DOCSLIB.ORG

Harm & Causation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Harm & Causation HARM & CAUSATION TWO KEY HURDLES FOR VICTIMS SEEKING RIGHTS UNDER THE CVRA PUBLIC POLICY • Give victims a voice. • The CVRA “is to be construed broadly so as to achieve the Act’s objective.” Padilla v. Lever, 463 F.3d 1046, 1057 (9th Cir. 2006). • The objective of the CVRA is to dramatically rework the criminal justice system by giving those affected by crime valuable rights, including but not limited to, an independent voice in criminal proceedings. Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D. Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2006). WHAT IS A VICTIM? “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of a Federal offense . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e) SOMETIMES, A VICTIM IS OBVIOUS. • A shoots V • A sexually assaults V • A robs V Common thread: violent crimes. SOMETIMES IT’S NOT • P violates the Clean Air Act • P violates RICO • P violates banking or lending laws • Many Ps distribute child pornography over a period of years KEY ISSUES • Has the victim suffered direct and proximate harm as a result of criminal conduct? • What is “harm”? • Was harm caused by the criminal conduct? • How does this standard differ from the causation standard used in civil tort cases? TWO PART TEST (1)harm would not have occurred but for the criminal conduct, and (2)the causal nexus between the criminal conduct and the harm sustained is not so remote in time or fact as to be unreasonable. United States of America v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., et al., 612 F. Supp. 2d 453, 471 (U.S. Dist. N.J. 2009) citing United States v. Vaknin, 112 F.3d 579, 589-90 (1st Cir. 1997). ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME UNITED STATES V. CITGO CITGO – CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE CLEAN AIR ACT IN 2007 From on or about January, 1994, and continuing to on or about May, 2003 . the defendant [CITGO corporate entities] . did knowingly operate a new stationary source, an oil water separator, which may emit a hazardous pollutant, benzene, that is tank 116 at the Citgo East Plant Refinery, without an emission control device; to wit, a fixed or floating roof to prevent the emission of benzene into the environment. KEY ELEMENTS OF CITGO’S CONDUCT • Knowingly operated equipment • That may emit benzene, a hazardous pollutant • Without proper emission control devices • Over a 9 year period CITGO’S EAST PLANT REFINERY … THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD NUTSHELL FACTS Bad smells, 9 years operating headaches, uncovered tanks; nosebleeds, fear, TCEQ traces smells on increased risk of 2 specific dates in cancer; response to calls decreased property values DISTRICT COURT INITIALLY RULED THERE ARE NO VICTIMS • No expert testimony linking specific diagnoses to benzene discharges from the plant at specific dates/times • Government did produce experts • A sample of neighbors testified to various health- related issues because of the discharges as well as confirmed specific smells • Court initially opined that the tanks caused unpleasant odors, but there was no proof showing the concentration levels in the emissions caused “health effects.” THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORIGINAL “VICTIM” RULING In the present case, the Government has not adequately proven that tanks 116 and 117 are the specific cause of the alleged victims’ health conditions. The Court finds that in light of the potential causal ambiguities, something more than symptoms alone are necessary to prove causation. Although the government has traced a few odors back to tanks 116 and 117, the temporal connection between exposure and symptoms is generally not entitled to great weight. Although tanks 116 and 117 may have caused unpleasant odors, there is no proof showing that the concentration of chemicals in these emissions rose to the level necessary to cause health effects. Due to these circumstances, the proof of causation before this Court is inconclusive. DISTRICT COURT’S DILEMMA • Briefing by Defendant consistently confuses civil tort standard with CVRA standard • Neighborhoods are sandwiched between 3 refineries • Court is extremely concerned that CITGO not be punished for something another refinery did – even though other refineries have not been accused of violating Clean Air Act in same manner • Air monitoring equipment is not placed such that there is physical evidence of benzene concentrations at eye level in the neighborhoods WHY THIS IS AN UNFAIR BURDEN TO VICTIMS • It places undue burden on victims to require that they finance expert witnesses to prove they are victims. • This takes criminal procedure back to Colonial America by forcing victims to underwrite part of their own prosecution. • Common sense says this is different from a tort case. • Victim is NOT a party • Restitution is not the same as tort damages – even though they share some elements • Defendant has already been convicted of a crime under a tougher evidentiary standard • Ignores the fact that environmental statutes criminalize endangerment. PROCEDURAL POSTURE • Government presented multiple motions for reconsideration on the victim issue • All were denied • Months passed, during which victims found pro bono counsel – and – • Lawyers representing the victims filed a motion to be designated crime victims • Court denied the motion based on passage of time: • “Because the community members have not . offered any explanation why they could not have raised their two “new” arguments four years ago, their Motion to be Declared Victims under the CVRA is DENIED.” FIFTH CIRCUIT GRANTS MANDAMUS RELIEF The CVRA does not contain a time limit within which putative crime victims must seek relief in the district court. The only time limit discussed in the statute applies when a victim seeks “to re-open a plea or sentence.” Id. § 3771(d)(5). Because Petitioners are not seeking to reopen a plea or sentence, that provision is inapplicable. Here, where Petitioners raise arguments not previously raised by the Government during the time the Government represented their interests, and where Petitioners have been able to retain counsel, issuance of a writ is appropriate. Accordingly, we direct the district court to consider the arguments raised by pro bono counsel below in Petitioners’ motion to be afforded crime victim status under the CVRA. SMALL SUCCESS ON REMAND: HARM • The victims’ “new” argument was that the Court had improperly required victims to prove “injury” as opposed to “harm.” • The DC presumed “injury” to be a diagnosable health condition. • “Harm” is much less. Being subjected to bad smells is “harm” even if it does not result in a diagnosable condition. • Increasing a person’s risk of contracting a diagnosable disease in the future is also “harm.” INJURY HARM • Physical impact • Broader • Immediate trauma • Can be subjective • Contact that causes • Physical injury not fear in a reasonable required person • Includes increased risk • Objective proof of injury • Diagnosis • May not be • Medical treatment quantifiable in dollars • Quantifiable in dollars DC’S RULING ON REMAND Instead, the Court finds that testimony by the Community Members and other witnesses that they suffered symptoms such as burning eyes, bad taste in the mouth, nose burning, sore throat, skin rashes, shortness of breath, vomiting, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, and headaches is sufficient to constitute “harm” under the CVRA. AND NOW . • Government requested but was denied a sentencing jury. Victims joined in the request. • Victims have filed a request for restitution as a condition of probation (MVRA does not apply.) • Medical monitoring • Relocation expenses • Attorneys fees • Government has identified approximately 500 more victims. All victims, including those represented independently, have filed VIS. IMPACT OF THIS CASE • Recognizes that there is a difference between “harm” under CVRA and “injury” or “damage” in civil cases. • Recognizes endangerment (increased risk of future injury) as harm in environmental crime context. • Confirms that there is no pre-sentencing time limit for victims to request their rights under CVRA. Injury (diagnosed condition) Harm Few Victims Many Victims Objective Subjective Excludes people who may legitimately have Brings more who have suffered under suffered protection of the law Barriers: Still may have uphill battle to prove ¨ Economic (Those who cannot afford medical entitlement to restitution. care won’t have a diagnosis; places burden on victims to hire expert witnesses) ¨ Scientific (Victims may to their doctors , but not get an accurate diagnosis or get referral to the right kind of specialist; monitoring equipment is outside victims’ control) WHY HARM SHOULD BE DEFINED BROADLY IN ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME CASES WHITE COLLAR CRIMES ISSUES • Number of victims in ID theft and fraud schemes • What is the harm when victim is able to recoup money prior to trial/plea • Finger-pointing: • Victim participated in the criminal activity • Double-dipping • Standing to appeal denial of victim status DEFINING FINANCIAL HARM • When is monetary expenditure financial harm • Government Agencies • Pawn Shop • Shareholders ID THEFT • “Crime that keeps on giving” • Even in horrendous cases, victim may not lose money • “The creditor is the real victim.” • Harm beyond economic • Misunderstood and unexpected • Victims suffer wide variety of emotional harm including diagnosable PTSD, depression, anxiety disorders • Value of time spent recovering IDENTITY THEFT ENFORCEMENT AND RESTITUTION ACT • 18 U.S.C. § 3663(b) • Allows victims of identity theft to request restitution for the time spent repairing their credit • “Identity theft” encompasses a wide range of criminal statutes, e.g.: • identification fraud
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Without Causation, Fraud and Subsequent Loss Are Not Adequate Grounds for Recovery Tom O'connor
    Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 4 Article 4 1997 Without Causation, Fraud and Subsequent Loss are Not Adequate Grounds for Recovery Tom O'Connor Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation Tom O'Connor Without Causation, Fraud and Subsequent Loss are Not Adequate Grounds for Recovery, 9 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 309 (1997). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol9/iss4/4 This Recent Case is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Consumer Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT CA SES Without Causation, Fraud and Subsequent Loss Are Not Adequate Grounds for Recovery by Tom O'Connor In Mark Law v. Medco Research September 1, 1992 should have a new drug was "on track." These Inc., 113 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 1997), provided "storm warnings" to articles reported that: (1) Defen- Mark Law ("Plaintiffs") filed a class investors and satisfied the notice dants' supplier of pharmaceuticals, action suit for similarly situated requirement. These articles called Fujisawa, was suing the company investors in Medco Research Inc. Defendants an "overpriced hype which sold Fujisawa the production ("Defendants"), claiming Defen- job" whose stock was bought by facilities for Defendants' drug, and dants defrauded their investors. The "idiots." In reviewing this argu- (2) Fujisawa's production facility United States Court of Appeals for ment, the court noted that these had quality and regulatory problems the Seventh Circuit dismissed the articles were not given credence by in producing a number of its drugs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: an Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1987 The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines Alan O. Sykes Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alan O. Sykes, "The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines," 101 Harvard Law Review 563 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 101 JANUARY 1988 NUMBER 3 HARVARD LAW REVIEW1 ARTICLES THE BOUNDARIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT RULE AND RELATED LEGAL DOCTRINES Alan 0. Sykes* 441TICARIOUS liability" may be defined as the imposition of lia- V bility upon one party for a wrong committed by another party.1 One of its most common forms is the imposition of liability on an employer for the wrong of an employee or agent. The imposition of vicarious liability usually depends in part upon the nature of the activity in which the wrong arises. For example, if an employee (or "servant") commits a tort within the ordinary course of business, the employer (or "master") normally incurs vicarious lia- bility under principles of respondeat superior. If the tort arises outside the "scope of employment," however, the employer does not incur liability, absent special circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law--Conspiracy and the Felony Murder Doctrine in Kentucky J
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 29 | Issue 1 Article 14 1940 Criminal Law--Conspiracy and the Felony Murder Doctrine in Kentucky J. Wirt Turner Jr. University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Turner, J. Wirt Jr. (1940) "Criminal Law--Conspiracy and the Felony Murder Doctrine in Kentucky," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 29 : Iss. 1 , Article 14. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol29/iss1/14 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KENTUCKY LAw JOURNAL In conclusion, it is submitted that the felony murder doctrine in Kentucky is based on the same principles as the negligent murder doctrine, since to convict a defendant of murder for a death occuring during the commission of a felony there must first be a felony dangerous to life and, secondly, the death of the victim must be the necessary or natural consequence of the felony. J. GRiANVILLE CLARK CRIMINAL LAW-CONSPIRACY AND THE FELONY MURDER DOCTRINE IN KENTUCKY* Defendant was indicted jointly with two others for the crime of wilful murder by setting fire to a house and burning a child to death. The evidence showed that defendant was not near enough to aid and abet in the crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Liability and Liability for the Actions of Others II
    InDret Vicarious Liability and Liability for the Actions of Others II Pablo Salvador Coderch Professor of Law Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona (Spain) [email protected] Carlos Ignacio Gómez Ligüerre Assistant Professor of Law Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona (Spain) [email protected] July 2002 www.indret.com InDret 03/2002 Pablo Salvador and Carlos Gómez Summary 1. Vicarious liability or liability for the actions of others as a mean of overcoming the principle of individual liability 2. Civil and Criminal Rules governing Civil liability for the actions of others 2.1. Reasons for the existence of two sets of rules that are almost identical, one in section 1903 of the Civil Code and the other in section 120 of the Criminal Code 2.2. Liability due to personal dependency: parents and tutors 2.3. Liability stemming from professional dependency: employers and school owners and teachers a) Relationship of Dependency b) Performance of their liabilities and services c) Reimbursement in favor of the principal 3. From Dependency to Control 4. Bibliography 2 InDret 03/2002 Pablo Salvador and Carlos Gómez Abstract The two traditional branches that regulate civil liability in Spain are the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 (sections 1902, 1903 and 1904) and the Spanish Criminal Code of 1995 (section 120), they determine the harm caused by actions or omissions that are neither crimes nor misdemeanors and those deemed to be, respectively. This work analyzes vicarious liability or liability for the actions of others as one of the legal mechanisms anticipated to overcome civil liability once it has been determined that the principle of individual liability –due to negligence or strict liability– is impractical given the limited solvency of the majority of individuals responsible for a damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Dressler Criminal Law Outline
    DRESSLER CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTORY POINTS A. Sources of Criminal Law. 1. Common Law. 2. Statutes Derived from Common Law. 3. Model Penal Code. 4. (Bill of Rights) B. Criminal Law v. Civil Law 1. Criminal a. Defendant is punished (incarcerated) b. The criminal conviction itself says defendant is a moral wrongdoer. It is a condemnation by the community/ “a morality play.” → (Moral blameworthiness) • Usually about things you are not supposed to do as opposed to things you must do • 2. Civil a. Defendant pays victim. (compensation) b. Defendant is not morally stigmatized. (tort claims) C. Theories of Punishment. 1. Retributivism “Is it more about desert” a. People should get what they deserve. b. Humans have free will. If they choose to do wrong, it is appropriate to punish them. c. Looks backwards. Only punishes to the extent of the wrongdoing. d. Justice for the victim • The moral desert of an offender is a sufficient reason to punish him or her which is a necessary condition of punishment • Wouldn’t want to punish someone mentally ill bc they are not morally culpable • Rests on moral culpability 2. Utilitarianism – “What good does it do” • Focuses on what punishing that particular person accomplishes a. All forms of pain are bad. Punishment is not good, but neither is crime. Punishment is proper if imposition of pain will reduce the likelihood of future crimes. b. Punishment is justified in so far as it produces some net social benefit. Forward Looking c. Forms of utilitarianism. i. General deterrence: ● convince the general community to avoid criminal conduct in the future ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton Alex Kreit [email protected]
    American University Law Review Volume 57 | Issue 3 Article 2 2008 Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton Alex Kreit [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Kreit, Alex. “Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton.” American University Law Review 57, no.3 (February, 2008): 585-639. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton Abstract This article considers what limits the constitution places on holding someone criminally liable for another's conduct. While vicarious criminal liability is often criticized, there is no doubt that it is constitutionally permissible as a general matter. Under the long-standing felony murder doctrine, for example, if A and B rob a bank and B shoots and kills a security guard, A can be held criminally liable for the murder. What if, however, A was not involved in the robbery but instead had a completely separate conspiracy with B to distribute cocaine? What relationship, if any, does the constitution require between A's conduct and B's crimes in order to hold A liable for them? It is clear A could not be punished for B's crimes simply because they are friends.
    [Show full text]
  • § 3.2 Causation: the Requirements for Holding an Actor Accountable for a Result 125
    122 Chapter 3. Objective Requirements of an Offense a circumstance, purpose requires only that one the same set out for the 10 In other req[uir·ement of purpose req:uin:ment of knowledge. classified as results, but Thus, if "obstructs" is inter~ § 3.2 Causation: The Requirements for Holding an for example, the state need ouly Actor Accountable for a Result satisfy the special requirements of obstruction would not have occurred § 3.2.1 Requirements of Causation: Factual and Proximate Cause if "obstructs" is viewed as embodying Factual ("but-for") cause: scientific inquiry result element, then the state must prove Alternative sufficient-cause test responsible for bringing about a resulting Proximate (legal) cause: normative inquiry Proximity examples Proposed definitions seem consistent with the spirit and Foreseeability as factor in determining proximate cause Penal Code scheme. Define "conduct" elements Vagueness in the proximate-cause standard actual physical acts of the actor. Define all char- § 3.2.2 Causing Another Person to Cause a Result to be separate "circumsta ements; similarly, Intervening actor's volitional act breaks chain by the conduct should be de separate "result" Influencing intervening actor's exercise of volition "result" elements to be any e in the surrounding Continuum of volition brought about by the offend nduct, that the offense Causing another's crime as form of complicity occur. As with conduct, define aracteristics of a result to § 3.2.3 Multiple Causes "circumstance" dements. 13 Imputing co-criminal's causal conduct mustration: "obstructing an offense of "obstructing lie highway" would essentially "Combined effect" analysis a highway" proof that the actor "engage conduct that caused the obstruc- Dangers of "combined effect" of a public highway." "Obst on" would be a result element; the Serial vs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Conspiracy and Collective Reason Jens David Ohlin
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 98 Article 4 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2007 Group Think: The Law of Conspiracy and Collective Reason Jens David Ohlin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Jens David Ohlin, Group Think: The Law of Conspiracy and Collective Reason, 98 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 147 (2007-2008) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9801-0147 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 98, No. I Copyright 0 2008 by Northwestern University, Schoolof Law Printed in U.S.A. GROUP THINK: THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY AND COLLECTIVE REASON JENS DAVID OHLIN* Although vicarious liability for the acts of co-conspirators is firmly entrenched in federal courts, no adequate theory explains how the act and intention of one conspiratorcan be attributed to another, simply by virtue of their criminal agreement. This Article argues that the most promising avenue for solving the Pinkerton paradox is an appeal to the collective intention of the conspiratorialgroup to commit the crime. Unfortunately, misplaced skepticism about the notion of a "group will" has prevented criminal scholars from embracing the notion of a conspiracy's collective intention to commit a crime. However, positing group intentions requires only that the criminal law recognize the rational relationships between individuals who decide to collectivize reason to pursue a common criminal goal; no burdensome theory of corporate animals with unified minds is required.
    [Show full text]
  • Causation and Harm in Data Breach Litigation
    Causation and Harm In Data Breach Litigation Demonstrating that a data breach has resulted in an injury-in-fact can be difficult, because it is not always clear what has happened or will happen with the stolen data. by Brian Ellman and Jee-Yeon Lehmann; Analysis Group, Inc. Originally published in Cybersecurity Law & Strategy Brian Ellman Jee-Yeon Lehmann Data breaches can have substantial adverse impacts on firms, not only in the form of negative publicity or harm to a company’s brand and revenues, but through liti- gation that may result. A key point of contention in data breach litigation has been whether plaintiffs have met the injury-in-fact standing requirement of Article III of the Constitution. Demonstrating that a data breach has resulted in an injury-in-fact can be difficult, because it is not always clear what has happened or will happen with the stolen data. For example, suppose hackers gained access to consumers’ personal information but the information has not yet been misused. In that case, the breach will not have resulted in actual economic harm to the consumers even though risk for future harm from the breach may remain. As a result of this dynamic, plaintiffs in data breach litigation typ- ically allege harm in terms of something that could happen (i.e., an increased risk of future injury) rather than something that did happen. The determination of standing under Article III also hinges on whether the pres- ent or future alleged harm was caused by the data breach in question, as opposed to another independent event or factor.
    [Show full text]
  • CAUSATION and FEDERAL SECURITIES FRAUD Lexisnexis
    ARTICLE: CAUSE FOR CONCERN: CAUSATION AND FEDERAL SECURITIES FRAUD March, 2009 Reporter 94 Iowa L. Rev. 811 Length: 29006 words Author: Jill E. Fisch* * Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Much of this Article was written while the author was the T.J. Maloney Professor of Business Law, Fordham Law School, and Director of the Fordham Corporate Law Center. Copyright 2009 by Jill E. Fisch. I am grateful to Paul Miller for helpful conversations, to Jennifer Arlen, Bill Bratton, Victor Brudney, Allen Ferrell, Jesse Fried, Jeff Gordon, Marc Gross, Elizabeth Nowicki, Dan Richman, Cathy Sharkey, Richard Squire, Jane Stapleton, David Tabak, and Ben Zipursky for probing comments on earlier drafts, and to Sriram Kilapakkam, Columbia Law School LL.M. Class of 2008, for excellent research assistance. I presented earlier drafts of this Article to seminars and faculty workshops at Columbia Law School, Harvard Law School, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Fordham Law School, UCLA Law School, Boston University Law School, and Georgetown University Law Center. I received many valuable suggestions at each session. LexisNexis Summary … Although the Third Restatement does incorporate the negligence requirement that the defendant's tortious conduct increase the risk of harm, in practice, few cases even consider something akin to a loss causation analysis. … Causal Complexity in Securities Litigation The courts' application of tort law causation principles, particularly complex
    [Show full text]
  • Causation and the Excuses
    Causation and the Excuses Michael S. Mooret My target in this paper is a theory of excuse that I call the causal theory. The causal theory is partly descriptive and partly normative. The descriptive part asserts that the established excuses of Anglo-Ameri- can criminal law can best be understood in terms of causation. Accord- ing to this part of the theory, when an agent is caused to act by a factor outside his control, he is excused; only those acts not caused by some factor external to his will are unexcused. The normative part of the the- ory asserts that the criminal law is morally right in excusing all those, and only those, whose actions are caused by factors outside their control. In a nutshell, the causal theory of excuse regards causation as the core of both legal and moral excuse. I shall urge that we must reject the causal theory of excuse. It neither describes accurately the accepted excuses of our criminal law nor provides a morally acceptable basis for deciding what conditions ought to qualify as excuses from criminal liability. I shall approach my thesis gradually, for some preliminary work must be done. In Part I below, I examine what a theory of excuse is. To do this I shall ask first what the excuses are and how they differ both from one another and from justifica- tions. I shall then ask what a theory of excuse might be and how one might argue for or against such a theory. In Part II, I attempt to show why the causal theory of excuse is so widely accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix Case 18-163, Document 190, 03/02/2021, 3047020, Page1 of 120
    Petitioner’s Appendix Case 18-163, Document 190, 03/02/2021, 3047020, Page1 of 120 18-163-cr United States v. Scott In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2020 No. 18-163-cr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. GERALD SCOTT, Defendant-Appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ARGUED EN BANC: NOVEMBER 6, 2020 DECIDED: MARCH 2, 2021 Before: LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, LEVAL, CABRANES, POOLER, KATZMANN, RAGGI, CHIN, LOHIER, CARNEY, SULLIVAN, BIANCO, PARK, NARDINI, and MENASHI, Circuit Judges.* ___________ * Judge Hall did not participate in the consideration of this en banc appeal. Judge Leval, Judge Katzmann, and Judge Raggi, who are senior judges, participated in this en banc decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 294(c). 1 CERTIFIED COPY ISSUED ON 03/02/2021 Pet. App. 1a Case 18-163, Document 190, 03/02/2021, 3047020, Page2 of 120 18-163-cr United States v. Scott RAGGI, J., filed the majority opinion in which LIVINGSTON, C.J., CABRANES, CHIN, SULLIVAN, BIANCO, PARK, and NARDINI, JJ., joined in full, and in which MENASHI, J., joined in part. PARK, J., filed a concurring opinion in which LIVINGSTON, C.J., CABRANES, SULLIVAN, and NARDINI, JJ., joined. MENASHI, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. LEVAL, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KATZMANN, LOHIER and CARNEY, JJ., joined in full, and in which POOLER, J., joined in part. POOLER, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which LEVAL and CARNEY, JJ., joined as to Parts I–IV.
    [Show full text]