Comments on: The Stevens Defense: Alaskan Claims that He Didn’t Intend to Steal Car and Thus Is Innocent

By: Bob, Esq.

Bob, Esq. — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:45:10 +0000

To clarify, when I said:

“The BAC may help here as well; although, if defendant can’t show that the car was already running, seems to me he’s SOL”

Not only was I being sarcastic about the probability of success per defendant’s success, but I was specifically addressing the nexus between intoxication and the plausibility of a particular mistake of fact; not alcohol negating scienter.

While one may argue that a defendant was too drunk to realize he mistook one of his own chattels for that of another, it can never be argued that a defendant (mistakenly) acquired scienter from a bottle of scotch.

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:03:35 +0000

Prof Turley,
It must be something in the water up in Alaska that is causing these intelligent individuals to think up all of these ingenious legal defenses!

By: jonathanturley

jonathanturley — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:53:08 +0000

This is not a valid defense of scienter. Just like the corruption claim, mistake is not a valid defense to some crimes if it is believable. The Stevens defense is based on the assumption that, as long as I do not mentally accept it as a gift, it is not. Here the claim is that I thought I was driving my own car despite the fact that it is entirely different and required different keys. Moreover, if alcohol negates intent, it would also work for murder, rape and other crimes. It does not since the acts are still viewed as volitional. Usually a court will address such issues in mitigation when dealing with theft or conversion. He still took someone else’s car without permission.

By: Sally

Sally — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:12:55 +0000

Good point Bob

By: Jill

Jill — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:47:31 +0000

Bob,

This is why I personally nominate Senator Ted Stevens for new age guru of the year. He is creating his own reality, and you would be doing the same at the mall. The problem is that security creates their own reality and you may not be able to switch it back to your own reality quickly enough to avoid arrest.

I actually had a dream where everyone was creating their own reality and everything just kept changing. It was interesting and fun.

By: Bob, Esq.

Bob, Esq. — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:35:17 +0000

“So if I go to the mall and put a bunch of clothing in a bag and accidently walk out, then I didn’t technically try to steal them, right?”

Believability is a key factor for sure. For example; you go out one night with a cheap knock-off coat and when leaving you put on what you ‘believe’ is your coat but is actually someone else’s $1,100 original.

Did you intend to steal it?

By: Sally

Sally — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:00:12 +0000

So if I go to the mall and put a bunch of clothing in a bag and accidently walk out, then I didn’t technically try to steal them, right? Because I did intend to pay for it, but I was blindsided by something and accidently walked out.

Wonder how that arguement would hold up in court

By: Bob, Esq.

Bob, Esq. — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:11:06 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong, but mistake of fact can negate intent to steal; so long as the defendant can show he intended to take his own chattel.

The BAC may help here as well; although, if defendant can’t show that the car was already running, seems to me he’s SOL.

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:51:36 +0000

Gyges,
For the last 8 years these neo-con wannabees have not let the facts or reality get in the way of their comments or thoughts. It will be refreshing to know that they will have to try even harder to lie and misconstrue facts after January 20th, 2009.

By: Gyges

Gyges — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:10:08 +0000

Raff,

I’m just wondering how many presidential “victory speeches” the people that keep parroting that line remember in enough detail to know who was on stage.

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:39:56 +0000

Mark,
What is creepy is when people like you just want to keep dishing out crap about Obama. What is also creepy is that this thread has nothing to do with Obama.
Jill and Big Fella,
This story may be an example of the mentality running amok in Alaska. First Stevens gets convicted of 7 felony counts and gets reelected. Then we learn even more about Palin’s severe ignorance of geography and her intransigence to suggestions from the McCain campaign staff. Maybe we should let Alaska split from the Union(as the Palins seem to prefer) as long as they take this car thief with them.And finally, this thief attempts to state that he was attempting to drive his own car and not someone else’s car. It sort of reminds me of John Yoo’s logic in the torture memos.

By: mark

mark — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:01:24 +0000

Buyer’s Remorse? Newsweek Honchos Peg Obama’s ‘Slightly Creepy Cult Of Personality’

“Have you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage? No adoring wife, no cute kid.”

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214933

When even the most ardent Obama supporters, Newsweek executives, call his personality creepy, that is scary.

By: Big Fella

Big Fella — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:25:35 +0000

What Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin have taught all of us who reside in the Lower Forty-eight, is that Alaska is still an untamed frontier inhabited by wannabe “Rambos”, who in reality have become dependent upon, and have come to expect handouts, whether above board or under the table.

By: Jill

Jill — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:07:50 +0000

And why wasn’t Ted Stevens the first person interviewed for and tapped as chief promoter of, “The Secret”? Inquiring minds want to know!