Based on theProfessor Analysis below and the course textbook (and other official academic sources) answer a few of the questions of choice below related to "The Essentials of Crime & Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

• What are your thoughts on the "Professor Analysis" below, do you agree or disagree, why or why not? discuss
• What did you find most interesting about the legal issues and "Professor Analysis"? below?
• What more would you add to this issue based on your research?Discuss

Why do you think thisissue of"Business Law" is important" and how does this "promote commerce" among individuals locally, nationally and globally?How does this Business Law issue promote fairness and equity amongstcompanies, employers and the society? Discuss.

Real World Example: Can you provide a real world example related to this "Business Law" issue? Feel free to share an article related to this issue with the class.

In The News:Is there any article or news information related to this"Business Law" issue that you found interesting and that you would like to share with the class? What are your thoughts about the article and issue?

Case Analysis (You Be The Judge) (OPTIONAL):What are your thoughts on the case below (any 1):Sekhar v. United States(p. 154) ORArthur Andersen LLP v. United States. Can you find any case related to this Business Lawissue? What are your thoughts on the case?Do you agree with the analysis and issues discussed in the case?Do you agree with the decision in the case? Why or why not?

NOTE: Some of your responses must be based upon research from the course textbook and other official academic sources. Please feel free to include the page #'s referenced in the course textbook. (include websites as a supplement to these other sources). This information is designed to increase and expand your understanding of this subject matter.

Enjoy,

Prof. Elliott

Professor Analysis:The Essentials of Crime?(PLEASE READ)

1. Discuss theessentials of crime.
2. Prior statutory prohibition.Stress the fact that criminal offenses arestatutoryoffenses (i.e., there are no longer any common law crimes). Courts also narrowly construe criminal statutes.A text case,Sekhar v. United States, furnishes an example.

1)Sekhar v. United States(p. 154):The Supreme Court holds that the Hobbs Act's criminal provision dealing with extortion does not apply to a supposed attempt to extort, from the general counsel of the office of New York's Comptroller, a favorable recommendation regarding an investment fund.The favorable recommendation allegedly being extorted was not "property" for purposes of the Hobbs Act provision and therefore did not constitute the crime of extortion under that statute.

Points for Discussion:Ask why, in a general sense, the Court ruled as it did.(Because criminal statutes normally are to be construed narrowly.If a statute criminalizes behavior, the statute needs to be sufficiently specific and should not be interpreted more broadly than its language fairly indicates.)Then ask why, in regard to the specific statute at issue here, the Court ruled as it did.(Because usual meanings of the word "property" don't include something such as the recommendation allegedly being extorted here.) Note the related problem mentioned by the Court: the very strained reasoning that would be necessary in order to conclude that the defendant himself would somehow have obtained something amounting to property as a result of the supposed extortion.The facts, as the Court suggested, more closely resembled attempted coercion rather than the crime of extortion.

2)Note that there are constitutional limits on the government's power to criminalize behavior.Some constitutional limits are discussed immediately below; others are discussed in a separate subsection that appears later.See subsection f.

1. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.Discuss thepresumption of innocenceas a basic due process safeguard enjoyed by criminal defendants. Stress the policy reasons for requiring such a high burden of proof by the government in criminal cases.

1)Contrast the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard with the "preponderance of the evidence" standard applicable to civil cases. Note the deliberate ambiguity present in these standards (particularly the former).

2)You may also want to digress a bit regarding the realities of the presumption of innocence and the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Many criminal defense attorneys believe that jurors in fact presume guilt and that the defense attorney's job therefore involves not only raising a reasonable doubt in jurors' minds but also educating the jury (in voir dire, opening statement, and closing argument) about the existence and importance of the presumption. As for the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, defense attorneys sometimes assert that the standard is not nearly so difficult for government to meet in actual practice as it would seem to be in legal theory, because jurors may tend to assume that the government would not have charged the defendant with a crime if it did not have very good reasons for believing that he committed the crime.

3)While digressing about realities associated with guilt, innocence, and standards of proof, you might want to note that even by the admission of many defense attorneys (let alone the assessment of prosecutors), most criminal defendants probably are guilty as a factual matter--either of the crime with which they are charged or of a similar offense. The completely innocent (as a factual matter) defendant of TV fare is a rarity. Nonetheless, our constitution and criminal justice system place the burden on the government to prove guilt as a factualand legalmatter by permissible and appropriate means. If the government fails to do so, the "guilty" defendant is supposed to go free.

4)At this point, it may be helpful to list the elements of a basic criminal statute (e.g., burglary) and to take students through a number of hypotheticals aimed at illustrating the "proof of every element of the offense charged" requirements. Note that a "not guilty" verdict may not mean that the jury has concluded that the defendant did not commit the offense charged. It may simply mean that the state has not met its burden of proof.

1. The defendant's criminal intent and capacity to form that intent.Discuss themens reacomponent of most serious criminal offenses (including, in general, the different forms that the requisite criminal intent may take, depending on the offense in question).Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, a former text case now summarized in the chapter, illustrates the important of the element of criminal intent.Further examination of that decision is included here, for professors who may still wish to use the case as a basis of class discussion.
2. Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States: The Supreme Court overturns Arthur Andersen's conviction for a supposed violation of a crime involving document destruction, because the trial judge's jury instructions effectively (and erroneously) allowed the jury to find Andersen guilty without a need to find the existence of the criminal intent contemplated by the statute.

Points for Discussion:Work through the Court's comparison of the "knowingly . . . corruptly" phrasing of the statute with the language of the trial judge's jury instructions.Note the discrepancy, which, as the Court noted, could have allowed the jury to convict Andersen without any need to find that the requisite criminal intent existed.Also note that the Court wasn't making a finding that there was an absence of criminal intent on the part of Andersen. Rather, the Court was saying that even if the jury thought there wasn't criminal intent, the jury might still have convicted Andersen because of the erroneous statements in the jury instructions.

1. Shaw v. United States(p. 159): A federal statute makes it a crime "knowlngly [to] execut[e] a scheme . . . to defraud a financial institution" or to "obtain any of the moneys, funds, . . . or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises." The Supreme Court holds that a defendant's intent to deceive and cheat a bank's depositor, as opposed to specific intent to deceive the bank, is sufficient criminal intent to support a conviction for violating the statute.

Points for Discussion:Note/ask about the basic facts here (that Shaw obtained Hsu's Bank of America account numbers and, without authorization from Hsu, had funds transferred from Hsu's accounts to accounts Shaw controlled at other institutions). Note Shaw's argument that even if he had intent to cheat Hsu (a bank depositor), he didn't have specific intent to cheat the bank itself. Hence, Shaw argued, he didn't have the particular criminal intent contemplated by the terms of the statute.What do the students think of that argument?Why doesn't Shaw succeed with it?Refer again to the terms of the statute (quoted above), and note the elements required by the statute.What important public policy notions seem to support the Supreme Court's rejection of Shaw's argument?