Question: Read *Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Department of Justice*, 352 F.3d 382 (2003). In this case, the same federal statute was analyzed (18 U.S.C. § 2339) as in [*Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno*](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6926778734800618484&q=convicted+%222339%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2000), in Exercise 2. Did the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit uphold the statute in the face of a Fifth Amendment challenge that the statute deprived the defendants of due process of law? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=2048259608876560530&q= convicted+%222339%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5&as\_ylo=2000](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2048259608876560530&q=convicted+%222339%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2000).

Answer: The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the statute against a Fifth Amendment due process challenge by construing the statute to require proof that the defendant act with the general intent or knowledge of the terrorist organization’s designation or of the unlawful activities that caused it to be so designated.


Question: Why is burglary of a **dwelling** at **nighttime** generally graded higher than other burglaries?

Answer: Burglary of a **dwelling** is graded higher than burglary of a structure or vehicle because it is likely that the owners of a dwelling might be inside and might employ protective actions that could lead to *injury* or *death*. Burglary at **nighttime** enhances the probability that the dwelling owners will be home and makes it more difficult to identify the defendant. This could also enhance the probability of injury or death and reduce the chances of conviction, which does not serve **deterrence**.


Question: Read *Butler v. Florida*, No. 1D08-0958 (Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2009). In *Butler*, the defendant appealed his convictions for trespass and criminal mischief, based on the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the defense of **necessity**. The defendant claimed he broke into a residence because he was being chased and feared for his safety. Did the Court of Appeal of Florida reverse the defendant’s convictions? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=1710354491441564352&q= burglary+%22necessity+defense%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5&as\_ylo=2000](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1710354491441564352&q=burglary+%22necessity+defense%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2000).

Answer: The Court of Appeal of Florida held that the evidence was *insufficient* to warrant the **necessity** jury instruction. Although a neighbor to the burglarized residence testified that the defendant rang her doorbell and asked to come in while looking around in a scared manner, and a guest at a party testified that the defendant was slapped by an individual claiming the defendant owed him money, the court held that this evidence did not establish the defendant’s reasonable belief that he was at risk for immediate serious bodily injury.


Question: Read *In the Matter of V.V.C.*, No. 04-07-00166 CV (Tex.: Court of Appeals, 2008). In *V.V.C.*, the Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed a minor’s adjudication for arson when he started a fire in the boy’s restroom of a middle school. What was the basis for the court’s dismissal? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=1784800980619654964&q= arson+%22smoke+damage%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5&as\_ylo=2000](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1784800980619654964&q=arson+%22smoke+damage%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2000).

Answer: The Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed the minor’s judgment of adjudication because the middle school was not located in “the incorporated city limits,” as was alleged in the State’s petition for adjudication.


Question: Jorge and Christina have consensual sexual intercourse. Could this consensual sexual intercourse be criminal? Which crime(s), if any, could exist in this fact pattern?

Answer: The sexual intercourse could be **rape** or **statutory rape** if either Jorge or Christina (or both) are incapable of rendering legal consent because they are below the age of consent, have mental or intellectual disabilities, or are intoxicated. If Jorge and Christina are incapable of marrying because of a family relationship, their sexual intercourse could be **incest**.


Question: Read *Toomer v. State*, 529 SE 2d 719 (2000). In *Toomer*, the defendant was convicted of rape after having sexual intercourse with his daughter, who was under the age of fourteen. The jury instruction did not include any requirement for the defendant’s use of force or victim resistance. The defendant appealed and claimed that the prosecution should have proven he used force and the victim’s resistance because the charge was **rape**, not **statutory rape**. Did the Supreme Court of South Carolina uphold the defendant’s conviction? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=3593808516097562509&q= Toomer+v.+State&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3593808516097562509&q=Toomer+v.+State&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5).

Answer: The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s conviction on the grounds that force and victim resistance are *not required* when a victim is under the age of legal consent. The court specifically stated that the victim’s inability to legally consent vitiates the need to prove the defendant’s use of force for rape.


Question: Read *Fleming v. State*, 323 SW 3d 540 (2010). In *Fleming*, the defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen because he was not allowed to present a mistake of age defense. The defendant claimed that the requirement of strict liability intent as to the age of the victim deprived him of **due process of law**. Did the Court of Appeals of Texas agree with the defendant? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=12908572719333538188&q= %22Scott+v.+State+36+SW+3d+240%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12908572719333538188&q=%22Scott+v.+State+36+SW+3d+240%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5).

Answer: The Court of Appeals of Texas held that state legislatures have broad powers to define crimes and criminal intent requirements, including the power to *eliminate* a culpable mental state. Thus the court upheld the defendant’s conviction and did not strike the strict liability aggravated sexual assault statute. The court reviewed significant state and federal precedent to determine that the majority of states disallow the mistake of age defense, and that this does not violate federal or Texas state **due process** because it is supported by the legitimate government interest of protecting children.


Question: Anita lives in a state that permits the possession and use of marijuana for medical reasons. Anita obtains some marijuana and uses it to treat her medical condition, carefully following her state’s statutory requirements. Has Anita committed a crime(s)?

Answer: Anita has committed the federal crimes of **possession** and **use** of marijuana. Although Anita’s state has legalized marijuana for medical use, and Anita complied with her state’s statutory requirements, the Federal Controlled Substances Act criminalizes the possession and use of marijuana, and there is no federal medical necessity exemption.


Question: Read *Poindexter v. State*, 153 S.W. 3d 402 (2005). In *Poindexter*, the defendant purchased cocaine from a confidential informant inside his house. After the defendant left, a subsequent law enforcement search uncovered the cocaine inside a tin breath mints can hidden in the ceiling of the master bedroom closet. The defendant was convicted at trial, but the appellate court reversed, based on the fact that another individual was seen on the premises, so there was *insufficient* proof of the defendant’s possession. Did the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirm the court’s reversal? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=10968287895213637721&q= possession+of+drugs+roommate+control+%22joint+possession%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5&as\_ylo=2002](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10968287895213637721&q=possession+of+drugs+roommate+control+%22joint+possession%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2002).

Answer: The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reversed, holding that evidence of the cocaine’s presence in a hidden location accessible only to someone exercising control over the house, the defendant’s ownership of the house, and evidence that the cocaine was conveniently accessible to the defendant was sufficient to convict the defendant of possession of cocaine.


Question: Read *People v. Watson*, No. 90962 (Ohio 2120 2009). In *Watson*, the defendant was convicted of compelling prostitution. The defendant appealed on the grounds that the proper interpretation of compelling prostitution under the Ohio statute requires force, duress, or coercion and the defendant merely arranged it so that the prostitute had no money for shelter, clothes, and food if she did not continually commit prostitution. Did the Court of Appeals of Ohio uphold the defendant’s conviction? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=5203798681398361958&q= prostitution+client+acquitted+%22convicted+of+prostitution+%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5&as\_ylo=2002](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5203798681398361958&q=prostitution+client+acquitted+%22convicted+of+prostitution+%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2002).

Answer: The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed, finding no evidence of force, duress, or coercion because the prostitute’s testimony indicated that “nothing would happen” if she refused to turn money earned from prostitution over to the defendant.


Question: A law enforcement officer arrests a group of individuals for standing outside a Jewish temple with signs that indicate a disbelief in the holocaust. The officer tells the individuals that he is arresting them for unlawful assembly. What are some potential constitutional problems with this arrest?

Answer: The First Amendment protects an individual’s right to stand in a public place and hold a sign as long as the sign is not *obscene*, *fighting words*, or a *true threat*. Signs indicating a disbelief in the holocaust are most likely upsetting to Jewish individuals attending temple, but they must constitute fighting words or a true threat if they are to be constitutionally prohibited. If the law enforcement officer arrests the individuals for unlawful assembly pursuant to a statute that arguably prohibits such conduct, the statute is subject to constitutional attack under the **First Amendment** or for **overbreadth**.


Question: Read *Ortiz v. NYS Parole in Bronx*, 586 F.3d 149 (2009). In *Ortiz*, the defendant was found guilty of several counts of riot under New York’s first-degree riot statute for conduct that occurred *after* he left the scene of the riot. Did the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit uphold the defendant’s conviction? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=2710893752280724993&q= %22riot+statute%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5&as\_ylo=2002](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2710893752280724993&q=%22riot+statute%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2002).

Answer: The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the defendant’s conviction. The court held that the lower court’s interpretation of New York’s first-degree riot statute did not violate **due process** by denying the defendant notice that his conduct was criminal, even though the interpretation extended the statute’s reach by including conduct that occurred *after* the defendant left the scene of the riot.


Question: Read *People v. Englebrecht*, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1236 (2001). Did the California Court of Appeal hold that the defendant, an alleged gang member, had the right to a jury trial on the issue of his gang membership for the purpose of a civil gang injunction? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=449430704300565285&q= unconstitutional+%22civil+gang+injunction%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5&as\_ylo=1997](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=449430704300565285&q=unconstitutional+%22civil+gang+injunction%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=1997).

Answer: The California Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on his gang membership for purposes of a civil gang injunction because of the **civil** nature of the action and the fact that his *physical liberty* was not directly at stake.


Question: Stephanie stands in front of a mosque and advocates for the overthrow of the US government. Is Stephanie committing **sedition**? Why or why not?

Answer: Stephanie has not committed **sedition** because she did not advocate for the use of *force* or *violence* or the commission of an *unlawful* act. Stephanie’s speech is most likely protected because she might be envisioning a peaceful government overthrow by legitimate means.


Question: Read *U.S. v. Kabat*, 797 Fed.2d 580 (1986). Did the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit uphold the defendants’ convictions for sabotage when, as nuclear protestors, they intentionally damaged US missiles? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=5276967647790252481&q= sabotage+%222155%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5&as\_ylo=1992](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5276967647790252481&q=sabotage+%222155%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=1992).

Answer: The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the defendants’ convictions for **sabotage**, stating that the specific intent or purposely to impede the US national defense could be gleaned from the defendants’ conduct in deliberately damaging the missiles.


Question: Read *In re Squillacote*, 790 A.2d 514 (2002). Did the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold that conspiracy to commit espionage and attempted espionage are crimes of **moral turpitude** that could support the defendant’s disbarment? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=8408409521873710428&q= espionage+%22793%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5&as\_ylo=2000](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8408409521873710428&q=espionage+%22793%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2000).

Answer: The District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the defendant’s disbarment based on convictions for crimes of moral turpitude, and stated that other than *treason*, no act was more base, vile, or depraved than an intentional act to breach the confidentiality of national defense secrets that have come into the hands of an individual.


Question: Susannah, a Hollywood movie star, is a witness in a civil personal injury case. Susannah saw a car accident and is subpoenaed to testify that the defendant was at fault. After the court commissioner administers an oath to tell the truth, Susannah takes the witness stand. She knows the case will generate significant publicity, so Susannah shaves ten years off of her age when asked routine background questions by the prosecutor. If Susannah is thereafter caught in this lie and prosecuted for **perjury**, what will be the primary issue in her perjury prosecution? How will this issue be resolved?

Answer: The primary issue in Susannah’s perjury prosecution is the **materiality** of her false statement made under oath in a judicial proceeding. While Susannah was asked her age during routine background questions, her lie might *still* be material if her advanced age affected her vision because Susannah is testifying about an important personal observation. In many jurisdictions, the trier of fact, which could be a **jury**, determines the materiality of this statement.


Question: Read *State v. Carr*, 172 Conn. 458 (1977). In this case, the defendant was convicted of bribery when he paid an undercover detective to refrain from investigating narcotics crimes in the area. The defendant appealed, claiming the jury should have been instructed on the lesser included offense of offering gifts to state police officers. Did the Supreme Court of Connecticut uphold the defendant’s bribery conviction? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=14705028387089517508&q= %22State+v.+Carr%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=2,5](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14705028387089517508&q=%22State+v.+Carr%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5).

Answer: The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld the defendant’s bribery conviction, holding that offering gifts to state police officers is not a lesser included offense of bribery because it requires **specific** intent, and bribery under Connecticut law is *not* a specific intent crime.


Question: Read *People v. Silverberg*, 771 N.Y.S. 2d 274 (2003). In this case, the defendant was convicted of witness tampering for a single telephone call he made to an attorney that implied he would send letters to a grievance committee if the attorney did not drop charges against him. Did the Supreme Court of New York uphold the defendant’s conviction? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=3089258849772766127&q= %22witness+tampering%22&hl=en&as\_sdt=4,33&as\_ylo=2003](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3089258849772766127&q=%22witness+tampering%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,33&as_ylo=2003).

Answer: The New York Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction because the defendant did not have a complaint filed against him, so the “witness” was not *about* to testify in a judicial proceeding, which is required under the witness tampering statute.