Top Law Schools

This is for anyone out there: 1Ls, 2Ls, 15Ls, etc.

Found one that made me think how genius/terrible it was. I was reading the Midgett v. State case (729 S.W.2d 410 if you want to Lexis/West it).

Case is basically a child abuse case that ends in death of the kid. Father beats him every day, etc. Guy gets 1st degree murder. Lawyer's argument (that probably was one of the reasons his sentence was lowered to 2nd degree), and I'm paraphrasing:

Why would my client kill this kid? He enjoyed abusing him. He wanted to keep him alive so he could continue to abuse him. If he had wanted to kill him, he could have done so at any time.

Made me cringe at first but, upon later examination, the argument is downright genius.

joncrooshal wrote:This is for anyone out there: 1Ls, 2Ls, 15Ls, etc.

Found one that made me think how genius/terrible it was. I was reading the Midgett v. State case (729 S.W.2d 410 if you want to Lexis/West it).

Case is basically a child abuse case that ends in death of the kid. Father beats him every day, etc. Guy gets 1st degree murder. Lawyer's argument (that probably was one of the reasons his sentence was lowered to 2nd degree), and I'm paraphrasing:

Why would my client kill this kid? He enjoyed abusing him. He wanted to keep him alive so he could continue to abuse him. If he had wanted to kill him, he could have done so at any time.

Made me cringe at first but, upon later examination, the argument is downright genius.

I really hope I never have to make that argument. I have nothing even close to that awful yet genius.

Ha, we just talked about that case today in crim, too, and there were many comments made about the distastefulness of the defense.

But as you noted, it is a good legal argument and the court was inclined to agree.

Just because he admits to doing something morally repugnant doesn't change the fact that he must be innocent until proven guilty in the charge of intentional murder.

Our class didn't even bring it up until I did about 5 minutes prior to the end. I think everyone just skimmed over it or threw up when they saw it and never wanted to talk about it again.

joncrooshal wrote:Our class didn't even bring it up until I did about 5 minutes prior to the end. I think everyone just skimmed over it or threw up when they saw it and never wanted to talk about it again.

We're on homicide right now and all of the cases we read for today must together constitute the most depressing shit I've had to read so far. There was that case, plus Girouard v. State, where the guy stabbed his wife 19 times after she verbally abused him pretty awfully, and Guthrie v. State, where a dishwasher who suffered from depression and panic attacks just snapped and stabbed his co-worker in the neck for taunting him.

There are no winners in homicide cases.

Redzo wrote:

joncrooshal wrote:Our class didn't even bring it up until I did about 5 minutes prior to the end. I think everyone just skimmed over it or threw up when they saw it and never wanted to talk about it again.

We're on homicide right now and all of the cases we read for today must together constitute the most depressing shit I've had to read so far. There was that case, plus Girouard v. State, where the guy stabbed his wife 19 times after she verbally abused him pretty awfully, and Guthrie v. State, where a dishwasher who suffered from depression and panic attacks just snapped and stabbed his co-worker in the neck for taunting him.

There are no winners in homicide cases.

Guthrie is a WV case, so we spent a lot of time on that here in WVU.

What casebook are you using, if I may ask? Using the Moenssens book?

Dressler.

Ah, everything is kind of in the same order, then, as the Moenssens book.

hrm we're just about to tackle causation, not quite to homicide yet. I just read Oxendine v. State, where a 6 year old was mortally wounded (internally) by his father's girlfriend, followed by an attack by his father in the night. The next day the boy complained of abdominal pain and died while being driven to the hospital due to an intra-abdominal hemorrhage. The father's conviction of manslaughter couldn't be sustained as the evidence of causation was insufficient( i.e. did the second beating cause the boy to die sooner? Only conjecture was offered). This one was saddening.

Redzo wrote:

joncrooshal wrote:Our class didn't even bring it up until I did about 5 minutes prior to the end. I think everyone just skimmed over it or threw up when they saw it and never wanted to talk about it again.

We're on homicide right now and all of the cases we read for today must together constitute the most depressing shit I've had to read so far. There was that case, plus Girouard v. State, where the guy stabbed his wife 19 times after she verbally abused him pretty awfully, and Guthrie v. State, where a dishwasher who suffered from depression and panic attacks just snapped and stabbed his co-worker in the neck for taunting him.

There are no winners in homicide cases.

We read all these cases for the same class, and topped it off with State v Forrest, where a man's first degree murder conviction was upheld for killing his terminally ill and suffering father. Ya know, just in case we weren't sure if there were any sad stories in crim law.

Oh yeah, we read that one too. And also the Oxendine case that downing mentioned.

Yeah, criminal law is fun.

joncrooshal wrote:This is for anyone out there: 1Ls, 2Ls, 15Ls, etc.

Found one that made me think how genius/terrible it was. I was reading the Midgett v. State case (729 S.W.2d 410 if you want to Lexis/West it).

Case is basically a child abuse case that ends in death of the kid. Father beats him every day, etc. Guy gets 1st degree murder. Lawyer's argument (that probably was one of the reasons his sentence was lowered to 2nd degree), and I'm paraphrasing:

Why would my client kill this kid? He enjoyed abusing him. He wanted to keep him alive so he could continue to abuse him. If he had wanted to kill him, he could have done so at any time.

Made me cringe at first but, upon later examination, the argument is downright genius.

This exact situation was in a law and order episode..

Redzo wrote:Oh yeah, we read that one too. And also the Oxendine case that downing mentioned.

Yeah, criminal law is fun.

Well, the cases aren't uplifting, but along with torts (which is pretty much as depressing at times), it's definitely more interesting than the other substantive classes.

Aqualibrium wrote:

joncrooshal wrote:This is for anyone out there: 1Ls, 2Ls, 15Ls, etc.

Found one that made me think how genius/terrible it was. I was reading the Midgett v. State case (729 S.W.2d 410 if you want to Lexis/West it).

Case is basically a child abuse case that ends in death of the kid. Father beats him every day, etc. Guy gets 1st degree murder. Lawyer's argument (that probably was one of the reasons his sentence was lowered to 2nd degree), and I'm paraphrasing:

Why would my client kill this kid? He enjoyed abusing him. He wanted to keep him alive so he could continue to abuse him. If he had wanted to kill him, he could have done so at any time.

Made me cringe at first but, upon later examination, the argument is downright genius.

This exact situation was in a law and order episode..

Well, they DO take things from real cases.

joncrooshal wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:

joncrooshal wrote:This is for anyone out there: 1Ls, 2Ls, 15Ls, etc.

Found one that made me think how genius/terrible it was. I was reading the Midgett v. State case (729 S.W.2d 410 if you want to Lexis/West it).

Case is basically a child abuse case that ends in death of the kid. Father beats him every day, etc. Guy gets 1st degree murder. Lawyer's argument (that probably was one of the reasons his sentence was lowered to 2nd degree), and I'm paraphrasing:

Why would my client kill this kid? He enjoyed abusing him. He wanted to keep him alive so he could continue to abuse him. If he had wanted to kill him, he could have done so at any time.

Made me cringe at first but, upon later examination, the argument is downright genius.

This exact situation was in a law and order episode..

Well, they DO take things from real cases.

I know...I wasn't calling you out or anything. Just had never heard of the case and thought it was interesting.

Aqualibrium wrote: I know...I wasn't calling you out or anything. Just had never heard of the case and thought it was interesting.

Oh, I figured as much. I didn't mean to come off as if I thought you were calling me out (would be pretty lame to even think that on my end, haha).

We have the best international human rights program!

I.P. Daly wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/ ... 4719.shtml

Yeah I remember that story. Fuck those lawyers. Seriously. Fuck them.

Redzo wrote: There are no winners in homicide cases.

I'm pretty sure the defining characteristic of a homicide is that someone wins and someone loses.

Bildungsroman wrote:

Redzo wrote: There are no winners in homicide cases.

I'm pretty sure the defining characteristic of a homicide is that someone wins and someone loses.

TheFutureLawyer wrote:

I.P. Daly wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/ ... 4719.shtml

Yeah I remember that story. Fuck those lawyers. Seriously. Fuck them.

I just read that, and I don't get it, really. What could they have done differently? What would you have done?

I mean, even if they came forward, it wouldn't have been admissible evidence, and they would have been disbarred for nothing. It's shitty but I'm not sure what they could have done about it.

I don't have crim law this semester. Looks like it is going to be a fun one next semester.

We did have one torts case that was pretty shitty, though. A 17y/o motorcyclist and his friend left a party after a fight broke out. Someone got in a big truck and chased them onto the highway, riding just a few feet behind them. Motorcyclist tried to get away and sped up. Motorcycle passenger hit the hood of the car with his fist to try and get the guy to go away. Truck slowed down, then floored it and rammed the motorcycle. Motorcycle was dragged for like 300ft before they slammed into a pole, got run over, and died instantly.

Anyway, it was a torts cause because the atty wanted to get additional emotional damages for the time when the guy was sliding, but before he died, because he likely knew he was about to die. Court allowed evidence on it.

Maybe this is because I ride motorcycles... but ugh.

Redzo wrote:

TheFutureLawyer wrote:

I.P. Daly wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/ ... 4719.shtml

Yeah I remember that story. Fuck those lawyers. Seriously. Fuck them.

I just read that, and I don't get it, really. What could they have done differently? What would you have done?

I mean, even if they came forward, it wouldn't have been admissible evidence, and they would have been disbarred for nothing. It's shitty but I'm not sure what they could have done about it.

It wouldn't have been admissible against the murderer, but the guy who was convicted would have been set free. They could have tried to talk to the prosecutor. They should have done something to get that guy freed as soon as he was convicted (if not before then). And if the rules for lawyers say that they should be disbarred for extraordinary shit like that, then that shit is fucked. But even if it cost them their jobs as lawyers (which it obviously shouldn't), they should have gotten that guy free.

Aren't lawyers required to tell the police or whatever when their client confesses to them ongoing or future criminal activity? (I think I heard that somewhere, can anyone confirm that?) If a client were to tell a lawyer of a person they had kidnapped and planned on holding for the rest of their life, wouldn't the lawyer have to report that? The same principle should apply here.

Redzo wrote:

TheFutureLawyer wrote:

I.P. Daly wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/ ... 4719.shtml

Yeah I remember that story. Fuck those lawyers. Seriously. Fuck them.

I just read that, and I don't get it, really. What could they have done differently? What would you have done?

I mean, even if they came forward, it wouldn't have been admissible evidence, and they would have been disbarred for nothing. It's shitty but I'm not sure what they could have done about it.

All of this.