How does a prosecutor determine intent? When prosecutors look at a statute, how do they determine the requirements to prove intent? For example, look at this statute: “Whoever knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;” (U.S. Code Sec. 1030, par. 4) How does one determine what is necessary to prove a defendant acted “knowingly and with intent to defraud”? For example, do they need to prove the defendant knew he didn’t have authorization? What about intent to defraud &mdash; do they need to prove he knew it was against the law, too? (tl;dr) My specific question: How do prosecutors determine the elements necessary to satisfy the mens rea requirements attached to certain laws?
This is actually a very complicated question, about (1) the scope of "knowingly", (2) what kind of "intent" is required for conviction, (3) how does the jury understand and evaluate concepts of intent and (4) how does an attorney persuade the jury that the situation does or does not satisfy the particular intent requirement. One thing we can dispose of quickly is the possibility that the law says that the accused has to actually know that the act is against the law. It is a standard legal fiction (2,400 years old) that the accused knows the law, or should have known. As for the 4th element, persuasion, on the strong side we have statements of intent by the accused – "And I pulled out my rifle and blew his head off, and I laughed the whole time". What the jury has to decide is whether the accused had in mind a conscious purpose of doing some act (that is, it wasn't just an accident like butt-dialing, or an instant stimulus-response reaction to some event). "Intent" generally falls in the realm of acting "purposely", which the Model Penal Code §2.02 defines as: A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and (ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist. which more or less means what you think "with intent" means. That doesn't say what they intended to do, it just distinguishes intent from negligence and accident. The prosecutor would then present factual evidence that the accused had a bad intent, like showing that he actually made an attempt to access credit card account data (that such data had been accessed when he broke into the system), etc. We can sort of dispose of the other scope question about "knowingly", namely, what things would he have to know? The chunk accessing a protected computer without authorization can be interpreted in a number of ways, having to do with which elements of the clause are known to the accused. You might know that you were accessing but not know that you were unauthorized; you might know that you were accessing and unauthorized, but not know that the computer is protected. The only reliable way to know which is which is to study the case law on a statute and see if there is a controlling decision that say e.g. that you have to know that you are accessing and are unauthorized, but you don't have to know that the computer is protected. I haven't determined (yet) is there is decisive case law on this, but I'm betting that the outcome would be that not knowing of the protected status of a computer carries no weight. As for what kind of intent, there is a distinction between "specific intent" and "general intent". The distinction comes down to having some evil purpose like "make him suffer" (general intent) versus a specific evil purpose like "kill him". Finally, the people who actually decide, the jury, will be given instructions that say what they have to look for. Here is the tip of the tip of the iceberg, from California's criminal jury instructions. The judge will say... The People must prove not only that the defendant did the acts charged, but also that (he/she) acted with a particular (intent/ [and/or] mental state). The instruction for (the/each) crime [and allegation] explains the (intent/ [and/or] mental state) required. A[n] (intent/ [and/or] mental state) may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proved, you must be convinced that the People have proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that the defendant had the required (intent/ [and/or] mental state), you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant had the required (intent/ [and/or] mental state). If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions supports a finding that the defendant did have the required (intent/ [and/or] mental state) and another reasonable conclusion supports a finding that the defendant did not, you must conclude that the required (intent/ [and/or] mental state) was not proved by the circumstantial evidence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable. and then there will be some specific elaboration of whether they have to find that the accused just generally intended to do bad, versus intended to specifically defraud.
This is an example of an affirmative defense In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove each and every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the law provides an exception that amounts to if you do X you commit a crime unless Y, the defense has to prove (to a lower burden) that Y happened. An affirmative defense only kicks in if the prosecution has proved their case; which is usually because the defense concedes it if they are relying on an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense also must be introduced as soon as possible; preferably before charges are laid but, if not, at the commital/arraignment - courts take a dim view (up to excluding them entirely) if they are introduced late. As to whether a case like this goes to trial that depends on the evidence available to support Y and the weight that the prosecutor and then the committal/arraignment judge/grand jury gives to that evidence. If they believe that a jury would believe it, they will not take it trial; if they don't, they will.
18 USC §1344: Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice (1) to defraud a financial institution; or (2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, or promises; shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. Here are some example prosecutions: United States v. Wall, 37 F.3d 1443 (1994) United States v. Molinaro, 11 F.3d 853 (1993) United States v. Lilly, 983 F.2d 300 (1992)
A prosecutor cannot make a change to a plea agreement after it is signed. That's why it has to be signed. If there is an error in it then it needs to be re-written and re-signed. No, your friend cannot get their conviction vacated over this. They can have it reversed and put back into pre-trial for a new determination (plea, trial, etc.). They need to speak to an attorney to understand if this is worthwhile or not. There really are very very few instances where a mistake in the legal system means you can get away with a crime.
I will address only the legal issues. Prosecutors for very good public policy reasons are not required to prosecute every crime they have suspicions about. When exercising this discretion they consider: Is the act, in fact, criminal - many of the things you list, while reprehensible, unethical, and possibly immoral are not actually criminal. Do they have the resources (time, staff, money) to collect the evidence and run this case as opposed to the thousands of other crimes out there. There are always more crimes than can be prosecuted and these have to be prioritised in some way. Do they have enough evidence to gain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. People can be fired or resign on suspicion, they can't be convicted on it.
There's nothing he can really write that any court would have to listen to - after all, from the court's perspective, he could have been lying when he wrote it down. And following orders is generally not a defense (although if he was under actual duress, like they were threatening to kill him if he didn't do it, that could be a defense.) But being a pawn rather than a mastermind can impact the sentence. If the crime is a federal one, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines adjust the offense level according to the role in the crime: §3B1.1. Aggravating Role Based on the defendant's role in the offense, increase the offense level as follows: (a) If the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 4 levels. (b) If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 3 levels. (c) If the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels. §3B1.2. Mitigating Role Based on the defendant's role in the offense, decrease the offense level as follows: (a) If the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 4 levels. (b) If the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 2 levels. In cases falling between (a) and (b), decrease by 3 levels. The lawyer would probably not qualify as a &quot;minimal participant&quot; if he's writing reports detailing the activity, as this shows he's aware of the extent of the illegality. He would, however, probably qualify as a &quot;minor participant&quot;. If the crime was a state crime, then according to Oregon rules: (1) Subject to the provisions of sections (2) and (3) of this rule, the following nonexclusive list of mitigating and aggravating factors may be considered in determining whether substantial and compelling reasons for a departure exist: (a) Mitigating factors: (D) The offense was principally accomplished by another and the defendant exhibited extreme caution or concern for the victim. (E) The offender played a minor or passive role in the crime.
What Crimes Were Committed? The acts would constitute solicitation to manufacturer a controlled substance by Alice, attempted manufacture of a controlled substance by Bob, and conspiracy to commit a controlled substance by both of them. All of these are serious felony offenses. The payment of money by Alice and acceptance of money by Bob to carry out the production of a controlled substance would be a sufficient overt act to support the charges of solicitation, conspiracy and attempt, even though the crime was not carried out. All of these offenses are what are known in the criminal law as &quot;inchoate offenses&quot;. Affirmative Defenses Would Bob or Alice have any affirmative defenses if prosecuted for these crimes? The two main offenses are impossibility and abandonment. We can assume, given Bob's good faith, that it was not impossible for him to manufacture the controlled substances, but he simply decided not to do it. A defendant may plead and prove, as an affirmative defense, of abandonment (typically under typical U.S. criminal statutes) by showing that he: Stopped all actions in furtherance of the crime or conspiracy Tried to stop the crime as it was ongoing Tried to convince the co-conspirators to halt such actions, or reported the crime to the police or other authorities. Bob did shop all actions in furtherance of the crime and tried (successfully) to stop the crime as it was ongoing. But, by not returning the funds and not making clear to Alice that he wanted nothing to do with the plan, Bob may not have met the third prong of an abandonment defense. Alice certainly does not have an abandonment defense. She took no overt acts abandoning the plan. Civil And Criminal Liability For Non-Drug Offenses Also, Bob might have criminal liability for theft, and civil liability to Alice on charges of civil theft or on a claim for restitution. First, a small technicality. Bob did breach a verbal contract. He has an affirmative defense of illegality to civil liability for breaching the verbal contract, but that doesn't change the fact that he did breach the contract. Anyway, while a contract to carry out an illegal act is unenforceable, and Bob would have no right to sue Alice in court if he performed the contract and then Alice failed to pay, it is less clear in this fact pattern where the illegality that bars the contract doesn't actually happen. Retaining property obtained on the basis of a contract that is disavowed that is not carried out, or when the funds are obtained on the basis of a criminal act, might constitute theft for which there might be criminal and civil penalties available, even though it was not fraud. Restitution to put the parties back where they would have been had a contract not be entered into might be available as a remedy. Restitution is often available even when the underlying contract itself fails when people have taken affirmative acts based upon a contract that cannot be legally performed. This wouldn't be a strong case for restitution, and state case law would answer the question, but it wouldn't be a frivolous one either. Of course, since Alice would be admitting to committing a crime is she brought suit (waiving her 5th Amendment right to be silent by doing so) she might be well advised not to sue. And, Bob would still have a strong &quot;unclean hands&quot; defense in an restitution or civil theft lawsuit. The Low Chance Of Charges Being Brought Considered It is true that if no one told anyone that the likelihood of criminal charges being brought is small. But, one can easily imagine hypothetically, that a third party saw what went down in person, or via surveillance video and audio, or that one of the parties told someone what happened and was reported (ex-lovers and mistreated trusted professional aids are notorious for doing things like this), or that someone confessed (often people do things like this when joining a twelve step program or a converting to a new religion), or one of them might testify truthfully at trial despite having a 5th Amendment right not to do so. What If The Jury Doesn't Believe Bob? If the criminal jury thinks that Bob was lying in the first place about good faith, he would have criminal liability for theft and Alice would have liability for solicitation of and conspiracy to commit the manufacture of controlled substances. Alice would be on the hook for the same felonies. Bob would be guilty of a crime the severity of which would depend upon how much money he took from Alice. If Bob doesn't think he can show the facts necessary to establish an abandonment defense, he might be smart to lie and say he was just stealing from Alice if the dollar amount was reasonably small, since the consequences would probably be less severe if he was convicted. It would be very hard to prove that he was truly agreeing to the verbal contract in good faith when he never performed it, but did take the money and not try to return it.
On the contrary, it is unethical for a prosecutor to bring a case where there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. The prosecutor is an officer of the court and as a representative of the state, their primary concern is the guilty are convicted and the not guilty are not.