Jumpstart criminal law : reading and understanding criminal law cases and statutes /
Saved in:
| Author / Creator: | Burkoff, John M. |
|---|---|
| Imprint: | New York : Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, ©2013. |
| Description: | xvii, 180 pages : illustrations ; 26 cm. |
| Language: | English |
| Series: | Jumpstart series Jumpstart. |
| Subject: | |
| Format: | Print Book |
| URL for this record: | http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/9953387 |
Table of Contents:
- Preface
- Chapter 1. What Can You Learn from Jumpstart Criminal Law?
- A. Introduction
- B. It's Not Criminal Procedure or Criminal Process
- C. It's Not Torts
- Case 1. Drag racing death on the highway: Criminal Law principles are not usually the same as Tort principles, even where some of the terminology is the same; e.g., "causation." Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Leroy W. Root.
- Case 2. Damages for animal cruelty and neglect: Criminal Law principles are not usually the same as Tort principles, even where some of the terminology is the same; e.g., "negligence." People of California v. Robert Christopher Brunette.
- Chapter 2. Criminal Law: Glossary of Common Legal Terms
- Chapter 3. Context: Jurisdictional Variance and Dual Sovereignty
- A. Jurisdictional Variance
- B. The Criminal Law Keeps Changing
- C. Why Are State Criminal Statutes Often Similar?
- D. Dual Sovereignty: The Federal Government and the States Can Criminalize and Prosecute the Same Conduct
- E. Most Crimes Are Prosecuted in State Courts
- Chapter 4. Context: Steps in the Criminal Justice Process
- A. First Step: Report or Investigation
- B. Second Step: Arrest
- C. Third Step: Booking
- D. Fourth Step: Decision to Prosecute
- E. Fifth Step: Initial Appearance
- F. Sixth (and Very Important) Step: Preliminary Hearing
- G. Seventh (Alternate/Minority Jurisdiction) Step: Grand Jury
- H. Eighth (Possible) Step: Plea Negotiation
- I. Ninth Step: Arraignment and Pleas
- J. Tenth Step: Pretrial Motions
- K. Eleventh Step: Trial
- L. Twelfth Step: Sentencing
- M. Thirteenth Step: Direct Appeal
- N. Fourteenth Step: Post-Conviction Remedies
- O. Misdemeanors and Lesser Offenses
- Chapter 5. Criminal Trials: Judge and Jury
- A. Facts Versus Law: Who Decides What?
- Case 3. Murder on the high seas: Judges instruct on the law, and juries find the facts. Sparf and Hansen v. United States.
- B. Jury Trial Waiver: Bench Trials
- C. Jury Nullification
- Case 4. Napalming Draft Board files: Juries do not have to follow the judge's instructions. United States v. Mary Moylan, Philip Berrigan, Thomas Lewis, George J. Mische, Thomas Melville, Marjorie Melville, John Hogan, James Darst, and Daniel Berrigan.
- D. Criminal Trial Narratives
- E. Civil Disobedience and Jury Nullification
- F. Judicial Rulings "as a Matter of Law"
- G. Constitutional Issues: Role of the Jury
- Case 5. Crack cocaine and the sentencing guidelines: Juries decide how much crack cocaine there is for sentencing purposes, not the judge. United States v. Freddie J. Booker.
- Chapter 6. Statutory Element Analysis: The Way Criminal Law Works
- A. The Importance of Element Analysis
- Case 6. Taking the '57 Chevy from the showroom window: Every element of the criminal offense, including the requisite criminal intent, must be established in order to support a conviction. State of Iowa v. Louis Henderson Branch.
- Case 7. The high school bully: Every element of the criminal offense, including the status of the victim, must be established in order to support a conviction. In the Matter of J. S. R., a Child.
- B. How Element Analysis Affects Criminal Trials
- Case 8. Rape by "strong compulsion" in Hawaii: The elements of the crime dictate the nature of the necessary proofs at trial. State of Hawaii v. John C. Veikoso.
- Chapter 7. Criminal Defenses: Three Distinct Types
- A. Failure-of-Proof Defenses
- Case 9. Cocaine in the car: The defense succeeds by negativing an element of the charged offense; in this case, the element of constructive possession. Arvin Phillip Johnson v. State of Mississippi.
- Case 10. The shady contractor: The defense succeeds by negativing an element of the charged offense; in this case, the requisite criminal intent. Jose De Leon Pena v. State of Texas.
- B. Affirmative Defenses
- Case 11. Mess with my antique car and I'll stab you: An affirmative defense is not made out unless the defense proves all of the elements of that defense; in this case, self-defense. State of Louisiana v. Richard D. Jasper.
- Case 12. Beating for failure to pay drug money: An affirmative defense is not made out unless the defense proves all of the elements of that defense; in this case, duress. State of Washington v. Jeffrey Allen Dow.
- C. Criminal Defense Ethics
- D. Nullification Defense
- Case 13. Crack rock in the swimming pool defense: Defense counsel will often try to persuade the jury to ignore the law. Douglas Willfred Marchand v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
- Chapter 8. What Conduct Is Criminalized and Why?
- A. Common Law Crimes and 'The Reception"
- Case 14. Drunk driving homicide: English Common Law principles continue to be important in the interpretation of criminal statutes. State of Iowa v. Jonathan Q. Adams.
- Case 15. Wire theft from a mobile home: English Common Law principles continue to be important in the interpretation of criminal statutes. William Dicks v. State of Florida.
- B. Politics and the Legislative Process
- C. Constitutional Limitations on Criminalization
- Case 16. Depictions of animal cruelty: There are some constitutional limitations on what a legislature can criminalize. United States v. Robert J. Stevens.
- Case 17. Juveniles sentenced to life without parole: There are some constitutional limitations on what a legislature can criminalize. Terrance Jammar Graham v. State of Florida.
- D. Silly Criminal Statutes Exist
- E. Justifications for Criminal Punishment
- Case 18. Death sentence for rape of a child: In analyzing constitutional limitations on what a legislature can criminalize, courts often look to the traditional justifications for criminal punishment. Patrick Kennedy v. State of Louisiana.
- F. The Significance of the Model Penal Code
- Chapter 9. Facts, Rules, and Applications in Criminal Decisions: The Importance of IRAC
- A. The IRAC Formula
- B. Applying IRAC
- Case 19. The jacking case: Using IRAC helps you better understand and prepare appellate court decisions for class discussion-is there sufficient evidence here? State of Missouri v. Reginald Davis.
- Case 20. The dry-firing case: Using IRAC helps you better understand and prepare appellate court decisions for class discussion-is mens rea established? State of New Hampshire v. Arthur Burley.
- Case 21. The child luring case: Using IRAC helps you better understand and prepare appellate court decisions for class discussion-statutory interpretation. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Terrence Gallagher.
- Case 22. Sex with the babysitter: Using IRAC helps you better understand and prepare appellate court decisions for class discussion-strict liability? Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Andre Knap.
- Chapter 10. The Importance of the Actus Reus and Mens Rea Elements
- A. The Actus Reus Element
- Case 23. NYC gang killings: The commission of distinct criminal acts indicates the commission of distinct criminal offenses. People of the State of New York v. Ladarrius Wright.
- B. The Mens Rea Element
- Case 24. Iraq war protestor: The specific criminal intention required in a criminal statute must be established beyond a reasonable doubt in order to support a conviction. Store of Vermont v. Rosemarie Jackowski.
- C. Strict Liability Offenses
- D. Additional Circumstantial Elements
- E. Ascertaining the Actus Reus and Mens Rea Elements
- Case 25. Aggravated identity theft: It is important to determine which actus reus element a particular mens rea element modifies. Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa v. United States.
- Chapter 11. Focusing on Appellate Decisions in Criminal Cases
- A. The Case Method
- B. Issues Raised on Appeal
- Case 26. Rape of a prostitute: No criminal trial is perfect-the ultimate question on appeal is, "Was the trial fair?" Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Brian Enimpah.
- Case 27. Shooting in the apartment complex: No criminal trial is perfect-the ultimate question on appeal is, "Was the trial fair?" Michael Kendrick v. State of Georgia.
- C. Discussing Appellate Decisions in Class
- D. Criminal Trials Are Different
- E. Thinking Like Legislators
- F. Appellate Standards of Review
- Case 28. The meth dealer: Appellate courts review trial court convictions in the light most favorable to the prosecution, asking whether a reasonable jury could have convicted. United States v. Felix Pita-Mota.
- Case 29. The crooked car leaser: Appellate courts are not fact-finders. Raymond Wirth v. State of Texas.
- Case 30. The guy in the car during the robbery: Sometimes a reasonable jury could not have convicted. State of Ohio v. Brynn Martin.
- Chapter 12. Taking Criminal Law Exams for Fun and Profit
- A. What Materials Should You Use to Prepare for a Criminal Law Exam?
- Example of a Criminal Law Topic List
- B. Open-Book Vs. Closed-Book Exams
- C. Issue-Spotting Questions
- Example of a Criminal Law Issue-Spotting Exam Question
- D. Essay Questions
- Example 1. of a Criminal Law Essay Exam Question
- Example 2. of a Criminal Law Essay Exam Question
- E. Multiple-Choice Questions
- An Example of a Criminal Law Multiple-Choice Exam Question
- Chapter 13. Final Thoughts
- Index
