Why The Defense Attorney Can Prove That The Victim 's Death Was Caused By His Own Conduct?

710 Words 3 Pages
1. If the Defense attorney can prove that the victim 's death was caused by his/her own conduct rather than the defendant’s actions, then lack of causation can be defended in this case. Even if the defense is not entirely successful, the defendant may be able to get their charges reduced. More than likely, Salt will be charged with negligent homicide, which is a lesser sentence than what he would serve if charged with first or second degree murder. The reason why lack of intent would not suffice as a defense is because Salt did in fact commit an unlawful act aside from the death of Leaf.
2. If charged with first degree murder, Pepper’s chance of claiming insanity is low because the burden of proof is on the defendant rather than the prosecution and because the Pennsylvania statute is based on whether or not the defendant knew right from wrong when Monn was killed. Pepper, in this case, knew that if he were to kill Monn; he could claim insanity and he seemed perfectly sane when he robbed the fast food place and shot her twice.
3. He would have a finer chance claiming insanity if another theory were used besides the statute in Pennsylvania right now. Our state uses the M 'Naghten Rule and the burden of proof isn’t put on the prosecution. The M’Naghten Rule is essentially based on whether or not the defendant knew the nature of the crime they were committing or understood right from wrong when they committed the crime.
4. Regarding the conspiracy…

Related Documents