Criminal Law
Archived Posts from this Category
Criminal Law #25: Duress Sunday, Jul 23 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 11:31 pm
Duress is the topic of this last episode in Criminal Law. Duress is an excuse, where an actor is pressured to commit another crime. This episode will also compare duress with necessity.
State v. Toscano
United States v. Fleming
Criminal Law #24: Necessity (Choice of Lesser Evil) Sunday, Jul 23 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 11:23 pm
Another justification in criminal law is that of necessity, often known as the choice of the lesser evil. Under necessity, it is argued that society is actually better off by breaking one law in order to avoid a worse fate. An example of this would be a private bulldozing company destroying a house to stop a fire from spreading.
People v. Unger
Borough of Southwark v. Williams
Commonwealth v. Hutchins
Commonwealth v. Leno
United States v. Schoon
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens
Criminal Law #23: Self-Defense III Sunday, Jul 23 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 11:13 pm
We conclude our discussion of self-defense by looking at the duty of retreat, use of deadly force in protecting property, and the use of deadly force by law enforcement.
State v. Abbot
United States v. Peterson
People v. Ceballos
Durham v. State
Tennessee v. Garner
Criminal Law #22: Self-Defense II Sunday, Jul 23 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 11:07 pm
We continue our discussion of self-defense by focusing in on Battered Woman’s Syndrome, and how that affects self-defense analysis. We will also look briefly at how the MPC handles self-defense.
State v. Kelly
State v. Norman
State v. Schroeder
Criminal Law #21: Self-Defense I Thursday, Jul 13 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:02 am
We now move into justifications and excuses, beginning with the justification of protection or self or others, commonly known as self-defense. We will look at the basic requirements of a self-defense justification, as well as examining subjective and objective tests.
People v. Goetz
Criminal Law #20: Conspiracy II Thursday, Jul 13 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:00 am
Conspiracy generally requires purpose, but there are certain circumstances where purpose can be inferred from knowledge. We will examine these circumstances in this episode, as well as looking at the “geometry” of conspiracies. Finally we will look at some exemptions to prosecution under conspiracy law.
People v. Lauria
United States v. Blankenship
Kotteakos v. United States
Blumenthal v. United States
Anderson v. Superior Court
Gebardi v. United States
Garcia v. State
Criminal Law #19: Conspiracy I Thursday, Jul 13 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 12:58 am
A conspiracy is the agreement between multiple individuals to work together in criminal activity. Such agreements are a separate crime in and of themselves, and bring in significant benefits for prosecutors and risks for criminals. Some of these risks include being charged with crimes committed by other members of the conspiracy.
Krulewitch v. United States
Pinkerton v. United States
State v. Bridges
People v. Brigham
United States v. Alvarez
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States
United States v. Alvarez
Criminal Law #18: Accomplice Liability II Monday, Jul 10 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:34 pm
In this episode we conclude our discussion of aiding and abetting by examining how much aid is required for liability, how acquitted or feigning participants are handled, and exemptions to liability for aiding and abetting.
Wilcox v. Jeffrey
State ex rel. Attorney General v. Tally
State v. Hayes
Taylor v. Commonwealth
Criminal Law #17: Accomplice Liability I Monday, Jul 10 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:31 pm
Those who assist other criminals may be liable under accomplice liability (aka aiding and abetting or complicity.) This is the first of two episodes exploring this topic.
Hicks v. United States
Wilson v. People
State v. Gladstone
People v. Luparello
State v. McRay
Criminal Law #16: Attempt II Wednesday, Jul 5 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:25 am
We continue our discussion of attempt by shifting to the question of actus reus. At what point do you shift from mere preparation to an actual attempt? The three tests we will look at are dangerous proximity, equivocality, and substantial step.
People v. Rizzo
State v. Duke
United States v. Jackson
United States v. Harper
United States v. Mandujano