Discussion Board

LESSON 2 “Did he expose His Victims to HIV on Purpose?”

1. Identify all of the facts relevant to determining Stark’s mental attitude regarding each of the elements in the assault statute.

2. Using the common-law definition of “specific intent” and the Model Penal Code definition of “purposely”, knowingly, “recklessly,” and “negligently,” and relying on the relevant facts, identify Stark’s intention with respect to his acts.

3. Is motive important in this case? Should it be?

LESSON 3  “Was it murder or Self-Defense?”

1. Summarize the story of Harold Fish’s shooting Grant Kuenzli?

2. State the elements of the Arizona castle doctrine law.

3. Assume you’re the prosecutor, present the case for murder.

4. Now, assume you’re the defense attorney; present the case for self-defense.

5. In your opinion, should the new law be applied to Harold Fish, or should the governor pardon him? Defend your answer with specific points from the case.

LESSON 4 “Did she murder her Daughter- in- Law?”  .

1. List all of the facts (including words) surrounding Mrs. Ulvinen’s behavior before or during the murder that might make her an accomplice.

2. List all of the facts after the murder that a jury could infer proved Mrs. Ulvinen participated before or during the murder itself.

3. According to the Curt, why isn’t Mrs.Ulvinen guilty of murder?

4.  Do you agree with the Court that however morally reprehensible her behavior, she nonetheless was not an accomplice? Defend your answer

LESSON 5  “Did He Take Substantial Steps to Rob the Bank?”

1. List all of Young’s acts that the Court recites in the except.

2. Mark on your list the following points that you believe show:

a. When, if at all, Young formed the intent to commit the robbery.

b. When, if at all, Young’s preparation began and ended.

When, if at all, Young’s acts were enough to satisfy the actus reus requirement for attempted armed robbery.

Explain your answers

3. Which of the tests for actus reus discussed in the text do Young’s acts pass? Back up your answers with the facts you listed in (1)

LESSON 6  “Was He Guilty of Capital Murder?”

1. How does the Court define the terms “willful,” “deliberate'” and premeditated”?

2. Sort and arrange the facts of the case according to the definitions of the three terms in (1)

3.  Nevada’s criminal code defines first degree murder as killing “perpetrated by means of poison, laying in wait or torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.” In your opinion, did Robert Byford commit first-degree murder?

4. Assuming Byford is guilty of first-degree murder, should he be sentenced to death? Consider the list of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in “The Death Penalty” section (page 289). Nevada has a similar list. Which items on the list might apply to him? Explain your answer, based on the facts in the case.

Lesson 7   “Did He Try to Get 9/11 Victim Funds by False Pretenses?”

1. Summarize all of the facts in favor of a legitimate claim to the victims’ funds.

2. Summarize all of the facts supporting denial of the victims’ funds.

3. Do you believe Coughlin is a hero or a “crook”? Back up your answer with specific details from the excerpt.

4.  What penalty, if any, do you believe Coughlin deserves?

5. Describe your emotional reaction to the case.

LESSON 8  “What’s (“Material Support?”)?”

1. Identify the terms in the material assistance provision that the defendants challenged as violating the Constitution.

2. Summarize the Court’s arguments for its decision about the constitutionality of each of the challenged terms.

3. Are the terms clear to an ordinary reasonable person? Are they clear to you? What’s the difference between the two? Explain your answers.

FOR EACH LESSON. THE ANSWERS COMBINED FOR ALL QUESTIONS HAVE TO ADD UP TO AT LEAST 400 WORDS.