Legal Analysis

Legal Analysis

I will be analyzing a case where a divorced woman named Carol Smith gets arrested for trying to attack a top judge of her state’s supreme court. Peak and Giacomazzi (2019) explain how Carol is frustrated by the courts have refusal to hear her application for review of the denial of a custody case. Earlier on, the court had granted her husband custody of their 10-year old son. His case was successful because he was able to prove that Carol was negligent and uncaring to their son and as such unworthy of taking him with her after their divorce.  After filing several unsuccessful petitions, she turns violent and threatens to do a major crime in the capital to force the Supreme Court to hear her case. Her actions outside the Supreme Court leads to her arrest by the police (Peak & Giacomazzi, 2019). This discus why none of the possible charges against can sail through and the loopholes the defense can exploit to secure her freedom.

Carol’s case is important to analyze because, according to Morgan and Jorna (2018), it presents the criminal justice officers involved with a parody. First, it represents a severe threat to the judicial system since her actions threaten the lives of top judicial officers.  Her conduct is terroristic (Capellan & Lewandowski, 2019) since she intends to instill fear and intimidation on the judges in a bid to getting them to hear her petition application, she is even open about it as she freely reveals her plans to her neighbors and relatives. If indeed the police can prove that she meant what she said, Carol could face an attempted murder case trial, and if found guilty, Kleck (2019) states that she could land herself a life sentence. Even though she might get parole, she would still spend up to 15 years in prison. Thus, it is vital to analyze the facts, in this case, to ensure that she can receive a just and appropriate sentence.

For one, the case is not straight forward as the police must obtain evidence for these allegations (Gueissaz et al., 2016). And this is where there is a twist in the whole process. The law dictates one is innocent until the court finds them guilty. From the information presented, it is possible that the court would acquit Carol of the accusation.

Firstly, it is difficult to ascertain whether, indeed, she meant to shoot the judge. In the first place, did she own a gun?  Carol may be a sycophant and delights in terrifying people by acting weirdly or making big-sounding claims that are false. Carol appears to be enjoying the attention she is attracting from her neighbors since they respond with fear to her threats. Informing her relative of her intentions further supports this view. She perhaps had figured out that the relative would call the police on her but goes ahead to ring them nonetheless. Hence, she probably only wanted to scare the relative with news of her possessing a gun. In this case, the court cannot confirm the attempted murder accusation.

Secondly, even although she made a phone call claiming to be planning to shoot the judge, this is not enough evidence to charge her with attempted murder (Gagliardi, 2019). Assuming she indeed had carried a gun to the court premises, since she had not yet tried to shoot at the judge, the prosecution cannot align her for attempting to kill him. The police arrested her before she committed the alleged crime. Thus, the law requires that for one to be charged with attempted murder, they must have engaged in a life-threatening activity in which they engaged in an actual attempt to kill the defendant. As such, since Carol did not shoot on the judge in a real sense, she cannot be charged with such a crime. Hence, according to Gueissaz et al. (2016), the jury would have to drop an attempted murder case against the basis of unfounded claims since the circumstances surrounding her case do not amount to such an offense.

As such, only the lesser crimes, such as criminal threats or unruly conduct, can apply in this situation. The two charges are justified (Capellan & Lewandowski, 2019) since she indeed instilled panic in her neighbors through her consistent claims to carry out revenge in the capitol to coarse the Supreme Court to sustain her petition (Kenneth, 2016). In one instance, she mentioned to her former grocery store coworkers that she planned to go on a shooting rampage at the capital. Again she kept repeating her violent intentions in the hearing of the neighbors who became alarmed as a result. Similarly, the criminal threat charge is warranted since she sustained her threats to the judges demanding that they hear her out (Capellan & Lewandowski, 2019). However, if the prosecution takes this path, they would find it difficult to establish whether her threats were the product of a sober mind or an impaired one. Her abrupt change in behavior, as evidenced by her controversial letter to Supreme Court judges, suggests that she could have been in depression or some other mental disorder. Hence the defense can request for a psychiatric examination. If the results are positive, then she could avoid a jail sentence and instead be enrolled in an anger-management class. I support this conclusion because it is apparent that Carol’s actions are anger-driven and that the frustration at the courts has had significant impairment on her decision-making ability.

Several legal theories and concepts apply in Carol’s case. For one, her case would follow the criminal model where the state prosecutes while the police conduct investigations. The US justice system recognizes the rational choice theory which demands that the choice to commit a crime be out of a logical thought process. Thus to charge Carol, the prosecution would have to prove that she was in the right frame of her mind when she committed the said crime. Also, Carol does not have a criminal record which means she is not a practicing criminal and thus according to the social learning theory; her behavior can better be corrected through an educational intervention rather than criminal punishment. This decision would be in line with the best action policies under US criminal law that requires decisions be made in such a way that they enhance prevention of crime rather than fostering it.

In conclusion, though Carol’s case appears straight forward from a first glance, it is complicated in many ways. Only diligent investigation can solve the riddles surrounding her case. Besides, it is possible that she is not as harmful as she appears since she could be reacting to frustrations at the courts. As such, the defense should press for a psychiatric examination. This way, she could escape a jail term and instead be forced to attend counseling sessions.

References

Capellan, J. A., & Lewandowski, C. (2019). Can threat assessment help police prevent mass public shootings? Testing an intelligence-led policing tool. Policing: An International Journal.

Gueissaz, L., et al. (2016). Evaluation and examination of a possible shoe-polish trace in a hold-up case. Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, 2(4), 233.

Peak, K. J., & Giacomazzi, A. L. (2019). Justice administration: police, courts, and corrections management. NY, NY: Pearson.

Kleck, G. (2019). Regulating guns among young adults. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(5), 689-704.

Morgan, A., & Jorna, P. (2018). Impact of ballistic evidence on criminal investigations. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 548, 1.

Rose, J. A., & Lacher, D. C. (2016). Managing public safety technology: Deploying systems in police, courts, corrections, and fire organizations. Taylor & Francis.