talking about criminal law. This is one

area of law that it's important for you

to know and be aware of, just as a

citizen. So that you'll know what your

rights are, and so you can recognize when

those rights are being violated. So just

to begin: there are two basic categories

that any crime could fall into. And

that's felonies and misdemeanors. A

felony is a crime that is punishable by

more than one year in jail. And a

misdemeanor is a lesser offense that is

punishable by less than one year in jail.

So that's the distinction between a

felony and a misdemeanor. Now with any

crime, there are two elements that

have to be proven. You have to prove that

there was a guilty act; an actus reas,

and you have to prove that there was a

guilty mind - that the defendant had a

guilty mind mens rea. So as far as the

guilty act, it could be solicitation;

trying to get somebody to help you

commit a crime even if they end up not

helping you, just the fact that you asked

them could be a guilty act. It could be

conspiracy; for you and one or two other

people get together and plan a crime. You

don't go as far as actually attempting

it, but you plan for it and maybe gather

some guns or something to help you when

you do attempt it. So that will be

conspiracy. The third thing that could

constitute an act would be an attempt. So

not only do you gather supplies and plan,

but then you actually try to carry it

out. You may not succeed but you tried to

carry it out, and that would be an

attempt .And then the last option there

for the guilty act is, if you actually

complete the crime. You consummate the

crime. Then that would satisfy the guilty

act requirement. As far as the guilty

mind the mens rea, there are different

levels of the guilty mind, the most

serious is the

inttentional where you have sat down and

thought it through and planned it out

like a premeditated murder. The least

serious guilty mind is that of

negligence. For instance they were

speeding and happened to hit a pedestrian.

While you weren't trying to hit the

pedestrian, you didn't mean to, you were

just being negligent. And that would be

negligent homicide, where this guilty

mind is going to come into play is in

the punishment phase of the criminal

case. If you're found guilty and you're

being sentenced, if you intentionally

committed a crime, you're going to get a

more serious punishment than someone who

was reckless or negligent. And so that's

how those different levels of intent come into

play. So some specific crimes that I want

to point out and make sure you

understand the differences between them-

primarily looking at theft and related

crimes. Robbery occurs if you forcefully

or unlawfully take the personal property

of someone else. Burglary occurs when you

unlawfully enter a building with the

intent to commit a felony. Notice that that

you don't have to actually steal

anything or take anything to commit

burglary. Just the fact that you

unlawfully entered with the intent to

commit a felony is sufficient. Then I

want to look at these theft crimes. The

text discusses these separately, but

they're really all just different theft

crimes. The first one there is larceny.

Larceny occurs when you take something

from somebody else with the intent to

permanently deprive them of their

property. It's similar to robbery, you're

taking somebody else's property without

their permission.

But the difference is that with robbery,

there's some force or some intimidation

involved and you don't have that with

larceny. So for instance if you're

walking down the street and somebody

sneaks up behind you and picks your

pocket, well they haven't committed

robbery, because there was no force or

intimidation used. But they have

committed larceny, because they've taken

your property with the intent to deprive.

False pretenses is another theft crime.

The distinction here is that with false

pretenses, the defendant has tricked you

into giving them the property. And then

embezzlement. The distinction here is

that when someone embezzles funds or

property, it's something that has already

been entrusted to them. For instance, if

you were the bookkeeper at your place of

business and you handled all the bank

deposits and that was your job

responsibilities, and you happen to help

yourself to a few thousand dollars of

the bank deposit, well, that would be

embezzlement. That money was entrusted to

you as part of your job, and you took it

for your own use. The last theft related

crime I want to talk about is

receiving stolen property. Any time that

you receive property that you know or

should have known was stolen you could

be committing the crime of receipt of

stolen property. Next I want to talk

about some defenses that can come into

play in the criminal arena. First is self

defense and the general rule with self

defense is that you can use reasonable

force to defend yourself. What's

reasonable force? Well it's a

case-by-case determination. If someone is

coming at you with a big stick, would it

be reasonable for you to pull out a gun

and shoot them? Well no that wouldn't be

reasonable use of force.

But you can probably you know pick up a

stick of your own to defend yourself you

could probably punch, or kick, something like

that to defend yourself. But use of a gun

in that scenario would probably not be

reasonable force. So it's a case-by-case

determination as to what's reasonable.

Now the one exception to this reasonable

force requirement is if someone breaks

and enters your home. In Tennessee we

have what is called castle doctrine. And

the basic idea is that if someone enters

your home without your permission,

there's a presumption that they are

there to do you harm and you have the

right to shoot first and ask questions

later. So that's the one exception to

this reasonable force rule. Necessity--

sometimes a criminal defendant can show

that, "hey had to commit this criminal

act in order to prevent some more

serious even greater harm from occurring."

If they can establish that, they may be

able to make out a defense for necessity.

Insanity--The defense of insanity looks

at the time that the crime was committed

and says at the time that the defendant

committed that crime, did he understand

what he was doing did he understand the

difference between right and wrong? And

so it looks at the time that the crime

is committed. Mistake-- mistake maybe a

defense usually because it negates the

intent, the mens rea. For instance, if

I have a black leather jacket and hang

it up at a restaurant and another

customer who also has a black leather

jacket accidentally picks mine up and

walks out with my jacket mistakenly

believing it was his. Well he didn't have

the intent to steal my jacket,

he was mistaken and so he would assert

the defensive mistake if he were to be

prosecuted for theft. Duress--duress is

the defense that can be raised where

some sort of pressure has been placed on

a person causing them to act in a way

that they normally wouldn't. The classic

scenario of this would be the bad guys

call you and say, "Hey if you don't rob

the bank I'm going to shoot your wife

and kids. They're here and I've got a gun

to their head." in that situation you

would go rob the bank and you would have

the valid defense of duress. There was

fear of real harm to your wife and your

children if you didn't carry out that

act. Entrapment--This is basically a

defense where you're saying hey the cops

made me do it. In order for the defendant

to win on this defense, they'd have to

show that the government somehow induced

them to commit a crime that they would

not have otherwise committed. This is a

stretch of the defense and it doesn't

work very often. Statute of limitations--

a statue of limitations just limits the

amount of time that you have to file a

lawsuit, or in this case to prosecute a

crime, and so if enough time has passed

prosecution may be barred by that

statute of limitations. The last defense that

might be raised is the defense of

immunity-- occasionally the government

will agree to grant immunity to a

defendant so that they can be used to

testify against some other defendant. And

once that agreement is in place then the

person will testify but they cannot be

prosecuted. There are some constitutional

protections that you need to know. The

United States offers a number of

protections the accused through our

Constitution. The first one that I'll

mention is protection under the Fourth

Amendment and that is this requirement

of probable cause. It basically says

police cannot search you or your your

vehicle your home without probable cause.

And they can't arrest you or seize you

without probable cause. So what does

probable cause mean? It means that they

have a reasonable belief that a crime

has been committed and basically that

you have some part in it. The Fifth

Amendment guarantees you the right under

the protection of double jeopardy which

means that you cannot be tried twice for

the same crime. Also if a jury returns a

verdict of not guilty then that is that.

You cannot be tried twice for that crime.

The system also assures you the right to

remain silent. You don't have to testify

or talk to the police if you don't want

to. You can speak up and assert your

Fifth Amendment right to remain silent

you don't have to testify or provide

information that incriminates you. Under

the Sixth Amendment we are guaranteed

the right to be represented by an

attorney. But again you do have to speak

up and asert that right. Under the

Eighth Amendment we are guaranteed

protection from excessive bail, and we're

also guaranteed that we're protected

from cruel and unusual punishment. What

has the court, what do the courts

consider to be cruel and unusual

punishment? Well the courts have said

that execution of juveniles is cruel and

unusual punishment, they have also said

that execution of those who are mentally

ill is also a form of cruel and unusual

punishment.

The Miranda rights or Miranda rule-- as