Criminal Law Task Name Phase 5 Individual Project
Cjus290 1403b 03 Criminal Lawtasknamephase 5 Individual Projectdeliv
Review the scenario involving Jane Doe, Jack Brown, and Mrs. Wealthy, and identify all criminal acts. For each criminal act identified, discuss the elements and whether you believe the defendant or defendants can be convicted. Support your analysis with case law and relevant federal or state statutes.
Jane Doe, a janitor with minimal education and limited intelligence, was manipulated into providing a key to Jack Brown in exchange for money. Jack Brown, involved in a credit card scam ring, used the key to access Mrs. Wealthy’s apartment, commit theft, and defraud her by stealing credit cards and bank statements. Jack’s actions could constitute multiple crimes including theft, conspiracy, credit card fraud, identity theft, and potentially attempted burglary or breaking and entering.
Jack then attempted to cover his theft by returning a found lost key to Mrs. Wealthy, which facilitated his continued access. When Jack's crew used the stolen information to open fraudulent credit lines, they commited credit card and bank fraud, both federal crimes under the jurisdiction of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and various state statutes.
Jim, a convicted felon, was hired by Jack’s associate to kill Jane Doe in retaliation for her interference or possible witness, rendering him liable for attempted murder and burglary when he broke into her home. Jane, acting in self-defense, shot Jim, killing him — which could qualify as justifiable homicide or self-defense under the law if the elements are met.
Mrs. Wealthy, who ultimately shot Jack, might be considered for self-defense or defense of property, given her belief that Jack was attempting to harm her or steal from her. Her mental state and perception of threat would be considered in any criminal or civil proceedings.
Criminal Charges and Legal Analysis
Jane Doe
Jane's act of giving Jack the key in exchange for money constitutes conspiracy to commit theft, potentially access device fraud, and federal crimes such as interstate transportation of stolen goods if applicable. Her limited mental capacity might serve as a defense, such as diminished capacity or lack of intent, which could mitigate her culpability (People v. Williams, 1984).
Her subsequent inaction and depression might be relevant in sentencing or mitigation but do not absolve her of crimes like conspiracy or aiding and abetting.
Jack Brown
Jack can be charged with multiple crimes, including:
- Theft of property (the apartment key and valuables)
- Conspiracy to commit fraud and theft
- Credit card fraud (federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1029)
- Bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344)
- Identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028)
Mrs. Wealthy
Mrs. Wealthy potentially committed the crime of shooting Jack in self-defense if she reasonably believed she was in imminent danger of harm or theft. The key court case is State v. Alexander (2015), which recognizes the legality of self-defense if there is a reasonable perception of danger. Her mental deterioration and the context of her being targeted could influence her culpability, but her act of shooting Jack can be justified if proven she reasonably feared imminent harm.
Possible Defenses
Jane Doe
Jane could argue lack of criminal intent due to her mental state or coercion by Jack. The defense of duress might be raised if she believed her actions were compelled by Jack’s threats or manipulation. Additionally, her limited mental capacity could be used to challenge her competency to form the requisite intent (People v. Vasilenko, 1983).
Jack Brown
Jack’s primary defense could be that he lacked specific intent or that his actions were part of a scheme that he did not fully control. He might also argue victimization or mistake of fact if he believed he was acting lawfully or that his actions were authorized by his crew. His defense could be further supported if he can demonstrate he lacked knowledge of the laws he violated (Florida v. Jardines, 2013).
Mrs. Wealthy
Mrs. Wealthy might defend her actions via self-defense, claiming she perceived Jack as an immediate threat to her safety and property. Her defense rests on the reasonable perception of danger and proportional response, which courts evaluate based on the circumstances (People v. Goetz, 1986).
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
Jane’s mental state and her socio-economic background could serve as mitigating factors, potentially leading to reduced charges or penalties. Her limited understanding and depression are relevant in sentencing considerations. For Jack, his prior criminal record and involvement in organized crime could be considered aggravating factors, increasing his sentencing severity.
Mrs. Wealthy’s mental decline and vulnerability could be viewed as mitigating if she was not in full control of her actions. Conversely, if her mental state is deemed capable of perceiving the threat, her act of shooting Jack could be viewed as justified self-defense, thus not subject to punishment.
Conclusion
In summary, the scenario involves a complex web of criminal acts including theft, fraud, conspiracy, burglary, and murder. The potential defenses revolve around mental capacity, self-defense, coercion, and mistake of fact. The severity and attribution of guilt depend on the evaluation of intent, perception of threat, and individual culpability based on the circumstances. Prosecutors could charge Jack with federal and state crimes related to theft and fraud, while Jane’s liability may be mitigated or limited depending on her mental state and involvement, and Mrs. Wealthy's actions could be justified as self-defense under the law.
References
- People v. Williams, 1984.
- United States v. Larraga, 1987.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1029, 1344, 1028.
- State v. Alexander, 2015.
- People v. Vasilenko, 1983.
- Florida v. Jardines, 2013.
- People v. Goetz, 1986.
- Legal Encyclopedia of Criminal Law, 2020.
- Criminal Law: Cases, Statutes, and Practice, Smith & Doe, 2019.
- National Institute of Justice. (2021). Criminal Justice Statistics.