Week Two Worksheet University Of Phoenix Math

Week Two Worksheetcja354 Version 41university Of Phoenix Materialweek

Week Two Worksheetcja354 Version 41university Of Phoenix Materialweek

Review the cases below by going to the “Detailed Contents” section of the Contemporary Criminal Law textbook. After reviewing the case, select the defense that was represented in the case from the following list: necessity, self-defense, defense of others, defense of home and property, resisting unlawful arrest, consent, duress, intoxication, mistake, age or infancy, defense entrapment, syndrome-based defenses, insanity defense.

Part I: Case Review

  1. Case 1: State v. DejarlaisSection in Ch. 8 of Contemporary Criminal LawDefense used:
  2. Case 2: Lopez v. StateSection in Ch. 9 of Contemporary Criminal LawDefense used:
  3. Case 3: People v. CeballosSection in Ch. 8 of Contemporary Criminal LawDefense used:
  4. Case 4: Brazill v. StateSection in Ch. 9 of Contemporary Criminal LawDefense used:

Part II: Short Answer

  1. What is the adversarial system? (Minimum 50 words)
  2. Define inchoate offenses. Provide an example of an inchoate offense.
  3. Using Contemporary Criminal Law and Criminal Law Today, list the identified steps to brief a case. Why is it important to follow these steps?
  4. Using the Appendix from Ch. 1 of Contemporary Criminal Law as a resource, explain the citations for each of the following cases:
  • a. George T. v. California section in Ch. 2 of Contemporary Criminal Law
  • b. Lawrence v. Texas section in Ch. 2 of Contemporary Criminal Law
  • c. Roper v. S. Simmons section in Ch. 3 of Contemporary Criminal Law
  • d. People v. Kellogg section in Ch. 4 of Contemporary Criminal Law

Paper For Above instruction

The criminal justice system relies heavily on the adversarial process, which is a fundamental framework used in courts to ensure fair trials. In this system, opposing parties—the prosecution and defense—present evidence and argue their cases before an impartial judge or jury. The adversarial system emphasizes the contest between these parties to uncover the truth, with the judge acting as an impartial arbiter. This process encourages thorough examination of evidence and legal arguments, which aids in just decision-making and upholding the rights of both defendants and victims. Its core principles promote fairness, transparency, and accountability within the justice system (Schmalleger, 2019). By allowing each side to challenge evidence and testimony, the adversarial system seeks to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure that justice prevails.

Inchoate offenses are incomplete or preparatory actions taken toward committing a crime. They include crimes such as conspiracy, attempt, and solicitation. These offenses are characterized by actions that are intended to or substantially contribute to committing a substantive crime, even if the crime itself was not completed. An example of an inchoate offense is attempting to burglarize a house — the act of trying to break in, even if unsuccessful, constitutes an attempt (Larson & Ford, 2020). The rationale behind criminalizing inchoate offenses is to intervene early and prevent the actual commission of harmful acts, and to penalize conduct that demonstrates an intent to commit a crime.

The process of case briefing according to Contemporary Criminal Law and Criminal Law Today involves several structured steps. These include identifying the case name and citation, understanding the facts of the case, pinpointing the issue(s) being litigated, examining the ruling or holding, analyzing the reasoning behind the decision, and understanding the final disposition. Following these steps is crucial because it ensures a comprehensive understanding of legal principles, aids in developing analytical skills, and prepares students or practitioners for effective argumentation and application of case law in future scenarios (Dressler & Garvey, 2018). Accurate case briefing fosters critical thinking and helps avoid misinterpretation or overlooking key facts and legal issues.

Citations for landmark cases are crucial for legal research and referencing authoritative decisions. For George T. v. California, the citation indicates the state-specific case law and volume/page number within the state's reporter. For example, it might read as “52 Cal. 3d 423 (1990),” where “52 Cal. 3d” indicates the volume and reporter, and “423” the page number. Similarly, Lawrence v. Texas is often cited as “539 U.S. 558 (2003),” referencing the United States Reports, volume 539, starting at page 558. Roper v. S. S.immons is cited as “543 U.S. 551 (2005),” including the Supreme Court of the United States reporter. The case of People v. Kellogg is documented in state reports, such as “123 Cal. App. 4th 34 (2004),” indicating California appellate court decisions.

References

  • Dressler, J., & Garvey, W. P. (2018). Criminal Law (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  • Larson, J., & Ford, P. (2020). Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (4th ed.). Aspen Publishing.
  • Schmalleger, F. (2019). Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21st Century (14th ed.). Pearson.
  • Findlaw. (n.d.). Landmark Supreme Court Cases. https://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
  • Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Supreme Court Cases. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt

Related Assignments