View Full Version : Okay geniuii of the SO, who killed Amelia?
Okla-homey
2/14/2006, 07:49 PM
This is an actual problem from my Criminal law casebook, although I've made some tweaks to make it more SO-worthy:
Amelia is an experienced desert hiker. She's planning a week long solo expedition deep into one of our western deserts.
Her husband, Bernard is sick of her and wants her dead. He decides to put a fast acting and very powerful poisonous agent into Amelia's supply of drinking water she's packing along on the expedition. He decides to leave her "Camelback" (that's a big flexible water bottle worn on the back for those of you who aren't familiar with such modern innovations) unspiked -- mainly to ensure she's well along on her hike before she dips in to her poisoned water supply and quickly croaks.
Completely unknown to Bernard, his secretary Connie also wants Amelia dead because with her out of the the way, Connie believes she'll be able to work her feminine wiles on ol' Bernard and he'll eventually marry her and they'll live happily ever after.
Sooo, having overheard discussion between Bernard and wife Amelia about upcoming hike, Connie develops a cunning plan to follow Amelia into the desert at a discrete distance. When Amelia stops to camp at the end of the first day, Connie waits for Amelia to go to sleep. Then, in the wee hours of the morning, Connie sneaks in to check out the situation. After a long hot and hard day of desert hiking, there is no water left in Amelia's "Camelback," so Connie continues rifling through Amelia's supplies until she finds the rest of Amelia's water supply. Connie queitly pours it (and its deadly poison) into the desert sand and stealthily departs the scene.
The next morning, Amelia awakes surprised of course to find she is completely without water. She decides, based on her extensive desert experience, that with an even hotter day on tap today, if she sits tight she'll die, so she elects to hike out of her predicament. Amelia dies of heat exhaustion brought on by extreme thirst at 4:00PM that same afternoon.
WHO KILLED AMELIA? More specifically, who is culpable for her death?
I'll let you folks kick it around a day or two, then I'll post what the prof said.
jk the sooner fan
2/14/2006, 08:01 PM
my guess is connie because she deprived her of water, which resulted in her death....she also went out to where she was camped....husband's actions amount to a gamble at best......but connie, she was more active
you'd have a hard time putting evidence up at trial to prove exactly what was in the water and how her body would have reacted.....you can only assume she would have consumed it.......
just my guess.
Al Gore
2/14/2006, 08:02 PM
VP Cheney.........
VP Cheney.........
Ohhhh, good call.
Was Cheney hunting in the area?
Amelia, there is no proof of the poison and no evidence of foulplay. The Husband thinks he did it, Connie knows she did, and as far as the authorities know she just ran out of water.
So there was intent for Battery and it would be covered in the Restatement (Second) of Torts...
<taking my last big breath before I'm in over my head:D />
Unless someone else finds out about the plot I think it will be ruled an accidental death.
BajaOklahoma
2/14/2006, 08:10 PM
Amelia, as an experienced hiker, should have waited out the heat of the day in the shade. Then she could have traveled back that night in the cooler air.
Amelia, due to her poor decision, caused to her own death.
Connie, by removing the water, contributed to Amelia's death. The fact that the water was poisoned is not important as it did not contribute to Amelia's death.
Did I win?
Look at the big brain on Fish.
I'm going to guess the husband because he acted first.
And because nobody said the husband yet.
Stanley1
2/14/2006, 08:53 PM
I'd probably blame it on La Nina first.
Then OJ.
Both the husband and Connie perhaps? Even though they didn't conspire together, it was a combination of their plans that killed her.
crawfish
2/14/2006, 09:02 PM
It was the butler.
It's always the ^#%@*$# butler.
The Japanese shot her down over the pacific ocean.
JohnnyMack
2/14/2006, 09:10 PM
W.
Tailwind
2/14/2006, 09:17 PM
Amelia, being a supposedly experienced desert hiker, should have known that various types of cactus can provide enough moiture to survive the heat of the day. Dumb bitch killed herself.
Soonrboy
2/14/2006, 09:21 PM
Connie...who can prove the husband poisoned the water?
SoonerBorn68
2/14/2006, 09:38 PM
I'd say Amelia decided to try to make it out so she made a conscience decision that contributed to her own death.
...but Connie caused that decision to be made so she's copable in my opinion.
Charge Bernard with conspiracy to commit murder, just 'cause.
SoonerBorn68
2/14/2006, 09:39 PM
The Japanese shot her down over the pacific ocean.
My first thought was the natives or sharks ate her. :D
olevetonahill
2/14/2006, 09:39 PM
Amelia, being a supposedly experienced desert hiker, should have known that various types of cactus can provide enough moiture to survive the heat of the day. Dumb bitch killed herself.
Well said I concur !
jk the sooner fan
2/14/2006, 09:39 PM
Charge Bernard with conspiracy to commit murder, just 'cause.
who did he conspire with?
Stanley1
2/14/2006, 09:48 PM
who did he conspire with?
Mr. Poison?
jk the sooner fan
2/14/2006, 09:51 PM
a conspiracy requires a meeting of the minds between two or more people.......it requires a plan, and then requires that at least one of the conspirators takes steps to carry out that plan
we have 2 people that want the same woman dead, but we have no agreement or plan between them
no conspiracy without further info or evidence
Okla-homey
2/14/2006, 09:51 PM
a conspiracy requires a meeting of the minds between two or more people.......it requires a plan, and then requires that at least one of the conspirators takes steps to carry out that plan
we have 2 people that want the same woman dead, but we have no agreement or plan between them
no conspiracy without further info or evidence
precisely...go on.
jk the sooner fan
2/14/2006, 10:01 PM
well we can assume there is a good chance of a conspiracy, but it wouldnt seem so simply because connie took actions which negated the efforts of the husband
wouldnt seem their acting in concert
i go back to my original statement, connie actually takes steps to complete the act by going to the campsite and taking a direct action
while the husbands actions can be construed as an "attempt"....it could be argued that we cant predict exactly how much water the wife drinks.....there is no guarantee she'll drink the poison
there is a reasonable assurance she'll need water walking back to safety
Okla-homey
2/14/2006, 10:05 PM
well we can assume there is a good chance of a conspiracy, but it wouldnt seem so simply because connie took actions which negated the efforts of the husband
wouldnt seem their acting in concert
i go back to my original statement, connie actually takes steps to complete the act by going to the campsite and taking a direct action
while the husbands actions can be construed as an "attempt"....it could be argued that we cant predict exactly how much water the wife drinks.....there is no guarantee she'll drink the poison
there is a reasonable assurance she'll need water walking back to safety
very insightful. Remember, your task is not to predict the outcome of the trial. It is merely to play prosecutor based on these facts (which you can prove BRD) and decide who to charge with poor Amelia's homocide...or not.
jk the sooner fan
2/14/2006, 10:11 PM
i dont know that you could charge connie with murder....certainly not first degree
voluntary manslaughter.......maybe a lesser degree, it would really depend on how the statutes in that state are worded
you could charge the husband but any defense attorney could beat that case.......imo anyway
sooneron
2/14/2006, 10:18 PM
Ooh, ooh ooh, I know who did it!
http://www.bobbarr.net/Images/Our%20Mr%20Sun%20Blog.gif
I still say suicide, she should have known better than to take off walking in those conditions. The rest is irrelevant.
Hamhock
2/14/2006, 10:33 PM
Who's hawter? The dead chick or the gold digger?
olevetonahill
2/14/2006, 10:40 PM
Yall give up ?
Hell I did it :D
Okla-homey
2/14/2006, 10:41 PM
Who's hawter? The dead chick or the gold digger?
Well, the dead chick has assumed room temperature, so unless you're into that "whole dead chicks are hawt" dealio, I'd go with the golddigger.
BTW, I haven't thought of this in years. Anyone remember that great70's movie "Mother, Jugs and Speed?" LA ambulance business. Bill Cosby was "Mother," Raquel Welch was...guess who. Larry Hagman played this sicko ambulance d00d who worked for the company who got his jollies "doing" female patients on the way to the hospital. Sick I tell ya.
proud gonzo
2/14/2006, 10:47 PM
Well, the dead chick has assumed room temperature, so unless you're into that "whole dead chicks are hawt" dealio, I'd go with the golddigger.
actually, wouldn't she be slightly above room temperature since decomposition is an exothermic reaction?
Stanley1
2/14/2006, 10:59 PM
actually, wouldn't she be slightly above room temperature since decomposition is an exothermic reaction?
Precisely.
jk the sooner fan
2/14/2006, 11:07 PM
so what answer did the prof give?
GottaHavePride
2/14/2006, 11:20 PM
I would think Bernard could get an attempted murder charge.
Tailwind
2/14/2006, 11:22 PM
No evidence would have been left as to the poison though.
proud gonzo
2/14/2006, 11:23 PM
then how do they know to put it in the question, huh?? ;)
The DA should charge Connie with first degree murder because it was premeditated and she went out of her way to pour out the water. It was Connie's actions that caused the death of Amelia. Since Benard didn't succeed, he would be charged with attempted murder and wreckless endangerment. That is if all knowledge is at hand.
My $0.02
Tailwind
2/14/2006, 11:31 PM
Hmmmm......good points. I was assuming that the court wouldn't know the story, so how could they know to look at Bernard and Connie as suspects?
jk the sooner fan
2/14/2006, 11:35 PM
The DA should charge Connie with first degree murder because it was premeditated and she went out of her way to pour out the water. It was Connie's actions that caused the death of Amelia. Since Benard didn't succeed, he would be charged with attempted murder and wreckless endangerment. That is if all knowledge is at hand.
My $0.02
her going out there is definitely pre-meditated, but i think you'd have a difficult time proving that she knew that her actions would result in death....i realize her intent, but intent can often be difficult to prove
thats why i'd go with voluntary manslaughter, or a 2/3d degree murder
No evidence would have been left as to the poison though.
Although accidents happen, a good investigator would look at all possibilities at the cause of death. Since the container of water which held the poison was empty there still could be enough trace of the poison to rule out any foul play. It is possible that their may have been enough poison in the residue of the container of water to check in a crime lab. If there is some detected the question could consider Bernard as a suspect and could lead to a search warrant to his residence to locate any container of poison that could match to the chemical compound found in the container. Possibly if this certain container was found and it was dusted for prints, it is possible that the only prints on the bottle would match the husband which would rule out that she put it there since there was no poison found in her system during tox screening. Basically since the poison didn't kill her a good interrigator could show the evidence collected against Bernard and get a confession that he wanted her dead. For all he knows, perhaps he doesn't know that the poison didn't kill her.
Tailwind
2/14/2006, 11:48 PM
Another good point. But she still should have chewed on cactus. :D
***Update***
Gil & Katherine are on the case.
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8337/csinarrowweb200x2756ur.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The case should be solved in less than 60 minutes, not counting commercials.
:D
Tailwind
2/14/2006, 11:54 PM
Hee hee hee.
her going out there is definitely pre-meditated, but i think you'd have a difficult time proving that she knew that her actions would result in death....i realize her intent, but intent can often be difficult to prove
thats why i'd go with voluntary manslaughter, or a 2/3d degree murder
If she went out there, she knew what she was doing. If she was smart then she would have worn gloves when she dumped the water out of the containers.
If not, her prints are on the containers, plus it is hard to go anywhere without leaving some kind of evidence. If investigators can find proof that she was out there, like a shoe print or a certain type of linen thread from her clothes, then investigators can question/interrigate her. You'll be surprised what kind of information can come out of her if cornered in a little room with interrigators breathing down her neck.
jk the sooner fan
2/15/2006, 07:23 AM
You'll be surprised what kind of information can come out of her if cornered in a little room with interrigators breathing down her neck.
i'm guessing you dont know what my former line of work was.....
you've got alot of "if's" and "csi" factored into your answer
yes, they "can" find all of that evidence, but thats an assumption not written in to the original scenario. you also dont know that the woman didnt invoke her rights when she's mirandized, thus negating any attempts at a successful interrOgation
This thread is, unfortunately, Lid-nip.
jk the sooner fan
2/15/2006, 08:33 AM
or Phil, or TU, or Oldnslo....
bof guilty
Connie actively screws her - that's SO material :D
Hubby knows that after her first batch of water, he has left her in a position that will kill her. The fact that Connie alters that a little doesn't change that fact. That's what I would argue.
1stTimeCaller
2/15/2006, 10:11 AM
I think Connie tried to save Amelia's life. She went to the campsite to warn Amelia about the poisioned water. Amelia is not around, Connie can't find her and warn her. She knows that Amelia is an experienced hiker and that she would be able to survive without water but would certainly die if she drank the poisioned water. Connie tried to save Amelia's life. Charge the husband.
TexasLidig8r
2/15/2006, 11:41 AM
I don't do criminal defense work, but I will give this a whirl.
Assuming that all facts can be proven:
Bernard, the husband, had both the criminal intent (mens rea) and then, instigated action (actus reas) to put his criminal scheme in place. His actions were premeditated, willful and deliberate. Whereas, the poison was not consumed and did not directly result in her death, he clearly intended to cause serious bodily injury and took action that clearly endangered human life. I would think a prosecutor would bring Attempted Murder charges against Bernard
Connie, the secretary, is a different matter. The scenario has her going out into the desert, but, it does not reveal why she went into the desert. Did she go to see if the wife would indeed die? Did she go to cause the death? Yes, she wants to marry Bernard, and wants Amelia dead, but is she actually willing to commit murder to accomplish it? Wanting something and taking action on it are two completely different things.
Now, once she gets there, her actions are a different matter completely. She obviously knew the camelback was empty. She then took steps to insure that the wife had no water. Assuming that she also hiked that distance, (and we must assume that since a motorized vehicle would be detected and in all likelihood, at least investigated by the experienced hiker, Amelia).. that necessarily meant she too, was an experience hiker and as a result, knew that a safe return, without water was very unlikely. Therefore, her actions indicated that she clearly intended to cause serious bodily harm or death and she took action that clearly endangered human life.
Her assumed defense of but for her actions, Amelia would not have died of dehydration but of poisoning is irrelevant since she manifested the required intent to commit the crime, she took action to commit the crime, and as a natural consequence thereof, the victim was killed.
Husband's defense of Amelia did not die as a result of the poison is irrelevant since he also manifested intent and took action to commit the crime, that is, Attempted murder.
Connie serves 20 to life.
Bernard serves 10 - 20.
Tailwind
2/15/2006, 07:30 PM
Ok, so what is the official answer?
sooner_born_1960
2/15/2006, 08:18 PM
And all this theoretical mumbo jumbo is going to help you chase ambulances how? ;)
FroggyStyle22
2/15/2006, 09:50 PM
Connie wanted Amelia dead. Bernard wanted Amelia dead. So nobody likes Amelia. Now she's dead. Where is the problem???
TUSooner
2/16/2006, 11:21 PM
I'm with Lidi (and I decided that before I read his post). Bottom line (unless there's some quirk in OK murder law):
B had the mens rea , and acted, but his act did not result in death - attempted 1st degree murder (1st degree because of the obvious premeditation)
C had means rea, acted, and got the intended result. She might argue no intent or premeditation. But premeditation can be formed right before the act, and she did that. Intent because and she knew that leaving Ameleia in the desert w/ no water would likely lead to death. Book 'er Homey, murder 1.
TUSooner
2/16/2006, 11:22 PM
OK, so tell us what the prof said.
heh, I every time I hear the term mens rea i always think of . . .
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/557/hearnoevilseenoevil040pa.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
this movie...and his character saying, "ahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! how can we get men's rear?"
TUSooner
2/17/2006, 09:53 AM
ttt
Apparently, Homey did it.
Oldnslo
2/17/2006, 11:07 AM
Okay.
After I took the bar exam, one of the things that I was happiest about was that I would never again have to guess what some a-hole professor thought the correct answer was about something. So, I'm going to play this game a little bit differently.
Based upon my experience as a prosecutor, what you have here (in Tulsa County, anyway) is:
2 verdicts of "Not Guilty".
TexasLidig8r
2/17/2006, 12:00 PM
Okay.
After I took the bar exam, one of the things that I was happiest about was that I would never again have to guess what some a-hole professor thought the correct answer was about something. So, I'm going to play this game a little bit differently.
Based upon my experience as a prosecutor, what you have here (in Tulsa County, anyway) is:
2 verdicts of "Not Guilty".
Why do you hate OJ and Judge Ito?
Okla-homey
2/17/2006, 12:15 PM
Ok, so what is the official answer?
I'm letting it fester 'til monday.
the_ouskull
2/17/2006, 12:17 PM
With good alibi's, neither the husband or the secretary would be found liable unless forensics proved otherwise. (ie - traces of poison in the canteen, secretary's prints ON the canteen, etc...)
Everything Lid said about mens rea and actus rea DOES apply to the husband, but motive isn't there. Whether or not somebody THOUGHT he wanted her dead is of little consequence considering that, in a criminal trial, the burden of proof is much greater. (Beyond a reasonable doubt.) Also, there is mens rea and actus rea for the secretary, but, like I said, unless it can be proven that she was "on the scene," then she too, will likely walk.
I can see this case going one of two ways... Either forensic evidence proves the guilt of one, but not BOTH, of the parties, or it is determined that the cause of death was dehydration with no foul play involved.
Also, conspiracy is out, at least with the fact pattern given to us, because the two never met together to discuss the elements of the crime. Capish?
the_ouskull
TUSooner
2/17/2006, 12:23 PM
I'm letting it fester 'til monday.
boooooooooooooooo :mad:
But for all you Perry Masons and Atticus Finches out there: I think we are supposed to set aside all those issues like sufficiency of evidence, burden of proof, and procedural stuff, and just focus on whether the facts contain the elements of a crime. 'Zat rite, Homey?
TUSooner
2/17/2006, 12:30 PM
Oh yeah, and if you say Amelia would have run out of water anyway, the bailiff will whack your pee-pee.
Oh yeah, and if you say Amelia would have run out of water anyway, the bailiff will whack your pee-pee.
is the bailiff a hawt chick?
mdklatt
2/17/2006, 12:44 PM
is the bailiff a hawt chick?
http://www.dreamscott.com/richard-moll.jpg
http://www.dreamscott.com/richard-moll.jpg
OUT!
I'm letting it fester 'til monday.
Just don't pick at it.
Okla-homey
2/17/2006, 04:58 PM
boooooooooooooooo :mad:
But for all you Perry Masons and Atticus Finches out there: I think we are supposed to set aside all those issues like sufficiency of evidence, burden of proof, and procedural stuff, and just focus on whether the facts contain the elements of a crime. 'Zat rite, Homey?
eggszackery!
And Amelia would NOT have run out of water anyway.
TUSooner
2/17/2006, 11:21 PM
eggszackery!
And Amelia would NOT have run out of water anyway.
Good; your pee-pee has thus been saved a painful whacking by the bailiff. :norm:
Col Homey in the Library, w/a candlestick
Frozen Sooner
2/18/2006, 01:20 AM
This is an actual problem from my Criminal law casebook, although I've made some tweaks to make it more SO-worthy:
Amelia is an experienced desert hiker. She's planning a week long solo expedition deep into one of our western deserts.
Her husband, Bernard is sick of her and wants her dead. He decides to put a fast acting and very powerful poisonous agent into Amelia's supply of drinking water she's packing along on the expedition. He decides to leave her "Camelback" (that's a big flexible water bottle worn on the back for those of you who aren't familiar with such modern innovations) unspiked -- mainly to ensure she's well along on her hike before she dips in to her poisoned water supply and quickly croaks.
Completely unknown to Bernard, his secretary Connie also wants Amelia dead because with her out of the the way, Connie believes she'll be able to work her feminine wiles on ol' Bernard and he'll eventually marry her and they'll live happily ever after.
Edit: This is why I'd be a good Catholic. Only thing necessary for a sin is intent and opportunity. Doesn't matter if you actually do it, so long as you intend to...
Sooo, having overheard discussion between Bernard and wife Amelia about upcoming hike, Connie develops a cunning plan to follow Amelia into the desert at a discrete distance. When Amelia stops to camp at the end of the first day, Connie waits for Amelia to go to sleep. Then, in the wee hours of the morning, Connie sneaks in to check out the situation. After a long hot and hard day of desert hiking, there is no water left in Amelia's "Camelback," so Connie continues rifling through Amelia's supplies until she finds the rest of Amelia's water supply. Connie queitly pours it (and its deadly poison) into the desert sand and stealthily departs the scene.
The next morning, Amelia awakes surprised of course to find she is completely without water. She decides, based on her extensive desert experience, that with an even hotter day on tap today, if she sits tight she'll die, so she elects to hike out of her predicament. Amelia dies of heat exhaustion brought on by extreme thirst at 4:00PM that same afternoon.
WHO KILLED AMELIA? More specifically, who is culpable for her death?
I'll let you folks kick it around a day or two, then I'll post what the prof said.
Haven't read any other responses so I can attack it without any influences...
Both of them.
Same theory would apply if Amelia had had been dealt a killing injury by Bernard and Connie had happened by, not known that Amelia was already dying, and bashed her brains in.
This is why I'd be a great Catholic. Only intent and opportunity are needed for a sin to occur. Actually doing it? Not so much.
Half a Hundred
2/18/2006, 02:27 AM
Wait, I thought Amelia crashed in the South Pacific? I'm confused... :confused:
:D
TUSooner
2/20/2006, 07:28 AM
<taps fingers on desk>
jk the sooner fan
2/20/2006, 07:34 AM
my answer was pretty close to the lawyers, i'm sticking with it! ;)
Tailwind
2/20/2006, 08:12 AM
Welllllll.................? It's Monday.
Okla-homey
2/20/2006, 09:26 AM
okay, here's some more...
causation is actually a part of the actus reus -- it is the bridge between the conduct and result of that conduct. Here Bernard engaged in a voluntary act -- he put poison in Amelia's water supply; mens rea is also not an issue -- he acted w/ the intent (common law) or purpose (MPC -- conscious objective) to bring about the death of Amelia. But Amelia did not die from Bernard's poison; she died of thirst b/c she never got the (tainted) water. "But for" Bernard's act, would Amelia have died? Yes she would have. So it would appear Bernard is not the cause-in-fact of Amelia's death, but he is culpable. Connie is the but-for cause of Amelia's death. She's culpable too.
Whether or not either or both of them would be charged and convicted is another thing entirely.
for cause of Amelia's death.
http://www.mwotrc.com/rrpix/ovltndcr.jpg
Son of a B****!
Amelia, you died for nothing. Dumbass. ;)
TUSooner
2/20/2006, 11:08 AM
okay, here's some more...
causation is actually a part of the actus reus -- it is the bridge between the conduct and result of that conduct. Here Bernard engaged in a voluntary act -- he put poison in Amelia's water supply; mens rea is also not an issue -- he acted w/ the intent (common law) or purpose (MPC -- conscious objective) to bring about the death of Amelia. But Amelia did not die from Bernard's poison; she died of thirst b/c she never got the (tainted) water. "But for" Bernard's act, would Amelia have died? Yes she would have. So it would appear Bernard is not the cause-in-fact of Amelia's death, but he is culpable. Connie is the but-for cause of Amelia's death. She's culpable too.
Whether or not either or both of them would be charged and convicted is another thing entirely.
for cause of Amelia's death.
We waited all weekend for THAT? :eek:
:D :D
Thanks, I'm glad I haven't lost it altogether.
But that's not nearly as good as a Criminal Procedure exam that the prof wrote like a Mickey Spillane novel. It was hilarious.
Frozen Sooner
2/20/2006, 11:52 AM
So I was right?
Tailwind
2/21/2006, 08:25 PM
Well.......was he?
Penguin
2/21/2006, 10:17 PM
How in the world could they prove that Connie went out to the desert and dumped out the water? I'm thinking the desert is not kind to forensic evidence.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.