An 18 year old Puerto Rica boy, Ricky Hernandez, is charged with having killed his father, Miguel Hernandez, a year earlier by stabbing him with a switchblade knife in their apartment late one night. The case takes place in the United States, so the law varies from that in Canada.

The jury is charged with having to decide if Hernandez is innocent or guilty of the crime. The judge tells the jurors that the death sentence is mandatory for murder in the first degree pre-meditated murder. Originally only 1 juror, juror #8, states that he will not agree with a guilty verdict.

There are two main witnesses. The first is an old man, who testified that at 10 minutes after 12 midnight he heard a loud noise, heard the boy yell that he was going to kill his father, so the old man ran to his door and saw the boy running down the stairs.

At the same time an empty train was passing by, and a woman across the street testified that she couldn't sleep due to the heat, and saw the boy, through the empty windows of the train, raise up his arm and stab his father several times, in a downward motion.

Ricky's alibi is that he was at a movie nearby, but could not remember the names of the movie or any of the stars in the show.

A storekeeper testified that the boy had purchased a "one of a kind" switchblade earlier that evening. Juror #3 purchased an identical knife which he showed to the rest of the jurors when they were in the jury room (1 mark for each answer unless indicated otherwise)

1. If this criminal trial were to take place in Canada, what would the style of cause be (the name of the case)? (by names)

1. If instead it was a civil trial for assault In Canada, what would the style of cause by? (by names, if Ricky's father had survived and was suing him)

1. What level of court would this trial be heard at in British Columbia - What is the name of the court?

1. Is it of any significance that Ricky was 17 when he is alleged to have committed the crime, (supposing that the incident occurred in Canada). How would he be tried? (reference any applicable statute)

1. What would be the burden of proof on the Crown in this case, if in Canada?

1. What is the difference in the sentence for murder in Canada, in 2019, from the case at hand?

1. In this case, juror #8 produces a switchblade he has purchased, and the jury were to consider this as evidence. Would this be allowed in a real trial in Canada? If not, why not? (do not discuss the security issue of bringing in a switchblade)

1. If you were trying to defend Ricky, what arguments would you make? Suggest 2 defences, that is, reasons why Ricky did not commit the murder, based on the facts, that you might raise based on the evidence given. Or reasons why the evidence does not collaborate the murder as proposed. 2 marks

1. In the trial at hand, Ricky has a free public defender. In British Columbia, what are the three main ways that lawyers typically charge for their services, other than the use of our Legal Aid system. 3marks
2. Comment on whether you think Ricky is innocent or guilty! Or any other thoughts you had in watching this portion of the case. 3 marks