032.05 Man In A Bar 2 – Checklist

ITKM Issue. Identified intent to kill murder as an issue.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

ITKM Specific Intent – Prosecution's argument. Noted that Begby's statement that he wanted to kill Sheamus was evidence of his intent to kill Sheamus.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

ITKM Specific Intent – Prosecution's argument. Observed that Sheamus broke the pool cue in two, creating a sharp, deadlier stabbing object rather than a blunt weapon, also suggesting that perhaps Sheamus intended deadlier harm to Begby. He did this on purpose and stood "menacingly" — this was not an accident.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

ITKM Specific Intent – Sheamus's argument. Pointed out what happened after he said he wanted to kill Begby – namely that Sheamus's bravado that was turned to fear after he said it, Begby chewed glass and Sheamus backed away from Begby out of fear. That is, Sheamus's intent to kill Begby may have changed. Mens rea and actus reus must coincide at the same time. This is made clear by this example: if you intend to kill someone on day 1, but then forgive the person and accidentally kill the person on day 2, you have not committed murder.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

ITKM Specific Intent – prosecution's argument. Noted that Sheamus intended to kill Begby because he turned the broken pool cue towards Begby purposefully.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

ITKM Specific Intent – conclusion. Give yourself a point if you offered a reasoned conclusion here that there was or was not intent. This is a close one. But you had to conclude to get the point here.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

ITKM Act of Killing – prosecution's argument. Observed that Sheamus's turning the pool cue towards Begby was the act that lead to the "killing of a human being."

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

ITKM Act of Killing – Sheamus's argument. Sheamus would argue that there was no "actus reus" by him as the act of merely turning a pool cue was not a "killing act." That is, Sheamus might argue, it was Begby's running into the broken pool cue that killed Begby.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

ITKM Act of Killing – Sheamus's Argument. Noted potentially weak but not crazy argument that Sheamus did not "kill" Begby because he bled to death 1 hour later. This is not a great argument but a lawyer for Sheamus would try any non-ridiculous argument at his disposal. The common law rule requires that he kill Sheamus.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

ITKM Act of Killing – Conclusion. You recognized the better view that Sheamus would lose on this issue. The reason for this is a general principle that you take your victim as you find him. If Sheamus had already been holding out the pool cue and did not turn it towards Begby, the issue might be closer. But Sheamus turned the cue towards Begby, and this makes all the difference.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Attempt Liability – ITKM of Begby – Issue Identification. Give yourself a point for considering attempt liability by Sheamus to kill Begby.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Attempt Liability – clarity in identifying the underlying crime attempted. Give yourself a point if you were very clear that you were analyzing the attempt liability of Sheamus for trying to kill Begby. Do not give yourself a point if you just said "hey, attempt liability here!"

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Attempt Liability (ITKM of Begby) – Prosecution's argument. The prosecution would borrow the analysis of specific intent from its analysis of Intent to Kill Murder.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Attempt Liability (ITKM of Begby) – Sheamus's argument. Sheamus would borrow the analysis of specific intent from its analysis of Intent to Kill Murder. You should not give yourself extra points for repeating this analysis.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Attempt Liability (ITKM of Begby) – Proximity to completing the crime – Conclusion. Sheamus would win this argument, but not for great reasons. Normally "attempt liability" disappears because you can't "attempt" a crime you have actually completed. Here we are just focused on the act – Begby is dead and whether or not Sheamus is liable for ITKM (which likely turns on intent), we can't also get him for attempting to kill Begby.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Mixing affirmative defense analysis with ITKM. No points if you tried to insert or mix the affirmative defense here with the analysis of the prima facie. You need to analyze the prima facie elements first, then the elements of the defenses separate. One of the keys to being a lawyer is clean, compartmentalized thinking. You might win a case overall but you have to think very systematically about which specific issues you might win or lose in order to understand the bigger picture. To analyze an affirmative defense out of turn is something that a non-lawyer would do. It also, as Sheamus's lawyer, deprives his client of two lines of defense. First, you start by trying to shoot down the prima facie elements. If you prevail there, Sheamus is home free. But if not you still have a backup in the form of the affirmative defenses.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Issue – Intoxication Conclusion. Concluded that intoxication negates specific intent to kill for Sheamus. This is not much of an argument. One could at least make an argument that Sheamus was in a bar and, it stands to reason, drinking in that bar, and therefore potentially intoxicated. Sheamus appears not to be intoxicated to the point of black-out drunkenness. Unlike Begby, for instance, there is no suggestion that he is unsteady on his feet; nor do we have a sense how much he was drinking.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

NO POINTS if you tried to suggest that Sheamus would prevail on the intoxication defense. There are simply not enough facts in the story above to support this.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self-defense – issue identification. Identified self-defense as an issue at all (the factual hook is Begby's aggressiveness towards him).

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – imminent harm – element analysis. You remembered to analyze "imminent harm" as an element of self-defense.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – imminent harm – Sheamus's argument. Noted that Sheamus would argue that the element of "imminent harm" was probably met by Begby's rushing towards him.|

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – imminent harm – Sheamus's argument 2. Noted that Sheamus would argue that "imminent harm" is further supported by the fact that Begby committed a dangerous battery by hitting him with a beer glass that in fact broke and shredded his face.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – imminent harm – Prosecution's argument. Noted that the prosecution might argue that the difference in size between the men (Begby is a "vertically challenged little asshat," Sheamus is a retired professional wrestler) may reduce the imminence of the harm.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – imminent harm – Conclusion. Concluded that Sheamus would probably prevail on imminent harm.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – proportionality. Remembered to analyze "use of force proportional to threat" as an element of self-defense.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – proportionality – Sheamus's argument 1. Argued for Sheamus that his use of force (sharp pool cue) was proportional to Begby's apparent threat because Begby, a man apparently impervious to pain, was running at him screaming.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – proportionality – Sheamus's argument 2. Noted that Begby had already used a very high level of dangerous force just before this, provoking the whole situation, by hitting Sheamus in the head with the beer glass.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – proportionality – Sheamus's argument 3. Argued for Sheamus that in fact, unbeknownst to him at the time, Begby had a hidden gun and might have used deadly force. (This is barely colorable but worth at least trying to raise if you note that this is a crap argument)

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – proportionality – Prosecution's argument. Noted likely prosecution argument that Begby ran at Sheamus but did not possess similar sharp object, so use of stabbing weapon was disproportionate to Begby's crazy run at Sheamus.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – proportionality – Prosecution's argument 2. Noted likely prosecution argument that Begby did not in fact draw his handgun at Sheamus, and that handgun was not a threat of force unless Begby pulled it out.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – proportionality – Conclusion. A well-reasoned conclusion here, meaning conclusion could come either way but acknowledges that this is a close argument.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – reasonable harm perception. Remembered to analyze "reasonable person would perceive harm" as an element of self-defense.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – reasonable harm perception – Sheamus's argument. Noted that a reasonable person in Sheamus's position would have perceived harm from guy who had battered him with a beer glass who started running towards him after chewing glass (this is an aggressive person who does not experience pain).

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – reasonable harm perception – Prosecution's argument. Noted that relative size difference would affect perception of harm (Begby is small, as Sheamus noted, calling him "little psycho.")

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – reasonable harm perception – Sheamus's counter-argument. Noted that Begby is small but no facts suggest he is "little person" type small such that his rushing at Sheamus would negate Sheamus's reasonable apprehension of harm.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – reasonable harm perception – Prosecution's argument. Noted specifically that Begby's handgun can not affect the reasonability of Sheamus's apprehension of harm given that Sheamus was not aware of it at the time.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – reasonable harm perception – Conclusion. Tied this all three elements together and making a reasonable conclusion.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Self defense – reasonable harm perception – Conclusion . Took the view (which I think is the better one) that Sheamus should prevail on self-defense. This is a close question, but I think in real life, Sheamus would more likely than not win on self-defense. Note here that coming to the "right" conclusion is only worth 1 point. The analysis, tying each fact to an element of a crime or defense, is everything.

Correct Incorrect Correct answer

Pos.	Name	Entered on	Points	Result
Table is loading
No data available

032.05 Man In A Bar 2 – Checklist

Quiz Summary

Information

Results

Results

Categories

1. Question

Average score
Your score