Browder v. U.S., 398 F.Supp. 1042 (1975) - Defendant Browder was charged with first-degree murder and claimed memory loss due to mental defect. - Issue: Whether Browder's amnesia renders him incompetent to stand trial. - Rule of Law: Amnesia alone does not make a defendant incompetent. There must be evidence it prevents defendant from assisting counsel or understanding proceedings.  - Analysis: Despite amnesia, Browder understood the charges and could consult with attorneys. Amnesia alone did not deprive him of a fair trial. - Holding: Browder's amnesia does not render him incompetent to stand trial.

U.S. v. Bergman, 416 F.Supp. 496 (1976) - Defendants subjected to warrantless airport searches during hijacking prevention program. Illegal weapons were found. - Issue: Whether the warrantless searches violated the 4th Amendment. - Rule of Law: Warrantless searches are allowed based on probable cause and exigent circumstances. - Analysis: Hijacking threat created exigent circumstances, establishing probable cause for searches to prevent more hijacking. - Holding: Searches did not violate 4th Amendment given exigent circumstances. Evidence admissible.

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) - Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act allowed civil commitment of sex offenders after prison if likely to reoffend. - Issue: Is the Act constitutional under due process and double jeopardy principles? - Rule of Law: Civil commitment statutes require finding of mental abnormality causing future dangerousness. - Analysis: The Act requires finding of future dangerousness due to abnormality. It is not criminal punishment barred by double jeopardy. - Holding: The Act comports with due process and double jeopardy. Constitutionally valid.

Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) - Defendant convicted of capital murder challenged failure to inform jury he was parole ineligible. - Issue: Did withholding parole ineligibility information violate due process? - Rule of Law: When future dangerousness is emphasized, defendant has due process right to inform jury he is parole ineligible. - Analysis: Withholding the information misled the jury on future danger and violated due process. - Holding: When prosecution emphasizes future danger, capital defendant has due process right to inform jury he is parole ineligible.

Here are detailed briefs for the remaining cases:

People v. Kraft, 133 Ill.App.3d 294 (1985) - Defendant raised involuntary intoxication defense, alleging prescription drug side effects. - Issue: Whether defendant established involuntary intoxication defense. - Rule of Law: Involuntary intoxication is a valid defense if defendant can show he took medication as prescribed and side effects were unforeseen. - Analysis: Defendant did not establish his intoxication was unexpected side effect of properly taken medication. - Holding: Defendant failed to establish involuntary intoxication defense.

Com. v. Peaslee, 177 Mass. 267 (1901) - Defendant embezzled funds and claimed insanity defense based on delusions. - Issue: Can defendant establish insanity defense based on delusions? - Rule of Law: Insanity defense requires showing defendant did not understand the criminal nature of his acts. - Analysis: Defendant understood embezzlement was illegal. His delusions were not enough for insanity defense. - Holding: Defendant failed to establish insanity defense.

U.S. v. Jackson, 560 F.2d 112 (1977) - Defendant robbery convict challenged jury selection disparities. - Issue: Did defendant make out prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection? - Rule of Law: Defendants must show substantial disparities in jury selection to establish discrimination. - Analysis: Statistical disparities alone were insufficient to establish prima facie case. - Holding: Defendant failed to make prima facie showing of discriminatory jury selection.

People v Dlugash, 41 N.Y.2d 725 (1977) - Defendant murdered victim but claimed insanity and lack of intent. - Issue: Was defendant entitled to acquittal based on insanity? - Rule of Law: Extreme emotional disturbance does not qualify for legal insanity absent cognitive incapacity. - Analysis: No evidence defendant lacked capacity to understand criminality of conduct. - Holding: Defendant failed to establish insanity defense.

U.S. v. Fleming, 739 F.2d 945 (1984) - Defendant appealed conviction based on improper voir dire. - Issue: Did juror exclusion violate Witherspoon? - Rule of Law: Witherspoon prohibits excluding jurors solely for general objections to death penalty. - Analysis: Jurors were properly excused based on inability to consider imposing death penalty. - Holding: No Witherspoon violation in excusing biased jurors.

State v. Williams, 4 Wash.App. 908 (1971) - Defendant appealed armed robbery conviction, raising insanity defense. - Issue: Did defendant establish insanity defense? - Rule of Law: Insanity requires showing defendant unable to perceive nature and quality of act. - Analysis: Defendant presented no evidence of legal insanity. - Holding: Defendant's insanity defense fails.

People v. Stamp, 2 Cal.App.3d 203 (1969) - Defendant convicted for marijuana possession challenged legality of search. - Issue: Was the warrantless search legal? - Rule of Law: Warrantless searches must be based on probable cause and exigent circumstances. - Analysis: Officer had probable cause based on smelling marijuana smoke. Exigency existed due to possible destruction of evidence. - Holding: The warrantless search was lawful.

U.S. v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606 (1966) - Defendants convicted of distilling liquor challenged jury selection. - Issue: Did jury selection process violate equal protection? - Rule of Law: Substantial disparities must be shown to establish discriminatory jury selection. - Analysis: Defendants did not provide evidence of actual discrimination. Mere speculation is insufficient. - Holding: Defendant failed to demonstrate equal protection violation in jury selection.

State v. Green, 643 S.W.2d 902 (1982) - Defendant appealed rape conviction based on suggestive identification. - Issue: Was the identification procedure impermissibly suggestive? - Rule of Law: Identification process violates due process only if very substantially likely to cause misidentification. - Analysis: Minor inconsistencies did not indicate substantial risk of misidentification. - Holding: Identification procedure was not unduly suggestive.

State v. Crenshaw, 98 Wash.2d 789 (1983) - Defendant challenged jury selection disparately impacting minorities. - Issue: Did the process discriminate in selecting jurors? - Rule of Law: Disparate impact alone does not establish discriminatory intent in jury selection. - Analysis: No evidence of intentional discrimination was presented. - Holding: Defendant failed to show discrimination in jury selection.

Please let me know if you need me to explain or expand on any part of these briefs!

Armando and Bryan grew up together in Brooklyn. One of their childhood friends was Candas. The three of them used to hang out a lot. Even when Candas moved to the Bronx when they were in senior year in high school, they went out sometimes to the movies or to restaurants. They usually met in Manhattan.

When they were in junior high, Bryan started getting seizures. Every year, the severity increased. When he was in 9th grade he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He's been getting therapy and taking medication since then.

Candas, who's always had a crush on Armando, is now in college, but both of her friends dropped out of school after she moved to the Bronx.

After they dropped out of high school, Armando and Bryan started hustling for money. They worked at McDonald's for a while, and they were thinking about getting a license to work as security guards.

One day, as Bryan got off the train, he saw MTA workers emptying cash from the MetroCard machines. Bryan noticed a security guard was watching as the machines were being emptied. Only on guard! As he thought more about this, he saw an opportunity to make money. This was the early 2000s; people used a lot of cash to buy MetroCards. He talked to Armando about it. Both Armando and Bryan had guns, so if they decided to rob a subway station, they had the means to do it.

A year ago, Armando was diagnosed with HIV AIDS. He's been taking antiretroviral drugs for it, but only his doctor and a social worker at the neighborhood community clinic know about his condition. He didn't tell anyone about it.

One day, as Armando and Bryan were looking for the right subway station to rob, they met Candas at the Tremont Avenue station. They didn't get a chance to speak for long, but Armando told Candas he would call her that night. Candas hadn't seen her friends for more than a year now since she went to college out of state.

That night Armando called Candas. They spent a lot of time on the phone talking about everything and nothing. Candas told Armando how much she'd missed him. She asked if he would like to come to her place next week. She said she lived two blocks from the Tremont Avenue station. He promised to come see her.

The next day, Armando told Bryan he found the right subway station to rob: the Bedford Park station; right away, they took the D train to the Bronx to visit the Bedford Park station. They learned that the machines get emptied on Mondays and Thursdays. It was Friday, so they decided to come again Monday to see how many security guards assist the MTA workers.

On Monday, they arrived early, around 7 am, and at 9:00 they saw two MTA workers open the machines. There was only one security guard. They decided to come again on Thursday to rob the station.

On their way back home, when they arrived at Tremont, Armando told Bryan he had to get off the train because he had to see a friend. There, they parted their ways. Armando didn't tell Bryan he was going to see Candas because he had the feeling, from the phone conversation with Candas, something was going to happen; he was going to get lucky! He was right.

As Armando left Candas's apartment he felt on top of the world. He had just had sex with one of the most beautiful girls he'd ever known. He felt a little bit guilty, though, since he'd refused to wear the condom that Candas gave him. He didn't want to wear a condom, and Candas didn't insist.

Bryan called Armando and told him he had changed his mind about robbing the subway. Armando unsuccessfully tried to convince Bryan that they should go ahead with robbing the subway. When Armando told Bryan he was going ahead with the robbery by himself, Bryan called the police and told them about Armando's plan.

Early, in the morning, when Armando got out of his apartment, two police officers were waiting for him outside. They followed him to the subway. When Armando got into the D train, the officers followed him. When they arrived at Bedford Park station, it was 8 am. Armando decided to wait there for the MTA workers to come empty the MetroCard machines. At 9 o'clock, he saw the two workers followed by the security guard approaching the machines.

Right then, his cell phone rang. It was Candas. She said she missed him a lot. She said she enjoyed their time together the other day, and she wanted to see him again. She asked him if he could come over. He said he was in the neighborhood to see a friend, so yes, he was coming over to Candas's apartment right away. As he hung up the phone, he was so excited to get to Candas's apartment that he forgot he was there to rob the MTA workers. But as he proceeded to go back down the platform and take the D train back to Tremont, the officers arrested him.

When Bryan heard Armando had been arrested, he felt extremely guilty and angry. He went to the police station. When he arrived, he shot a police officer to break Armando out of the police station.

2. Can Armando be charged with attempted murder for having sex with Candas without wearing a condom even though he knew he had HIV AIDs?
4. Can Bryan successfully raise the defense of insanity in his murder trial for killing the police officer.
6. Is Armando liable for attempted robbery of the subway station?

For each of the 3 questions above, you must:

2. State the legal issue.
4. State the rule applicable to the legal issue. Quote the cases or statutes, paraphrase: simply state law exactly how it is stated in the case or the statute.
6. Apply the rule to the relevant facts from the story above. Remember use the facts relevant to the question at hand.
8. State the answer to the question. This simply summarizes part 3 above.