Hugo Ruthe Defense

Background: In 1843 Daniel M’Naghten attempted to kill Robert Peel, the British prime minister, but shoot his secretary instead. His defense team argued that he was insane because of his paranoid ideation, the judge found him non responsible. Fersch states “Subsequently because of outrage at the acquittal, a panel of judges responded to house of lords’ questions and set forth the test that will be known as the M’Naghten test” (fersch, 2005). In 1851, the M’Naghten rules were adopted in the federal and most of the state courts of the United States. Under the prevailing M’Naghten standard a person cannot be convicted if, at the time the criminal act was committed, that person was laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature of the act he or she was doing. The word “know” has been a source of controversy and criticism

The author collaborates with his fellow staff, the family and community of Walter to plan a case to prove his innocence. Without proper collaboration the author would not be able to prove Walter’s innocence and have Ralph Myer’s change of heart to testify truthfully. The author also shows common purpose through the relentless to free Walter of all charges. Without sticking to the common purpose of the family of Walter and Bryan’s staff, Walter would never have been exonerated. This highlights the importance of a good common purpose and without one, true change can not be achieved.

The central issue in the mock trial was whether the payment of life insurance from Prime Global Insurance group to Raven Temple, the wife of the late Aubrey Temple, was warranted. Aubrey Temple purchased a life insurance plan from Prime Global Insurance on March 16th, 2011. Prime Global Insurance’s policy is illustrated clearly in their terms and conditions that the one-million dollar payout to the policy holder’s beneficiary on the condition that the death of the individual must not have occurred by suicide within two years of enacting the contract. My contribution to jury deliberations were to synthesize the evidence to most accurately depict the events that passed, and to come to a conclusion whether Mr. Temple died by suicide or accidental death, and if his death occurred before the two-year time period as outlined in the insurance company’s policy. The prosecution and defense painted a story for the jury and called on witnesses including Ms. Temple ¬– the wife of the late Mr. Temple, Mr. Usher – former business partner of Mr. Temple, the transcript of a sworn testimony by the medical examiner of Mr. Temple, a detective who arrived at the scene, the limo driver who was driving Mr. Temple from that night’s Veteran Ball, and an individual who was driving behind the limo before Mr. Temple was ejected out of the vehicle.

The nature of her crimes reflect a general fear of intimate and buried violence, suggesting a growing anxiety about being threatened from within. Her moves are calculated and planned. Murders and robberies spring from a specific social context, not from psychosis or vindictive malice (Kalikoff, 81). Murders in Victorian melodramas are often the result of elaborate plans to conceal identity, right a wrong or improve social status.

One misinformed comment followed another as the press released a statement where Ferrier said he wished to be a prolific killer, better than the likes of Canada’s current worst murderers. Removing the motive that lead to such a concerning comment, erased the truth behind it. At the time Martin was in solitary confinement, stripped of his clothes and freedom, with a deteriorating mental state. The comment was purely with the intention to be freed from solitary. Withdrawing this vital information altered the way a reader would view Martin’s statement.

(Q1 - 4) On March 8th 2017 Student Group 5 attended the Supreme Court case Awatere v The Queen in Courtroom 7 of the Sir Samuel Way Building. Being a criminal trial, the accused, Mr. Awatere, is being tried by a 13 man jury, abiding with s6 of the Juries Act 1927 (SA) on the charge of murder. Witness examination and cross-examination was conducted before presiding Justice David Lovell and the jury, consistent with s6(2) and s6A of the Juries Act 1927 (SA). This criminal trial will determine if Mr Awatere is guilty of intending to murder or grievously harm his former partner and victim, Ms J Ohide (hereinafter ‘the victim’) by strangulation. Official legal parties in the case are the accused: Mr T Awatere, represented by a defence barrister

Have you ever been accused of something you did/didn’t commit? That is one question, Meursault and Josef K. can answer for us today. Meursault an ordinary man from “The Stranger” is accused of his mother’s death while Josef K. a young man on his birthday from, “The Trial” is accused of a crime he isn’t even aware of. These two young men’s cases and experiences have much in common as well as they differ.

The majority, in reaching its decision, endeavoured to define the principles of manslaughter such that the moral culpability of the accused would be commensurate to their legal responsibility. The majority looked to the nature of manslaughter in English law, where the test to determine the existence of manslaughter was, “the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm.” However, the majority rejected this view because it did not arise from a case where harm was inflicted intentionally, and because it seemed to ascribe an incommensurate level of criminal liability

Perhaps Macbeth was never completely innocent to begin with; or maybe, criminals do not operate under an intrinsic will for evil, but are rather driven by their previous experiences and encounters. Through close

Good morning and thank you for your time. Throughout the course of this deliberation, we must picture Miss Briony Tallis as what she was at the time of the crime: a naive and sheltered child. Haven’t you made mistakes in your life? I, personally, find it quite hard to go even a day without doing a minimum of five things wrong, and, ultimately, Miss Tallis might have made a mistake in her insistence of Mr. Robbie Turner’s guilt, but she did not commit perjury. The key factor in this is the difference between outright malicious lying and a more nebulous idea of “not knowing.” Miss Tallis, in drawing a logical and analytical conclusion based upon her surroundings, has done what we are expected to do in this class. She first saw her sister strip naked in front of a man without reason, then she read a borderline perverted note from said man to her sister.

The defendant had the mental capacity to understand what he was doing. The boy created a list of potential victims that included names and addresses and obtained ester to further his crime. He methodically planned to obtain an instrument suitable to strike his mother. The axe handle was procured from the garage and hidden under his mattress. An organized mind was used in each of the actions. To think through and plan a murder in such a sequential manner showed his maturity

At an early age one is Sartoris, knowing far too well the difference between right and wrong, knows that something in these trial proceedings smells bad and that inevitably he will have to choose the latter in order to align his ideals to his Father’s misaligned ones. The Justice calls

“The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself…viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme” (621) of which lawyers are the key players. Mr. Vholes, Robert’s lawyer, “always looking at the client, as if he were making a lingering meal of him with his eyes as well as with his professional appetite,” (624) dupes Robert into believing that he needs him for his suit. This “respectable” lawyer tells Robert that because he is represented he will have a voice in the legal system, however, it means nothing for Robert’s suit. Thus, these false hopes told to Robert by his lawyer eventually results in his melancholy death.

Lord Peter loves the thrill a new assignment can bring, just as any other person can enjoy discovering something new or does what they truly love. People get tired of routine and of bland circumstances, which is why Lord Peter addresses why the case he is working on does not fulfill him. He says, “ ‘Competent, of course, but no imagination. I want imagination in a criminal.’ “(50). When something is done with imagination, it is usually well thought and done. If anyone tries to figure out how that work was gone, it is hard because of the amount of thought process that was put in it. It is no fun to know everything because there is not any mystery or point to what is being done. Lord Peter seems to think that these cases have no point and asks his valet to restrain him “ ‘ from starting two hares at once.

A topic of conversation that always comes up when I mention that I’m doing a placement with a criminal barrister, one who works as both defence counsel and for the prosecution, is the idea of representing a client who is ‘guilty’. I’m asked “but what if you know that they did it?” and “wouldn’t you feel bad if they got off?” Ysaiah Ross considered the ‘moral lawyer’ in his paper, and discussed Wasserstrom’s ‘role-differentiated behaviour’. This included that the role of the lawyer requires ignorance of moral considerations as a result. Ross commented on a comic of a rocket scientist saying that it was his job to get the rockets up, and that where they come down is ‘not [his] department’. He also remarked that the Director of Extermination in Auschwitz stated that he didn’t murder anybody; he was just the Director of Extermination. Similarly, a consideration of ‘guilt’ is counterproductive as defence counsel.