[Hi_Ho_Sliver]

don't forget the floor or concrete the guy landed on after being stabbed, they are guilty of "blunt force" as well. or is that assault and battery ....ain't it wunnerful what lawyers have done to this country?

[arbarnhart]

Something I should have said in my first post...

"Louis was charged with murder." - I am reading a lot into that because of your statement about it being real court cases based on US law. I assume that means that reasonable criteria a DA or grand jury would want were satisfied - like it was a stab wound in the torso or something and that some evidence seems to suggest intent.

[jillsy]

Yes Andy, remember, there are no trick solutions here. The facts presented are enough to go on. We're not supposed to add new facts or embellish existing ones.

[Kenny_S]

ALA. The dude with the $$ was a carver and was taklng care of business with a non carver. No Guilty due to reason of insanity!. Heck, He was just carving him up with a .44magnum. That with 3006 and 308 are good carving tools. Used them a lot to carve trees. To bad I could find a islamic terrorist to hold the target in front of himself.

[jamesfa]

Louis got himself a good lawyer and was found not guilty as there was to intent to kill the victum.
the widow got herself a good lawyer and sued the Doctor and Hospital for malpractice and setteled for millions.

Frank

[makenchips]

There is not enough information provided to make the determination. We do not know intent. If Louis intended to kill the person then I would have to say yes Louis is guilty of murder in the first degree. If not then it might be a lesser degree murder charge. Although depending on circumstances the defense attorny is probably going to go for insanity plea. I'll just take the fifth on this one.

[arbarnhart]

Originally Posted by jillsy

Yes Andy, remember, there are no trick solutions here. The facts presented are enough to go on. We're not supposed to add new facts or embellish existing ones.

I did not think I was embelleshing, just noting that according to the law, murder requires intent, so that if this is a real case there must have been something to suggest intent to kill or there would not be charges. If that isn't true, then I would say we are not given enough information. Assuming charges were made without any implication of intent would certainly be a trick solution.

[mdallensr]

Not guilty. Proximate cause.

[jillsy]

Andy, that reminder was for everyone, not for you specifically.

I agreed with what you wrote. He was charged with murder, which means we had already been given the sufficient evidence needed for him to be charged. It's our job to determine whether he's guilty.

This is taken directly from book,"All the cases were the subjects of appeal to a higher court. This indicates that the point of law involved is difficult and caused reasonable jurists to disagree over the result."

"We have made every attempt to avoid trick solutions to the cases. There are no rabbits pulled out of hats. here we thought a legal principle was needed to decide a case, we summarized that principle for the reader."

"Facts are always crucial to the resolution to a legal dispute. All the facts that you will need are laid out in the synopsis of the case. Dont be attempted to add new facts or to embellish existing ones. You will not be asked to decide, for example, whether a particular individual is telling the truth or not in a paricular case. You can safely assume the truth of the facts and the assertions in the cases, unless you are asked to do otherwise in the question itself."

"First, you play the role of jury. You are NOT expected o decide the facts, but rather apply the law of facts as they are set out. You are deciding concrete cases, just as a jury does. Then, you get to sit in judgment or jury and examine the trial decision. You then then decide whether the legal principles are fair or justified or indeed logical."

Then it talks about using care, common sense, etc that I have written in the opening of the thread.

That being said, I'll tell the verdict in the next thread. That way, maybe after having read all the rules plus seeing the results, it'll be easier to understand how it all works.

[jillsy]

The Verdict by the jury?
Louis was charged with murder.


The final judgment in Appeals: Louis was not guilty of murder, because the death was not caused by the stab wound. (Decided by a panel of 3 judges)


Ok, it's up to you guys whether or not you want me to post another. By the way, I've only read a few of these myself so most of the cases are going to drive me nuts too!