I agree to an extent. Yes, everything said IC should be taken IC, however I personally do understand how some might have a hard time with it OOC with some of what we see on Twitter or hear over voice.
Absolutely, keep IC actions and utterances away from OOC, but I think it's also fair to say "read the room" and take heed if someone is saying they're bothered. Not every reaction or feeling is the same and all are valid to be felt.
Discord Username (Name and #): realdealbogo1#9850
Character Name: Bob Michaels
What timezone are you in?: CDT
How old are you IRL?: 41
What position are you applying for? (Judge, Lawyer, DA, ADA): Judge
How long have you played on the server?: I have been a member of the community since it started. I have not been active in a while but I would like to bring the experience that I have done elsewhere to here and help make it a great place for content
How much experience do you have in this field (PD or Law on previous servers or NegDead)?:I have been a lawyer on MixerRP, Lawyer on Rivalry, Judge on Definition RP, Digit RP.
Please complete the following Bar Exam below, you are able to take it once within a 3 day period:
1. Describe the court process starting from opening statement and ending at closing argument.
Opening statement is your narrative for your case. It sets the tone of how your side, defense or prosecution will go.
Closing statement is the wrap up or summary of your case. Like the facts you laid out for your side of the trial that you want often the Judge or Jury to remember before deliberation. This is often the most powerful and important part of the trial.
2. Explain reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Explain the difference between the two.
Reasonable Suspicion is where you have enough proof that someone you arrest or has been arrested is the person who committed the crime.
Probable Cause is where you find a person in the area of a house robbery for example. They claim that they were not doing it but walking past. But however you get extra reports that they were seen wearing this outfit or driving this car. This gives you enough cause to pat them down and detain them for questioning. The difference is one has enough to arrest the other needs to find more proof.
3. What are "elements of a crime" and how are they used to determine if a crime has occurred? Give an example.
Criminal act, intent, concurrence, causation, harm and attendant circumstance.
Criminal act - Criminal act, or actus reus, is generally defined as an unlawful bodily movement
Criminal Intent - A state has a criminal statute that prohibits “being within 100 feet of any quantity of marijuana.” Ricardo sits next to Jean on the subway. A law enforcement officer smells marijuana and does a pat-down search of Jean. He discovers that Jean has a large baggie of marijuana in his jacket pocket and arrests Jean and Ricardo for marijuana possession. Ricardo was within one hundred feet of marijuana as prohibited by the statute, but Ricardo should not be prosecuted for marijuana possession. No evidence exists to indicate that Ricardo knew Jean, or knew that Jean possessed marijuana. Thus Ricardo does not have the criminal intent or mens rea for possession, and the state’s possession statute should not be enforced against him.
Concurrence - The prosecution cannot secure a conviction by only proving mens rea or actus reus. The defendant must have both mens rea and actus reus together – a guilty mind and the guilty act. Concurrence of the two must be present. Typically, the prosecution needs proof that the two occurred together, at the same time, to culminate in the crime in question. The guilty mind must coexist with or at least precede the guilty act. It does not necessarily matter whether mens rea was present up to the actus reus (such as premeditated crimes), as long as both concur at the same time during the criminal act. Mens rea must have motivated the conduct that led to the actus reus.
Causation - The fourth element of a crime is causation. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime would not have happened were it not for the defendant’s direct participation. The prosecution must use evidence to establish a causal relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the crime in question.
Harm and Attendant Circumstance - Mens rea is Latin for “guilty mind.” The legal theory of mens rea refers to criminal intent. The theory states that to convict a defendant of a crime, the prosecution must establish the defendant’s criminal intent. The prosecution must show evidence that the defendant had a culpable mental state at the time of committing the crime. In other words, that the defendant was in a right state of mind and had conscious intent to commit the crime.
4. List 5 objections and give the definition of them.
Leading Question - This objection is made when counsel asks a leading question during direct examination. A leading question is a question which actually suggests an answer. Leading question are allowed during cross examination, but not during direct. Example: “At 8 pm that day, you were at the deli, correct?”
Compound Question - This objection is made when counsel asks a compound question. A compound question is a question that actually asks multiple things, all linked by “and” or “or”. Example: “Did you determine the time of death by interviewing witnesses and by requesting the autopsy report written by the coroner?”
Question Calls for Narrative/Narrative Answer - This objection is made when either a witness begins telling a narrative as part of their answer, or counsel’s question calls for a narrative. It is admissible for a witness to testify about what happened, but they must do so in response to a question. This objection exists to prevent long winded witness answers. If a witness has answered the question, but continues telling a story, this objection should be made. Example: “First thing I did that was get up, and go to work. It was fairly normal day at work until the robbery, which happened at around 1 pm. After that the police came, and began interviews. I was taken to the station, and was there until around 10 pm. After this, I came back home….”
Argumentative Question - This objection is made when counsel has asked a question and received an answer, and asks the same question again. If an answer is given, a new question must be asked. Counsel can ask a question multiple times if the witness is not giving a full answer, is being uncooperative or unresponsive. Example: “Did you stop at the stop sign on 5th and Main?”, “No”, “So, to be clear, you ran the stop sign?”
Vague and Ambiguous Question/Answer - This objection is made when either the question asked or answer given is vague and ambiguous in nature. This objection can be used to help a witness answer a confusing question, or help an attorney get a more precise response. Example: “When did you see it happen?”
Non-Responsive Answer - This objection is made when a witness does not answer the question being asked by the attorney. This objection can help an attorney corral the witness and get a straight answer to questions the witness may be trying to avoid. Be careful to avoid making this objection when the witness simply gives a different answer than what was expected or desired. Example: “Weren’t you the last person the victim saw on the night of his death?”, “I had nothing to do with that!”
5. Which amendment(s) outline the responsibility of the courts in terms of due process?
(D) Both the 5th and 14th Amendments
Complete the following scenarios by applying which charges from the penal code would be most likely to get a conviction given the fact pattern:
1. Law enforcement pulls over a suspect after watching them run a red light. After running the license and registration from the vehicle, the vehicle has been labeled as stolen. Upon mirandizing and questioning the suspect, they admit that the vehicle was found in a parking garage, but invokes their 5th amendment rights to all further questions. What charges (if any) would likely pull a conviction? Being that they only can be charged with joyriding, however it all depends on how and when they invoked their rights. If they admit it before the 5th Amendment rights, they have been fully mirandized. If they said it after they invoked the rights, then you can not use any of it and or charge them for anything
2. An individual is seen on camera robbing a convenience store. Upon investigation of the store, finger prints returning to Brian Fantana are found on the safe. Later that day, police detain Brian Fantana and question him without reading his rights. Mr. Fantana goes on to confess entirely to the robbery and is arrested. What charges (if any) would likely pull a conviction? You can not convict of anything in this case because he was not read his rights before questioning.
3. There is a bank robbery with 4 suspects and 2 hostages staged at the Pacific Standard Bank. The police negotiate with the suspects, and receive both hostages and pursue in a motor vehicle chase. Eventually, the suspect’s car fails, and they foot bail, with police in pursuit. During the pursuit, 2 of the individuals turn on the police and open fire, leaving 2 of them grievously wounded, hitting the Kevlar of another, and not hitting the fourth officer at all. What charges (if any) would likely pull a conviction? Attempted Murder of LEO x4. Bank Robbery, Kidnapping x2, Use of a firearm, brandishing,
4. Following the bank robbery and shootout, the 2 remaining suspects return to Pillbox in the attempt to break their comrades out of custody. They wait outside of the building until one comes out, and is placed in a police car. As the officer goes back inside to retrieve the other suspect, they move to the car and get their apprehended comrade out of the car and safely escape. The suspects are later caught. What charges (if any) would likely pull a conviction? What if they entered the building instead?
They would still get the above charges but now escape or jailbreak. If they had went in I am assuming places like hospital is a green zone.
Plaintiff: Erik Bjorg
Defendant: State of San Andreas
Date/approx. time of incident: 22.07.2020 Time: N/A
I. Statement of Claim
I, Erik Bjorg, was riding around town with my friend Micheal Norminguard when he accidentally rammed into the back of a police cruiser.
After a short time fleeing, we arrived in the Mirror Park neighborhood where I exited the vehicle with my hands up. Felony stop occurred
with multiple officers (A. Strife, M. Hall) and i complied with their orders. I stated to the officers that I had not committed any crimes
and didn't want any part in the matter. I was taken into cuffs by Officer Martin Hall, whom asked me if I had any weapons on my person
and immediately searched me. He told me that because he'd found something in my pockets that I'd be under arrest. It was at this moment I
asked Officer Hall why he had searched me if I hadn't committed a crime, been suspected of a crime, or read my rights. He promptly called
for a superior to arrive on scene (Dante Jenkins), and after short deliberation; Mr. Hall removed the cuffs, said that he'd found nothing
on me & told me I was free to go.
I am filing this claim because i believe that the officer M. Hall violated my Fourth Amendment Rights by doing a search just because I
I told him i have a weapon on my person, my criminal history and the fact that it just so happens I was in a vehicle that fled a felony
stop that i had no power to stop. He had no reasonable suspicion to neither frisk or search and yet he did. Upon searching me police officer
found a legally owned pistol registered to me. No items were taken off during the search and I wasn't charged for any of the possessions
I had at the time. Officer Hall had to call a superior officer because he couldn't do his job right and after he was reminded of how to
properly do his job i was released.
I'm seeking $200,000 in punitive damages for violation of my Fourth Amendment Rights.
Myself (Erik Bjorg)
To be submitted to a Judge