State v. Roy Cartwright

 

There should be three (3) sections to your paper. Do not leave out any sections!

  1. The first, which you should label Verdict, should include (20 points)
    1. What your verdict is (you MUST include citation from the American Classification System from the power point slides to support what your verdict is)

 

Example:  My verdict is guilty of blah blah.  According to the American System of Classification, blah blah is “a person … intentionally or knowingly operates another’s boat, airplane, or motor propelled vehicle without the effective consent of the owner.”

 

  1. Give an explanation of why you selected this verdict (I believe that Jill is guilty of blah blah because she pushed Jack down the hill blah blah).

 

 

  1. In the second section, labeled Integration, discuss the relationship between what you have read and learned in this class and how it compares to the court case. (What are the statutes used to support your verdict.) (30 points)
    1. Explain how Cartwright was charged with killing two people with one shot.
    2. Explain if Cartwright should be found guilty of two crimes or only one
    3. What legal doctrine could be used in this case? Define and explain the legal doctrine. (You MUST cite what the doctrine is).

 

Example: The doctrine of blah blah states, “blah blah blah blah blah.”

 

  1. Finally, in the third section, labeled Reactions and Analysis. As you determine your verdict for this crime, here are some questions about the crime and the trial for you to answer. (40 points)

 

  1. What was the position of the two victims, Marlene Ransom and Martin Hogan, at the time they were shot?
  2. What was the most damaging piece of evidence against Cartwright, showing a premeditated and deliberate intent to kill?
  3. Whom did Cartwright intend to kill – Marlene Ransom, Martin Hogan, or both? Explain your answer.
  4. What is the significance of Cartwright’s picking up the empty cartridge from the floor?
  5. Suppose upon deliberation some jurors want a verdict of murder in the first degree and some favor a lesser degree of manslaughter. Do you think the jurors should compromise? Why or why not?  Explain your answer.

 

  1. Grammar, punctuation and spelling (10 points)