Due 12/26

For this unit’s Complete assignment, write a comprehensive scholarly essay ( minimum 1500 words) in which you analyze, explain, and apply these concepts in the context of a criminal justice organizational issue. You must incorporate and cite, using correct APA citation format, at least (4) four different scholarly research sources. In-line citations must be used in the body of your essay, and all research sources must be fully cited at the conclusion of your essay. Correct APA citation formats must be used.

Key Concepts:  mens rea defenses: involuntary intoxication and  provocation doctrine

Capstone Cases:  Montana v. Egelhoff, Carter v. State,  Commonwealth v. Schnopps, People v. McCarthy, 547 N. E. 2d 459 (Ill. 1989) and  Girouard v. State, 583 A. 2d 718 (Md. App. 1991).

Assignment: In a narrative format for the Complete section, construct one essay which addresses the following points: The minimum requirements for Completes are four (4) scholarly sources including at least one peer reviewed journal article (one published within the last seven years). Your essay must contain a minimum of 1500 words of substantive content, not including the references section. All citations must be listed in correct APA 7th edition format and all other relevant APA rules must be observed.

The narrative essay should clearly define the key concepts of   mens rea defenses, specifically the  involuntary intoxication and  provocation doctrine and will apply these principles to the Capstone cases of  Montana v. Egelhoff, Carter v. State,  Commonwealth v. Schnopps, People v. McCarthy, and  Girouard v. State. Your response will include the overview of the cases and will also need to address each question or statement listed below in an essay format.

· In the Capstone case of  Montana v. Egelhoff, on July 1992, while camping out in the Yaak region of northwestern Montana, Respondent Egelhoff made friends with Roberta Pavola and John Christenson. On Sunday, July 12, the three spent much of the day and evening drinking, in bars and at a private party. At about midnight that night, officers of the Lincoln County, Montana, sheriff’s department, responding to reports of a possible drunk driver, discovered Christenson’s station wagon stuck in a ditch along U.S. Highway 2. In the front seat were Pavola and Christenson, each dead from a single gunshot to the head. In the rear of the car lay Egelhoff, alive and yelling obscenities. His blood-alcohol content measured .36 percent over one hour later. After being charged with two counts of homicide, Engelhoff attempted to assert an intoxication defense, but this was denied by the trial court. How does a claim that (a) an intoxicated defendant should not be held responsible for his or her criminal activity because of the inability to form the requisite  mens rea for a specific crime differ from the claim that (b) an intoxicated defendant should be excused because he or she had lowered inhibitions and impaired judgment as a consequence of ingesting alcohol?

· Do both claims carry the same moral weight?

· Do you believe that, as a matter of fundamental due process rights, a defendant should be given the opportunity to present “all relevant evidence to rebut the State’s evidence on all elements of the offense charged”? Why or why not?

· Read the Court’s opinion in  Carter v. State, 710 So. 2d 110 (Fla. App. 1998). Based on this opinion, explain why involuntary intoxication is treated differently from voluntary intoxication as a criminal defense.

· In the Capstone case of  Commonwealth v. Schnopps, on October 13, 1979, Marilyn R. Schnopps was fatally shot by her estranged husband George A. Schnopps. A jury convicted Schnopps of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment. Schnopps claims that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Schnopps claimed that he was provoked into killing his wife after learning of her marital infidelity. Were the wife’s comments so shocking as to be tantamount to the defendant’s actually catching her in an adulterous act with her lover?

· What are the implications of extending the provocation doctrine in infidelity cases from actually witnessing a spouse committing adultery to learning about it verbally?

· Read the two other “provocation” cases in your textbook— People v. McCarthy, 547 N. E. 2d 459 (Ill. 1989) and  Girouard v. State, 583 A. 2d 718 (Md. App. 1991)—where defendants asserted victim provocation as mitigation against homicide charges. What conditions or circumstances do the courts identify as being adequate enough to constitute possible reduced charges in homicide cases?

For this unit’s Complete assignment, write a comprehensive scholarly essay ( minimum 1500 words) in which you analyze, explain, and apply these concepts in the context of a criminal justice organizational issue. You must incorporate and cite, using correct APA citation format, at least (4) four different scholarly research sources. In-line citations must be used in the body of your essay, and all research sources must be fully cited at the conclusion of your essay. Correct APA citation formats must be used.

Key Concepts: Elements of Offense, i.e., Protected Speech, Obscenity laws

Capstone Cases:  Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,Lewis v. New Orleans,  Bousquet v. Arkansas,  United States v. Williams, United States v. Whorley,  United States v. Kilbride, and  Lawrence v. Texas.

Assignment: In a narrative format for the Complete section, construct one essay which addresses the following points: The minimum requirements for Completes are four (4) scholarly sources including at least one peer reviewed journal article (one published within the last seven years). Your essay must contain a minimum of 1500 words of substantive content, not including the references section. All citations must be listed in correct APA 7th edition format and all other relevant APA rules must be observed.

The narrative essay should clearly define the key concepts of protected speech and the legal concept of obscenity  and will apply these principles to the Capstone cases of  Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,Lewis v. New Orleans,  Bousquet v. Arkansas,  United States v. Williams, United States v. Whorley,  United States v. Kilbride, and  Lawrence v. Texas.

 Your response will include the overview of the cases and will also need to address each question or statement listed below in an essay format.

· In the Capstone case of  Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Appellant was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, Section 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire: “No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.” The charge was based on the claim that Chaplinsky stated in a public place, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.”Do you think that the language used by Chaplinsky should be subject to governmental regulation? Why or why not?

· Do you believe that all manner of speech should be protected by the First Amendment? If not, what limits would you put on such protections?

· What are “fighting words”? Why aren’t they protected by the First Amendment?

· Read the two cases from your textbook— Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974) and  Bousquet v. Arkansas, 548 S. W. 2d 125 (1977)—involving offensive language directed at a police officer. Should these types of disorderly conduct or fighting words cases be treated differently because the target of the language is a public official?

· What factors are relevant to your judgment?

· In the Capstone case of  United States v. Williams, the United States Code criminalizes, in certain specified circumstances, the pandering or solicitation of child pornography. This case presents the question whether that statute is overbroad under the First Amendment or impermissibly vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Should speech in the form of an offer to engage in a criminal act (exchange child pornography) be sufficient to establish criminal liability?

· Does your answer to question 1 change if there is no apparent ability to actually exchange child pornography?

· Read the opinions in  United States v. Whorley, 550 F. 3d 326 (4th Cir. 2008) and  United States v. Kilbride, 534 F. 3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2009). Then consider these two rulings in light of the Supreme Court’s 2003 opinion in  Lawrence v. Texas. Are obscenity laws still constitutional in light of the Court’s opinion in  Lawrence?

For this unit’s Complete assignment, write a comprehensive scholarly essay ( minimum 1500 words) in which you analyze, explain, and apply these concepts in the context of a criminal justice organizational issue. You must incorporate and cite, using correct APA citation format, at least (4) four different scholarly research sources. In-line citations must be used in the body of your essay, and all research sources must be fully cited at the conclusion of your essay. Correct APA citation formats must be used.

Key Concepts: Attempt: substantial steps, self-defense, stand your ground laws.

Capstone Cases:  Tennessee v. Reeves, United States v. Gladish,  United States v. Thomas, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman 

Assignment: In a narrative format for the Complete section, construct one essay which addresses the following points: The minimum requirements for Completes are four (4) scholarly sources including at least one peer reviewed journal article (one published within the last seven years). Your essay must contain a minimum of 1500 words of substantive content, not including the references section. All citations must be listed in correct APA 7th edition format and all other relevant APA rules must be observed.

       The narrative essay should clearly define the key concepts of  Attempt: substantial steps, self-defense, and  stand your ground  laws and will apply these principles to the Capstone cases of  Tennessee v. Reeves, United States v. Gladish,  United States v. Thomas, and  State of Florida v. George Zimmerman.  Your response will include the overview of the cases and will also need to address each question or statement listed below in an essay format.

· In the Capstone Case of  Tennessee v. Reeves, Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman, both twelve years of age and students at West Carroll Middle School, spoke on the telephone and decided to kill their homeroom teacher, Janice Geiger. The girls agreed that Coffman would bring rat poison to school the following day so that it could be placed in Geiger’s drink. The girls also agreed that they would thereafter steal Geiger’s car and drive to the Smoky Mountains. Reeves then contacted Dean Foutch, a local high school student, informed him of the plan, and asked him to drive Geiger’s car. Foutch refused this request. Reeves and Coffman were found to be delinquent by a Juvenile Court based on a conviction of attempt to commit second-degree murder. The question is whether the students engaged in enough activity to constitute an attempt offense. Did you find enough evidence that the girls had taken a substantial step toward the commission of a targeted offense?

· What test does the court establish for Tennessee to determine if a substantial step has been taken?

· Do you find that the court, in using common law rules of construction, modifies the legislative enactment of the attempt statute?

· Read and compare the court’s opinion in  United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008), involving an alleged attempt to have sexual conduct with a minor. What factors did the court consider in determining whether Gladish engaged in a substantial step toward sexual activity with a minor?

· In the Capstone Case of  United States v. Thomas, On October 30th, 1990, Wallie Howard, a Syracuse police officer working undercover for the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), was shot and killed during a cocaine “buy-bust” taking place in the parking lot of “Mario’s Big M Market” in Syracuse. The defendants charged with Officer Howard’s death tried to assert a self-defense claim at trial, but the court refused this request. Lawrence fired at Agent Howard and killed him after Howard had already drawn his weapon and fired. Why was Lawrence unable to claim self-defense in the shooting?

· In this case, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said: “It has long been accepted that one cannot support a claim of self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill.” What is the logic behind this principle?

· Do you agree with it?

· How does this case compare to the jury verdict in  State of Florida v. George Zimmerman (aka the Travon Martin case)?

· Determine whether your home state has a “stand-your-ground” law that allows defendants to assert self-defense in cases where they might have been able to safely avoid a confrontation. If your state does not have such a law, locate the stand-your-ground law in Florida. After reading the law, identify the elements a criminal defendant must meet in order to successfully present a stand-your-ground defense.

For this unit’s Complete assignment, write a comprehensive scholarly essay ( minimum 1500 words) in which you analyze, explain, and apply these concepts in the context of a criminal justice organizational issue. You must incorporate and cite, using correct APA citation format, at least (4) four different scholarly research sources. In-line citations must be used in the body of your essay, and all research sources must be fully cited at the conclusion of your essay. Correct APA citation formats must be used.

Key Concepts:  mens rea defenses: involuntary intoxication and  provocation doctrine

Capstone Cases:  Montana v. Egelhoff, Carter v. State,  Commonwealth v. Schnopps, People v. McCarthy, 547 N. E. 2d 459 (Ill. 1989) and  Girouard v. State, 583 A. 2d 718 (Md. App. 1991).

Assignment: In a narrative format for the Complete section, construct one essay which addresses the following points: The minimum requirements for Completes are four (4) scholarly sources including at least one peer reviewed journal article (one published within the last seven years). Your essay must contain a minimum of 1500 words of substantive content, not including the references section. All citations must be listed in correct APA 7th edition format and all other relevant APA rules must be observed.

The narrative essay should clearly define the key concepts of   mens rea defenses, specifically the  involuntary intoxication and  provocation doctrine and will apply these principles to the Capstone cases of  Montana v. Egelhoff, Carter v. State,  Commonwealth v. Schnopps, People v. McCarthy, and  Girouard v. State. Your response will include the overview of the cases and will also need to address each question or statement listed below in an essay format.

· In the Capstone case of  Montana v. Egelhoff, on July 1992, while camping out in the Yaak region of northwestern Montana, Respondent Egelhoff made friends with Roberta Pavola and John Christenson. On Sunday, July 12, the three spent much of the day and evening drinking, in bars and at a private party. At about midnight that night, officers of the Lincoln County, Montana, sheriff’s department, responding to reports of a possible drunk driver, discovered Christenson’s station wagon stuck in a ditch along U.S. Highway 2. In the front seat were Pavola and Christenson, each dead from a single gunshot to the head. In the rear of the car lay Egelhoff, alive and yelling obscenities. His blood-alcohol content measured .36 percent over one hour later. After being charged with two counts of homicide, Engelhoff attempted to assert an intoxication defense, but this was denied by the trial court. How does a claim that (a) an intoxicated defendant should not be held responsible for his or her criminal activity because of the inability to form the requisite  mens rea for a specific crime differ from the claim that (b) an intoxicated defendant should be excused because he or she had lowered inhibitions and impaired judgment as a consequence of ingesting alcohol?

· Do both claims carry the same moral weight?

· Do you believe that, as a matter of fundamental due process rights, a defendant should be given the opportunity to present “all relevant evidence to rebut the State’s evidence on all elements of the offense charged”? Why or why not?

· Read the Court’s opinion in  Carter v. State, 710 So. 2d 110 (Fla. App. 1998). Based on this opinion, explain why involuntary intoxication is treated differently from voluntary intoxication as a criminal defense.

· In the Capstone case of  Commonwealth v. Schnopps, on October 13, 1979, Marilyn R. Schnopps was fatally shot by her estranged husband George A. Schnopps. A jury convicted Schnopps of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment. Schnopps claims that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Schnopps claimed that he was provoked into killing his wife after learning of her marital infidelity. Were the wife’s comments so shocking as to be tantamount to the defendant’s actually catching her in an adulterous act with her lover?

· What are the implications of extending the provocation doctrine in infidelity cases from actually witnessing a spouse committing adultery to learning about it verbally?

· Read the two other “provocation” cases in your textbook— People v. McCarthy, 547 N. E. 2d 459 (Ill. 1989) and  Girouard v. State, 583 A. 2d 718 (Md. App. 1991)—where defendants asserted victim provocation as mitigation against homicide charges. What conditions or circumstances do the courts identify as being adequate enough to constitute possible reduced charges in homicide cases?