Scenario 1: Assault, Battery, and Murder
The assault charge against Brian will prevail because his actions meet the prima facie for the case. He acted intentionally to impose an unlawful threat on the victim. Brian accelerated towards Lori wielding a knife with the intent to threaten her into submission and hurt her. The knife-wielding man posed an imminent danger to carry out an attack against the victim, which could result in injury or death (Gold & Gold, 2018). The state should provide physical evidence of the knife or video footage of him accelerating towards the victim with the intention to inflict harm. In this context, the state will apprehend the victim for initiating an offensive act, which caused the victim to apprehend physical harm. However, Brian is not guilty of battery because Lori acted in self-defense before he could inflict any physical harm. However, the state could charge him with aggravated assault.
Meanwhile, the murder charge against Brian will prevail if the state proves beyond reasonable doubt that Brian harbored malicious aforethought before the murder. The defendant planned to execute the felony with a deadly weapon, which can be presented as an inference of intent. Although Brian could argue that he had no intention to kill, his actions amounted to reckless disregard for human life, posing a substantial risk to the victim, eventually culminating in death (Gold & Gold, 2020). The defendant purposely wielded a weapon intending to cause serious bodily injuries on the victim if he failed to surrender to his commands. He also approached the victim intending to commit a dangerous felony which accidentally led to her demise. Brian has a depraved heart and did not care whether the victims survived or succumbed to his attacks. The circumstances under which Lori lost her life manifest Brian’s extreme indifference to the value of human life (Gold & Gold, 2020). Brian’s possession of a knife will elevate the charges to first-degree murder.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Scenario 2: Terrorism
The USA Patriot Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) differentiates between domestic and international terrorism. An individual engages in domestic terrorism if they act in a manner that is considered dangerous to human life and is a violation of state or federal criminal laws. The act must appear to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policies of a public institution, including the government, by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a public institution by mass distraction, assassination, or kidnapping (Taylor, 2019). In addition, the person must have acted within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. If the acts occur outside the United States, it is regarded as international terrorism.
A federal prosecutor can charge Jack with terrorism because his actions meet the elements of domestic terrorism. Jack is attempting to influence the policies of a public institution through intimidation and/or coercion. Intimidation entails frightening or overawing an individual or a group of individuals, primarily to act in a manner that one desires. The words ‘bring the house down’ are intimidating as they could mean he wants to destroy the school (its buildings). To some extent, these words are threatening the principal (individual) and the school (a group of persons) with something dangerous if they do act in a certain way (Taylor, 2019). In this case, Jack wants his son to be protected from bullying and is not ready to explain the manner in which it should be done.
Scenario 3: Illegal Migration
The federal statute under Article 8 USC§ 1324 regards harboring illegal immigrants as unlawful. Alien harboring refers to the accommodation of undocumented migrants in contravention of the United States laws against concealing or shielding them from detection by law enforcement (Das, 2018). Under the immigration law, Bob can be charged with harboring an illegal alien because he knew two years earlier that Juan was in the country illegally but offered to shelter him in exchange for his services. His charges are elevated by his actions leading to Juan missing his criminal and immigration hearings after being arrested for DUI. Bob will be charged under the federal statute criminalizing harboring or hiding illegal aliens in the United States and convincing them to stay for personal gain.
Meanwhile, the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 recommends imposing criminal penalties for undocumented migrants who commit crimes in the United States (Hamley, 2020). The act further permits the deportation of illegal immigrants who commit felonies or misdemeanors. Two years earlier, Juan was arrested for DUI but avoided criminal prosecution. Generally, a simple first DUI cannot amount to deportation proceedings. However, Juan violated state laws by deliberately missing his criminal and immigration hearings. Consequently, Juan can be deported from the United States pending a fair hearing. Other grounds for Juan’s deportation include tax evasion, illegal entry, and overstaying his visa. Nevertheless, the defendant can ask the judge to vacate his deportation or lower the sentence to maintain the family unit since his wife is a bona fide citizen of the United States. Besides, he has not committed any other felony over the last twelve years that he has stayed in the United States to warrant deportation. However, there is no guarantee that his defense will fail to trigger deportation.
References
Das, A. (2018). Inclusive Immigrant Justice: Racial Animus and the Origins of Crime-Based
Deportation. UC Davis L. Rev. , 52 , 171.
Gold, M. E., & Gold, M. E. (2018). § 17. Prima Facie Case, Affi rmative Defense, Burden of
Proof. In A Primer on Legal Reasoning (pp. 245-258). Cornell University Press.
Hamley, H. M. (2020). The Weaponization of the" Alien Harboring" Statute in a New-Era of
Racial Animus towards Immigrants. Seattle UL Rev. , 44 , 171.
Taylor, H. (2019). Domestic terrorism and hate crimes: legal definitions and media framing of
mass shootings in the United States. Journal of policing, intelligence and counter
terrorism , 14 (3), 227-244.
