DISCUSSION QUESTION 3-2

MJ650 CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LESSON 3: SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW – PART II

UPON COMPLETION OF THE REQUIRED READINGS, WRITE A THOROUGH, WELL-PLANNED NARRATIVE ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION QUESTION. RELY ON YOUR REQUIRED READINGS AND THE LECTURE AND RESEARCH UPDATE FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO ANSWER THE DISCUSSION QUESTION, BUT TURN TO YOUR ORIGINAL THOUGHTS WHEN ASKED TO APPLY, EVALUATE, ANALYZE, OR SYNTHESIZE THE INFORMATION. YOUR DISCUSSION QUESTION RESPONSE SHOULD BE BOTH GRAMMATICALLY AND MECHANICALLY CORRECT, AND FORMATTED IN THE SAME FASHION AS THE QUESTION ITSELF. IF THERE IS A PART A, YOUR RESPONSE SHOULD IDENTIFY A PART A, ETC. IN ADDITION, YOU MUST APPROPRIATELY CITE ALL RESOURCES USED IN YOUR RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT IN A BIBLIOGRAPHY USING APA STYLE.

DISCUSSION QUESTION 3-2 (50 POINTS)

THOMAS WAS THE CEO OF A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT WAS BUILDING SEVERAL BUILDINGS FOR THE CITY. THE CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY REQUIRED THAT BUILDING INSPECTORS MAKE WEEKLY INSPECTIONS OF EACH BUILDING, AND THE INSPECTORS GENERALLY INSPECTED EACH THURSDAY. THOMAS ORDERED THE CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGERS TO PROVIDE DOUGHNUTS AND COFFEE TO THE INSPECTORS WHEN THEY ARRIVED AT THE SITES. HE ALSO MANAGED TO OBTAIN FOOTBALL TICKETS THAT HIS SITE MANAGERS GAVE TO THE INSPECTORS. HIS MOTIVE WAS TO ESTABLISH A FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INSPECTORS. LATER, HE GAVE “NO INTEREST” LOANS TO TWO OF THE INSPECTORS. RESEARCH INDICATED THAT THE BUILDINGS THAT THOMAS’S COMPANY BUILT FOR THE CITY WERE INFERIOR TO THOSE BUILT BY OTHER CONTRACTORS.

DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES RELATED TO THE SCENARIO. BE SURE TO DISCUSS RELEVANT CASE LAW IN YOUR RESPONSE. (A 2-PAGE RESPONSE IS REQUIRED.)

A. AS CITY ATTORNEY, DISCUSS THOMAS’ CRIME OF BRIBERY INCLUDING TWO (2) OFFENSES RELATED TO THE CRIME; LIST THE ELEMENTS OF EACH OFFENSE AND EXPLAIN HOW THOMAS’ CONDUCT COMPLIED WITH THE ELEMENTS. INCLUDE A COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF RICO LAW AS IT RELATES TO THE SCENARIO. CONSIDERING THE POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE CITY, WHAT OTHER REMEDIES MIGHT EXIST TO AID YOU AS CITY ATTORNEY?

B. AFTER COMPLETING THE PROSECUTOR’S ANALYSIS, PRETEND THAT YOU ARE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY; WHAT DEFENSES WOULD YOU ADVANCE ON THOMAS’S BEHALF? INCLUDE HOW YOU WOULD ADDRESS THE RICO DEFENSE.

C. CHANGE HATS AGAIN AND NOW TAKE THE JUDGE’S PERSPECTIVE; HOW WOULD YOU RULE ON THE PROSECUTOR’S CHARGES AND THE DEFENSE LAWYER’S DEFENSES TO THOSE CHARGES IN THE CASE?

PATTY CASE EXAMPLE:

SAMPLE CASE BRIEF

OF

PATTY V. STATE, 1972 OK CR 120

PROCEDURAL SECTION: DEFENDANT APPEALED THE DECISION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, LOVE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, WHICH, UPON RETRIAL, CONVICTED HER OF THE OFFENSE OF MURDER AND SENTENCED HER TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

RULE SECTION: IT WAS ERROR FOR THE STATE TO RETRY THE DEFENDANT ON THE GREATER OFFENSE OF MURDER AFTER A JURY HAD IMPLIEDLY ACQUITTED HER OF THAT OFFENSE. IT WAS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO REVERSE AND REMAND DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION OF MURDER TO THE LOWER COURT WITH AN INSTRUCTION THAT IF SHE WERE TO BE RETRIED, THE RETRIAL MUST BE LIMITED TO A CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER OR ITS LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSES. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO RULE THAT A DEFENDANT’S JEOPARDY (LIABILITY) FOR AN OFFENSE CONTINUES AFTER AN ACQUITTAL, WHETHER THAT ACQUITTAL IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY A CONVICTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WHEN THE JURY WAS GIVEN A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO RETURN A VERDICT ON THE GREATER CHARGE. WHERE A TRIAL FOR MURDER RESULTS IN A CONVICTION FOR THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER, AND THAT CONVICTION IS SET ASIDE FOR A NEW TRIAL, THE DEFENDANT MAY ONLY BE RETRIED FOR MANSLAUGHTER (OR FOR A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE CRIME THAT RESULTED IN THE ORIGINAL CONVICTION); BUT THE DEFENDANT MAY NOT BE TRIED AGAIN FOR MURDER (THE ORIGINAL “GREATER” CHARGE). ALLOWING A COURT TO RETRY A DEFENDANT FOR THE GREATER CHARGE WOULD PLACE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY AGAIN ON A CHARGE FOR WHICH SHE WAS IMPLIEDLY ACQUITTED.

CASE SUMMARY: DEFENDANT WAS FIRST CONVICTED OF THE LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND SENTENCED TO 15 YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. SHE MOVED FOR A NEW TRIAL BASED ON JUROR MISCONDUCT, WHICH WAS GRANTED. ON RETRIAL, SHE WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT. SHE APPEALED, CONTENDING THAT HER SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION OF MURDER VIOLATED HER RIGHTS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, WHICH STATES, “NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB.” THE AFOREMENTIONED AMENDMENT IS APPLICABLE TO THE STATES UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. THE APPELLATE COURT AGREED, NOTING THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A CONVICTION FOR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE ACTS AS AN IMPLIED ACQUITTAL ON THE GREATER OFFENSE, AND THEREFORE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROTECTION ATTACHED CONCERNING THE GREATER CRIME. SHE DID NOT WAIVE ANY CLAIM OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY BY FILING AN APPEAL OR MOVING FOR A RETRIAL. THE COURT HELD THAT THE MURDER CONVICTION WAS REVERSED AND ORDERED THAT THE CASE BE SET FOR RETRIAL ALONG WITH AN INSTRUCTION THAT THE TRIAL COURT LIMIT ITS CHARGES TO MANSLAUGHTER OR ITS LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES.

GRADING RUBRIC

PLEASE REFER TO THE RUBRIC ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE FOR THE GRADING CRITERIA FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT.