I will be available to answer questions on Sunday, December 9, from 4-6pm in room 209. If you do not have questions, do not feel that you have to attend. You may leave whenever you want.
As you have undoubtedly noticed, we have been speeding up the last few classes. It is important that you learn this material. On the other hand, the exam testing will be more proportionate to the class-time devoted. That is, the last 4 days of the course will constitute about 10% of the tested material. (We have 44 classes/ semester).
November 13: Sections 30 & 31
November 15: Section 32
November 16: Sections 33 & 34
November 20: Sections 36 (but not II 601-609) & 37
November 29: Sections 38 & 39
Note, we will not do Section 35.
We will have a Q & A session on Sunday, December 9, from 4-6pm. Room 209
At the right is a link to answers to Review Problems for Remedies, but the link to the problems themselves seems to have disappeared. Below is a link to the problems:
The assignments for 2012 will be the same as for 2011. The class worked quite well last year and I see no reason to change its syllabus, etc. What will differ is you. I look forward to getting to know you, hearing your questions, concerns and confusions. I look forward to helping prepare you to serve clients, whose fate and fortunes will soon be in your hands.
We are fortunate to have Zachary Ludens as our Dean’s Fellow. I recommend that you attend his sessions. Having successfully navigated this course (as well as his other ones), backed up by the lesson plans of the Dean’s Fellow program, he can help you stay afloat. His contact information:
Zach Ludens, (605) 929-8317, firstname.lastname@example.org
The M’Naghten rule — not knowing right from wrong
The rule created a presumption of sanity, unless the defense proved “at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.”
The Durham rule — “irresistible impulse”
Citing leading psychiatrists and jurists of the day, the appellate judge stated that the McNaughton rule was based on “an entirely obsolete and misleading conception of the nature of insanity.” He overturned Durham’s conviction and established a new rule. The Durham rule states “that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.” The Durham rule was eventually rejected by the federal courts, because it cast too broad a net. Alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, and drug addicts had successfully used the defense to defeat a wide variety of crimes.
In 1984, Congress passed, and President Ronald Reagan signed, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. The federal insanity defense now requires the defendant to prove, by “clear and convincing evidence,” that “at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts” (18 U.S.C. § 17). This is generally viewed as a return to the “knowing right from wrong” standard.
(from Cornell, LII)
Alex Gonzalez draws our attention to a current lawsuit (between New England Patriots and MillerCoors) that is internally inconsistent: Did they merely negotiate or did they form a contract? If they formed a contract, why would they emphasize the extent of their negotiation?
To help you prepare for a mid-term exam, attached you will find last year’s mid-term:
Please recognize that we covered different areas of law last year than this year.
Attached below is a listing of the relevant facts:
Attached below is my grading sheet for the exam:
And attached below is a “model” answer: