

#TTTBE is "Thomas Takes the Bar Exam" The other host of the show that is not a lawyer.
Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11403
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2018, 08:36:33 AM »
I would.  I find that part of the show fascinating.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline HighPockets

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2099
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2018, 11:35:53 AM »
I don't know if this will be sustainable, I thought that there would be a way to copy and paste the questions, but I don't find that anywhere and my transcribing skills a lacking. here's a summary and if you want to hear the question in it's entirety it starts at 01:04:23.

https://openargs.com/oa156-conor-lamb-pennsylvania-recounts/

Quote
Summary: A gang leader throws a party and stabs an informant in front of the other members, watching as he bleeds out, they are found guilty of murder and they appeal.
 
Should the appellate court uphold the convictions?

A- No, the mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to make a person an accomplice.

B- No, murder is a specific intent crime, and there is insufficient evidence that the other gang members intended to kill.

C –Yes, b/c the gang members made no effort to save the released gang member after he had been stabbed.

D – Yes, b/c voluntary intoxication does not negate criminal responsibility.

I'm going with B, I think that the act of murder is intent, and that you can't really convict a crowd of people under that one umbrella.
Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't.

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4350
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2018, 01:19:34 PM »
Quote
Summary: A gang leader throws a party and stabs an informant in front of the other members, watching as he bleeds out, they are found guilty of murder and they appeal.
 
Should the appellate court uphold the convictions?

A- No, the mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to make a person an accomplice.

B- No, murder is a specific intent crime, and there is insufficient evidence that the other gang members intended to kill.

C –Yes, b/c the gang members made no effort to save the released gang member after he had been stabbed.

D – Yes, b/c voluntary intoxication does not negate criminal responsibility.

Using Thomas's strategy I

Rule out A as I'm pretty sure that can't be true.
Rule out D as that looks like a distraction answer
And I think C would allow for a defense of "well he would've killed me too"... which ought to be valid.  I'm a little concerned that this is an appeals case though so that means the first court didn't think so.

I choose B too.


Sidenote - I guess these are realistic bar exam questions, but they're nothing like what I imagined the bar exam would be like.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 01:21:42 PM by Friendly Angel »
Amend and resubmit.

Online Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2018, 02:51:41 PM »
I think that B has to be wrong.  You can be convicted of murder even if you didn't intend to murder.  As an example, you and your friend plan to rob a bank, in the process your friend shoots a person, killing them.  You had zero intent to murder, but you can and should be convicted of murder.  Put simply, I do not think you need to have the specific intent to kill someone to be charged with murder.

I'm also going to say that D has to be wrong.  While D is correct, I don't think that the fact that they were drunk has anything to do with the question at hand.

This turns on whether or not their inaction can be considered murder.  So either they were legally required to take action, or they were not, thus A and C are the opposite sides of this coin.  We now only need to decide if the defendants were required to take some action.

I'm going to come down on the side of A.  I think in most jurisdictions you aren't required to intervene to save a life, especially if it would put your own life in danger.  (If one of them intervened, they'd most likely be killed too) so I'm going with A.


#non-belief denialist

Online Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2018, 03:01:18 PM »
There also is such a thing as depraved indifference murder.  Meaning that you can take an action such as firing a gun into the air, with no intent to murder, and still be charged with murder.
#non-belief denialist

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11403
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2018, 03:13:21 PM »
I will go with A too.  I am hinging this on the clause of "mere presence is insufficient"
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline HighPockets

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2099
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2018, 03:13:47 PM »
You're making me rethink my answer. But I still think I'm going to stick with B. Maybe "specific intent crime" is misleading me, but I see it as one person's action killed another person, if A third person was there but didn't take part in that particular action, they might be an accessory to the murder, but they didn't actually commit the crime of murder.

but IANAL, so what do I know.  :-\

we'll find out on Monday, or Tuesday, or something.
Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't.

Offline Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2645
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2018, 03:22:44 PM »
I think it's B.  I don't think that just being near a person when they commit a crime makes you an accomplice.  Not calling for help probably makes them horrible human beings, but I don't think it rises to the level of murder.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4350
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2018, 03:23:54 PM »
I mis-read A as "sufficient" instead of "insufficient" but now I'm even more sure that B is right... because no court would have convicted them just based on their presense, so the fact that this is in appeals means that the first court convicted them thinking they should have known there was going to be a murder, therefore complicit.
Amend and resubmit.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11403
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2018, 04:11:17 PM »
I mis-read A as "sufficient" instead of "insufficient" but now I'm even more sure that B is right... because no court would have convicted them just based on their presense, so the fact that this is in appeals means that the first court convicted them thinking they should have known there was going to be a murder, therefore complicit.

Felony Murder Law
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Online Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2018, 04:20:33 PM »
I mis-read A as "sufficient" instead of "insufficient" but now I'm even more sure that B is right... because no court would have convicted them just based on their presense, so the fact that this is in appeals means that the first court convicted them thinking they should have known there was going to be a murder, therefore complicit.

Well, most likely it was a jury trial, and jury trials are notoriously fickle.

I don't think saying 'no court would...' is a good idea in these.  You need to assume that a court actually did, and now you're appealing to fix it. (Also you're reading into it.  Andrew said on the episode as part of the question that the guy who stabbed the other guy told no one before hand that he was going to do it)



#non-belief denialist

Online Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8957
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2018, 05:06:39 PM »
Can we agree to spoiler our individual answers so we can make them each independent of others' responses first?

Online Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8957
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2018, 05:12:32 PM »
There is some specific information in the episode's reading that may or may not be relevant to the answer, but after listening, I have to say:

(click to show/hide)

Online Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2018, 07:34:11 PM »
But as I said B doesn’t correctly explain what the crime of Murder is.  Therefore it cannot be right. 
#non-belief denialist

 

personate-rain
personate-rain