We have discussed the elements needed for a crime, actus rea and mens rea. But proving intent can be challenging. Getting into the mind of a person is difficult; how can you prove what the person was thinking or the intent at the time of the crime?

Answer the following:

1) There are many cases in which an individual has been convicted on circumstantial evidence for the crime of murder. Find a recent and local case in the state of Tennessee in which a person has been found guilty of murder or a varied degree of homicide. Summarize the case in your main post. Indicate the reasons for the conviction. Was it based on physical or circumstantial evidence? What did the prosecutor use to prove the mental intent of the offender at the time of the crime?

2) Did the prosecution and/or the defense use legal technology in some way to aid in the development and/or presentation of their respective sides of the case? Was that use (if any) actually helpful in that case (or potentially, other similar cases)? If it was not helpful, explain why you think so.

3) How did conducting research and going through each step of legal analysis help you to reach this conclusion? Analyze how you applied critical thinking and legal analytical skills to assist you in this regard. What new research and/or analytical tool or method did you try for the first time this week? What do you think you do well and what would you like to strengthen so that you continue to improve?