Mistake of Law: Requisite of Intent - Distinguishing Nuance Background: I am not a law student, I am a graduate student in mathematics who intermittently enjoys reading about law because I find it axiomatic, deductive and occasionally creative - similar to mathematics. You could say it is a hobby for me. Context: I was reading about 'mistake of law' defense on a website (I do not know how credible or outdated this website may be). In short, here is what they had to say - "Mistake of Law: A mistake involving the misunderstanding or incorrect application of law with regard to an act or transaction. The defense of mistake of law raises two issues. The first issue occurs where, because of a mistake of law, the defendant did not have the requisite intent to commit a crime. The second issue occurs where, because of a mistake of law, the defendant did not know that an act that he committed intentionally was criminal. It is important to understand the distinction between these two issues because, while mistake of law will usually be allowed as a valid defense in the former situation, it will generally not be allowed in the latter situation." It had a quiz at the end so you could test yourself to see if you understood the subtle difference. I answered the first two questions correct, but only because there were similar examples in the article that set a precedent for how I answered. I have a few closely related questions regarding the two scenarios in the quiz, and the defense in general. I provide screenshots of the quiz below: Analysis: From the highlighted definition / explanation of 'mistake of law' defense above, and the green highlighted explanations in the pictures - this website is implying that the distinction between a successful application of mistake of law defense and unsuccessful mistake of law defense entirely boils down to 'requisite intent' - although they do not give a clear definition of this. My interpretation of the arguments for defense in the scenarios is as follows: Argument for Scenario 1: Defendant comes into possession of lost property. Defendant falsely believes that a law exists stating that if lost property is not claimed within two months finder gains ownership of lost property. Defendant waits two months. Because of the mistake, at this time defendant falsely believes lost property becomes defendants property. As defined in the question larceny requires the intention of permanently depriving an owner of their property. By (4) - at the time defendant made the transaction that would constitute permanently depriving plaintiff of ostensible property, defendant believed ownership was transferred to defendant. Defendant did not have intent to commit larceny By definition defendant is not guilty of larceny. Argument for Scenario 2: Defendant comes into possession of lost property. Defendant believes "the law allows for someone to do whatever they want with lost property even if they know who the rightful owner is". Defendant sells necklace - purposely and permanently depriving the owner of their property. By definition, defendant has committed larceny. Actual Questions: In scenario 2, to say "the law allows for someone to do whatever they want with lost property even if they know who the rightful owner is" seems like a laymen way of saying the defendant believed that finders of lost property immediately acquired ownership. It also seems from the analysis that had this been the defendants statement - it would have been a 'successful' application of the defense. Is the wording of the defense the tipping point of what makes this an 'unsuccessful' application? Both of these examples and scenarios are 'isolated' to help get a point across to a reader, that said - just because we have argued that defendant is not guilty of larceny in scenario 1, could the charge be adjusted to a crime that does not specifically require intent? Could a judge 'overrule' that defendants 'mistake' was 'unreasonable'? By the contrived example of scenario 1 it seems it would be a valid to defense to simply claim that every defendant thought a law existed that somehow removed their intent to commit the crime as defined, but surely this cannot be. No longer specific to the examples above, do mistake of law defenses actually occur in modern legal situations? Closing Remarks: Please note that I am new to this stack exchange community. I tried my best to keep my question on-topic as defined in the help page - but please feel free to offer advice regarding social norms of this community, e.g. feel free to tell me if my question is silly child's play and this community is for more serious questions. I also had a hard time choosing appropriate tags since 'legal defenses' is not a tag, please adjust as needed.
I don't think that's an accurate interpretation of the statement. The key difference between the two scenarios is the defendant's legal assessment of who owns the necklace. In the first he thinks he is the owner and can claim mistake of law; in the second, he he thinks someone else is the owner, so he cannot. To say he believes "the law allows for someone to do whatever they want with lost property even if they know who the rightful owner is" is very different from saying he thinks he's the owner. He doesn't think he's the legal owner, he just thinks he has legal rights that include some rights associated with ownership. So if the defendant's statement had actually been, "I thought I was the owner," that would have been a successful defense when the crime requires depriving the owner of the property. The defense was actually, "I thought I was allowed to deprive the owner of the property," which is an admission of guilt when the crime requires depriving the owner of the property. There are a couple questions here: a. A different crime that did not require intent -- or even required a different kind of intent -- could still lead to a conviction. A legislature is free to define larceny differently, so it could say that anyone who recklessly or negligently deprives another of property is guilty. Or it could say that your state of mind doesn't matter and that depriving another of property is larceny regardless of intent. b. In most cases, the mistake of law defense requires that the defendant honestly believe in the mistake; unlike mistake of fact, it does not require that his belief also be reasonable. Either way, the question of reasonableness would probably be a question for a jury, so a judge wouldn't be able to reject it (except in a bench trial). c. Mistake of law is a potential defense to any crime that requires an intent to do something that requires an assessment of what the law is. So if it's illegal to intentionally have sex with a woman who is not your wife, and you mistakenly believed you were in a legal marriage, sex with your non-wife would not be a crime. It has potentially very broad implications, but keep in mind that in many cases, the mistake a defendant would have to claim would be pretty far out there. If it were illegal to intentionally let anyone under 21 years old into your bar, I guess you could argue that you only let a 20-year-old in because you thought the law started calculating at conception, but I doubt you'll convince a jury. Mistake of law defenses still pop up pretty regularly. Here's one just yesterday from the Tenth Circuit. And this one is a Kansas case where a conviction for carrying a weapon while a felon was overturned because the court wouldn't allow a mistake-of-law defense. The Kansas case, though, uses the more modern definition of mistake of law, which also includes reasonable reliance on official statements from the government. In that case, the felon's parole officer had told him that it was OK to carry a pocketknife, but in reality, the law titled "Criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon" prohibited carrying knives, as well.
There is a big difference between knowing something and proving it. A lawyer who knows a client is guilty can take steps to prevent the state from proving guilt. (E.g., motion to exclude evidence, cross examining witnesses.) The belief that a client has committed a crime does not necessarily mean one knows what specific crime was committed. Is a killing Murder 1, Murder 2, or manslaughter? There are defenses even when an act may be a crime. E.g., self defense, insanity, justifiable. Lawyers are not permitted to assist in perjury. E.g., allow the client to testify to something he knows is false.
Keep in mind that a warrant doesn't require proof that you stole the property or have the property. Instead, the warrant is just authorization to look for that proof. The standard for securing a warrant is probable cause, which is a much lower bar to clear than people seem to think. It just requires that given everything the officer knows, there's a "substantial probability" that a piece of evidence will be in a given place at a given time. If the officer swore to a judge that a reliable source had told him that the letter was stolen, then seen in your front yard, and not seen since, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the judge gave him a search warrant.
Comments here and here suggest that &quot;irreconcilable differences&quot; can be used to explain &quot;withdrawal when the client fails to compensate the attorney&quot;, but it can mean many other things. The point of the phrase is to not divulge the reason. Amidst the various scenarios discussed under Rule 1.16(b), subsections (3) and (4) permit withdrawal when the client fails to compensate the attorney [...] When it comes time for an attorney to prepare the motion for withdrawal for such reasons, however, [...] an attorney may consider citing the ubiquitous “irreconcilable differences” in the motion to withdraw, rather than divulging pernicious information about the client. However, it can mean many other things as well. The point of the phrase is to not divulge the reason for withdrawal.
The general rule is that in the opening statement, the lawyer may describe what he expects the evidence and testimony to show: We will present Mr Smith, who will tell you that he saw the defendant miles away at the time of the crime But cannot make statements of fact as such. I don't see why this rule would be different for a pro se defendant. In a closing argument, as i understand the rule, the lawyer may and often will say things like "As witness X testified, there was no time to stop" but is not supposed to introduce new alleged facts not supported by the evidence. However, in a closing, a lawyer can and often does draw conclusions from facts supported by testimony. "My client was proved to have been in the next town 20 minutes earleri, so obviously he could not have committed the crime." Again, i don't see any reason why these rules would be different for someone acting pro se.
Do I have any recourse for invalidating all or part of the contract? No. There is a presumption in contract law that when a contract is reduced to writing then what that writing says is what the parties agreed. Also, if you signed it, then you are legally stating: I read it, I understand it and I agree to it - don't sign things you don't understand. If your lawyer has produced something you don't understand then have them redraft it until you do. Would a successful suit against the lawyer for malpractice or negligence make any difference? No. A suit against you lawyer may get you damages from your lawyer but it will not affect the rights of third-parties. What is best practice for avoiding flawed contracts like this in the first place? Read and understand the contract. Educate yourself enough in the law so that you can do this. Your lawyer is there to give you professional advice; you are there to make your own decisions.
In the case you link, this was given as an opening statement by the defense. Opening statements do not contain evidence. The defendant may or may not testify on their own behalf during the trial - this testimony, if given, counts as evidence, even if it is somewhat self-serving. And anything which tends to casts doubt as to the defendant's guilt is evidence that they didn't do it, even if it isn't proof. If there is reasonable doubt, then &quot;he didn't do it&quot; is not illogical. And it would seem unfair to allow the prosecution to say &quot;he did it&quot; but not allow the defense to say &quot;no he didn't&quot;.
What remedies are therein the United States? I would imagine that the witness could be prosecuted for perjury. My guess is that the plaintiff could prosecute the witness for the lost damages. Are there any other remedies like reopening the original trial or declaring a mistrial so that the plaintiff could sue the (deep-pocketed) defendant, or would this be double jeopardy? Perjury prosecutions are like unicorns. They are rumored to exist but are almost never seen. A prosecutor would be exceedingly unlikely to bring charges in such a case, but it might not hurt to ask. Even if the criminal prosecution prevailed, however, the defeated plaintiff would be no better off, or might get out of pocket court costs as restitution at most. You could request that the witness be sanctioned for contempt. But, this leaves the loser in the original case no better off unless the judge made the highly unusual decision to award compensatory damages as a contempt sanction. Similarly, if you have reason to believe that the attorney knew that the testimony offered was false, that would be grounds to grieve the lawyer which could result in the lawyer's suspension or disbarment, but that is very difficult to prove and again would not advance the unjustly defeated plaintiff's cause. Assuming that the time to move for a retrial (usually two weeks) expired when the new evidence was discovered, you could move to set aside the verdict (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 or the equivalent state rule). The deadline for such motions based upon fraud by an adverse party is usually six months. Sometimes an independent action to set aside the verdict for fraud on the court could also be brought (sometimes within two or three years), which is an uphill battle, but probably the best option if all other deadlines have expired. The witness probably has absolute immunity from civil liability outside that court case for the testimony offered, so a civil action suing the witness for lost damages would be dismissed. The doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply, but a similar doctrine called "res judicata" (a.k.a. "claim preclusion") prohibits retrying a case that was tried on the merits between the same parties, if it has become a final order. So, filing a new case is ruled out assuming that no appeals were filed within the deadline for doing so. And, even if the deadline for filing an appeal has not lapsed, it probably wouldn't prevail because the key new evidence wouldn't be in the record. It would be better to file to set aside the judgment in a motion and to appeal if that motion was denied.