:: welcome to

NINOMANIA

:: A constitutional law blog by Scalia/Thomas fan David M. Wagner, M.A., J.D., Research Fellow, National Legal Foundation, and Teacher, Veritas Preparatory Academy. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the NLF or Veritas. :: bloghome | E-mail me ::


"Scalialicious!"
-- Eve Tushnet


"Frankfurter was born too soon for the Web, but I'm sure that, had it been possible, there would have been the equivalent of Ninomania for Frankfurter."
-- Mark Tushnet
(I agree, and commented here.)


"The preeminent Scalia blog"
-- Underneath Their Robes


 Subscribe in a reader



Site Feed


Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five!

    follow me on Twitter



    Bloglinks:

    Above the Law, by David Lat

    Balkinization

    CrimLaw

    Duncan's Con Law Course Blog

    Eve Tushnet

    Eye of Polyphemus, by Jamie Jeffords

    How Appealing

    Hugh Hewitt

    Justice Thomas Appreciation Page

    Legal Theory Blog

    Lex Communis

    Opinio Juris

    Overlawyered.com

    Paper Chase (from JURIST)

    Point of Law (Manhattan Inst.)

    Professor Bainbridge

    Public Discourse

    Redeeming Law, by Prof. Mike Schutt

    SCOTUS Blog

    Volokh Conspiracy

    WSJ Law Blog





    Other fine sites:

    Alexander Hamilton Inst. for Study of Western Civilization

    Ave Maria School of Law

    Center for Thomas More Studies

    Family Defense Center

    The Federalist Society

    The Founders' Constitution

    George Mason University School of Law

    Immigration and Refugee Appellate Center

    Judged: Law Firm News & Intelligence

    JURIST

    Law Prose (Bryan Garner)

    Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

    National Lawyers Association (alternative to ABA)

    Supreme Court decisions

    The Weekly Standard



    Something I wrote about marriage


    lawyer blogs


    [::..archive..::]
    ::

    :: Thursday, December 14, 2006 ::
    CRIMINAL LAW EXAM Q&A -- Your questions answered!
    Professor Wagner~
    Could you give our class some idea of what the final will be like? Will we need to know case names, names of specific rules/tests, or just criminal law rules applied to facts? Any insight you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks!
    In general, no case names. The exceptions would be those few rules that we covered that are known by their case name (e.g. the "Redline rule," the "M'Naghten test"). There weren't many of those.
    Prof. Wagner:
    When an individual is actually an actor (active participant) in a crime, is it true that they are not liable as an accomplice, but rather as a principle in the 1st degree? Consider the following: A and B enter a house for the purpose of killing everyone insider. A enters the room of the children and kills them both, B enters the room of the parents and kills them both. In this hypo, is it true that A and B are liable for 1st degree murder of the respective victims, but also guilty under accomplice liability for the murder of the victims to which they didn't pull the trigger?Or is this simply felony murder to the victims to which they didn't pull the trigger?

    I'm having a hard time drawing a distinction between when the liability of the "accomplice" is cut off for acts by the principle in the 1st. For example, if A goes into the bank to rob the bank, and B sits outside to drive the get-a-way car, it seems that if A kills someone while inside, both could be guilty of felony murder. However, what if A, finding the teller attractive, decides to rape her after robbing her. It seems as though B would not be liable as an accomplice to the rape, only the robbery b/c he didn't intend the rape. Is this correct?
    They're accomplices to the crimes they did not directly commit. Remember, we're doing without "degrees" of complicity. (Of murder, yes; but not of complicity).

    If I get more, I'll answer them.

    :: David M. Wagner 3:32 PM [+] ::
    ...

    Site Meter
    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?