Two Questions a page for each scenerio
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
Client Background:
Our client, James Smith, is 20 years old and is charged with Unlawful Use of Weapon (possession of a gun). He has lived in Chicago, specifically the Lawndale neighborhood, his whole life. Mr. Walker stopped going to school in 11th grade to help take care of his three younger siblings. Mr. Smith has a history of mental illness but has not been evaluated since 3rd grade. His mother is currently being held at the Cook County Jail on prostitution-related charges. Mr. Smith has no adult convictions and is employed full time at the Lawndale Christian Fitness Center on W Ogden Avenue near his home.
State’s proffer of facts:
According to police reports and discovery, the police were on routine patrol in the Lawndale neighborhood around 11:00 pm when they saw a man (now known as James Smith) walk out of a house and approach a black Honda Accord that was double parked in front of 1530 S Hamlin Ave. Smith then entered the back passenger seat of the car. The Honda began driving and Smith threw something that appeared to be a piece of paper out of the window of the moving car. The Honda began to drive South on Hamlin and failed to make a complete stop at 19th & Hamlin before turning west on 19th. Officers claim that on approach they saw our client James Smith make furtive movements. Police also noticed that there were five occupants of the accord, for officer safety and safety of the occupants of the vehicle officers asked all occupants to step out of the car. Officers then searched the vehicle and found a Glock 22 .40 caliber gun underneath the front passenger seat. They arrested our client Mr. Smith stating that the gun was most easily accessible to him and that his furtive movements were consistent with those of a person trying to conceal illegal contraband.
Our client, Mr. Smith, relayed that he had just gotten off of work that night and taken an Uber home. He was only home for about five minutes before his friends came to pick him up so that they could go to a party. Mr. Smith told us that he was counting his money in the car when a dollar bill flew out of the window. Shortly thereafter a police car activated their lights and sirens which scared Mr. Smith resulting in him dropping his money on the floor of the vehicle. Mr. Smith bent over to pick up his money and sat up just before police came to the vehicle window. Mr. Smith informed us that the vehicle he was in which belongs to his friend has very dark tints and that the police approached with flashlights. Mr. Smith informed us that police had him and four of his friends step out of the vehicle. Mr. Smith says he recognized one of the officers from a juvenile gun arrest. Mr. Smith says that police searched the car for about 7 minutes before finding a gun at which point they began questioning the five people in the car. No one made any statements, and police said they were going to take Mr. Smith in because they know he used to play with guns as a kid and they saw him bend over to hide the gun.
Provide a theory of defense and an explanation of what the defense could say happened. What reasons can you provide to explain why the gun did not belong to our client? What evidence or witnesses could you find to supplement your defense theory and explain why the police arrested our client?
Outline the steps you would take to investigate the case for the defense. Be specific about whom you would interview, how you would find them, and what questions you would ask. Also, what other documents or evidence would you try to obtain to complete your investigation?
POLICY QUESTION
The government bears a high burden of proof at a criminal trial. Prosecutors must convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person committed a specific act (usually with a specific level of intent) which constitutes a crime within that jurisdiction. This level of proof does not mean that the prosecution’s case must be airtight; the evidence does not need to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The burden does mean, however, that there can be a substantial amount of evidence against the accused but still result in a not guilty verdict if a “reasonable” doubt is left at the end of the government’s case.
Is this tough burden a good idea? Do we want to let people go free when we have clear and convincing evidence against them? Why or why not? How would you change the burden?
Theoretically, at least, the defendant does not have to say or explain anything during the criminal justice process. Is it also a good idea for only the prosecution to have a burden of proof? What would some of the common sense implications be if we compelled a defendant to testify or give statements.