1) This one is related to question 1 from the other assignment. write an 80 word response in first person how you agree and give your opinion
1. The facts the prosecutor will likely rely on to establish Ms. Ulvinen’s guilt are her corroborations with her son such as, going along with David’s fabricated story, washing the cloth covers from the bathroom toilet and tank, following David’s instruction to go up stairs and sit on the living couch to make sure the oldest child does not get up from bed and use the bathroom. The facts that the defense attorney would rely on in urging her acquittal would be, she was sleeping at the time of the murder, she took no active part in dismembering the Carol’s body, and her words to her son were not encouraging him to commit the murder. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed Ms. Ulvinen’s conviction because she did not plan when to commit the act or tell her son what to do to avoid being caught. Her son did tell her that he intended to kill his wife that night and responded in a way that did not discourage him nor did it aid, advise, counsel him to act as he did (Lippman 137).
2. Ms. Ulvinen’s behavior following Carol Hoffman’s murder indicates that she did approve of Carol’s killing because it was never mentioned that she told David not to do it, but from David’s questioning it was stated that Ms. Ulvinen thought David was merely joking until the day of the murder. In the day of the murder David told his mother: “Tonight’s got to be the night,” and he believed that Ms. Ulvinen’s response was, “that it would be the best for the kids” (Lippman 137). Her response did not discourage David nor did it encourage him to commit the murder. Ms. Ulvinen’s involvement in covering up the crime does indicate that she shared her son’s intent because it does not state in the case whether or not if she refused to stick with the fabricated story or if she refused to follow the rest of her son’s instructions after the murder was committed. Yes, she could have been going along with the cover up because she was filled with fear at the time, but her response to David the day of the murder did not discourage him and make him think whether or not should he commit the act.
3. It is noteworthy that Ms. Ulvinen took the initiative in informing David that she was not getting along with Carol and that Carol planned to leave with the children. It also seems very strange that Ms. Ulvinen believed it would be beneficial for the children if Carol was killed. It seemed that Ms. Ulvinen was providing David with reasons to kill Carol by using her own welfare and the welfare of the children as encouragement. Ms. Ulvinen’s comments to David changed drastically from the beginning because she always responded to her son with, “Oh you’re just kidding me” to “that would be best for the kids” (Lippman 137). It is significant that David killed Carol only following his conversation with his mother because he seemed that his mother gave him a reason to kill that day because he was only stating to coworkers and his mother that he was going to do, but never provided when exactly. The court was not correct in characterizing Ms. Ulvinen as passive because she provided David with indirectencouragement to kill Carol by using her relationship with Carol and her grandchildren as reasons to commit the act.
2) This one is related to question 2 from last assignment. write an 80 word response in first person how you agree and give your opinion.
As a prosecutor I would have charged Manes with Derivative Liability. Manes was an accomplice. According to the book accomplice liability uses a range of terms such as aid, abet, encourage, and command. Derivative Liability is the guilt of a party to a crime based on the criminal acts of the primary party. He should have known he could not sell a semiautomatic to a minor. In Colorado they define a minor as a person who has not attained the age of 21, except as otherwise provided in the express language of another statue. Therefore, Manes helped aid the weapon and ammunition in this shooting to a minor. I would have also charged Manes with the suicides because again, had he not aid Harris with this weapon he would have not shot himself or would have been introduced to such weapons at an early age. If Harris and Klebold would have arrived at the school armed with weapons and ammunition provided by Manes but used other weapons I would have still charged Manes because several months ago when Harris and Manes went to a shooting range Harris mentioned excitedly after shooting the target that, that could have been someone’s brain. After being present and aware of that comment made by Harris, Manes still sold Harris 100 rounds of ammunition. Now for someone to seem excited about shooting and imagining it was any human part should raise a red flag. In the video left by Harris he thanked Manes for the help meaning Manes had an influence in the actions taken by these two people. Leaving the weapons at home would have not made a difference.
3) Read this post to see what the court said, then respond to it . Did your answer agree with the court’s opinion? Why or why not? related to Q3 from last assignment.
Here is what the court said:
Williams v. Commonwealth, 2004 Va.App. LEXIS 154. Williams does not contest that he possessed the intent to commit the crime. However, he contends that he did not commit an overt act towards the commission of a bank robbery.
The prosecution is required to establish an overt, ineffectual act which ‘must go beyond mere preparation and be done to produce the intended result.” The act must establish an “actual intent” to commit the crime. Williams testified that he heard Cooper, talking about robbing a bank the day before the attempted robbery. Williams parked his car in an isolated area and the two stood outside the bank talking with each other and then pulled bandanas over their faces. Williams had his hand inside his knapsack and two walked towards the entrance to the bank. As they spotted Daughtrey staring at them, they pulled down their bandanas, Williams threw his bag across his back and the two men continued walking towards the bank. They stopped at the entrance and at the last minute walked away.
The trial court judge observed that the two defendants would have carried out the robbery had they not been observed by Daughtrey. The Virginia Court of Appeals concluded that the “evidence is credible and sufficient for the fact finder to conclude that Williams did an overt act toward realizing the ultimate purpose of the robbery.”
4) This is related to question 4 from last assignment. respond in first person how you agree and give your opinion.
- A pick pocket reaches into a man’s pocket walking down the street and finds the man doesn’t have a wallet in his pocket. Is he guilty of attempted theft?
Yes, he is guilty of attempted theft because the pickpocket had the intention to commit a crime and then performed an act towards completing that crime. This would be categorized as a complete, but imperfect, attempt because the perpetrator takes every act required to commit a crime and yet fails to succeed.
- A man sexually assaults a woman he believes is passed out from alcohol, only to find out after that the woman died of an overdose an hour early. Is he guilty of attempted rape?
He would still be guilty of attempted rape even though the woman was already dead because he had the intention to sexually assault the woman while she was passed out from alcohol. It doesn’t matter that she was already dead because he had the intention to sexually assault her and acted on it.
- A woman decides to kill the woman who is sleeping with her husband. She goes into the woman’s bedroom at 2am and shoots at the bed. She then realizes the bed is empty. Is the woman guilty of attempted murder?
The woman would be guilty of attempted murder by the impossible attempt definition. This is when the perpetrator makes a mistake. She had every intention to commit the murder and acted on it, however the individual wasn’t there to make it a murder, which is why it is an attempted murder.