Matt Hartzler

Matt Hartzler

LJST 01

First Case Exam

1. Judge Herd would likely agree with Judge Chin. Herd finds in the Hundley case that the reasonableness of Betty Hundley’s fear directly coincides with her being a battered woman. The district court in the case that Chin reversed found the objective belief of fear would have to be taken without the expert battered woman testimony, but Herd clearly says in the Hundley case, “The objective test is how a reasonably prudent battered wife would perceive Carl [Hundley]’s demeanor.” Both Chin and Herd agree that BWS factors in when considering the defendant’s state of mind.

2. It does not satisfy Fletcher’s test. It satisfies all of Fletcher’s tests, but one. The “He deserved it” lines are the problem. For Fletcher’s test, the self-defender must not have any intention to punish or prevent. For example, Evelyn states, “he won’t hit anybody else again.” That is a clear statement of prevention. Fletcher’s tests want to prevent vigilante justice, and because of those statements to the police, she fails this test.

3. It would satisfy Meares and Kahan’s idea of “budget sharing”. The problems arise when considering whether the California Women Against Battering (let’s call them CWAB) is exercising political power in issuing that brief. “Budget sharing” implies that a community is created enough so that the democratic process can look out for battered women, and the courts then do not have to individual’s rights. The question is whether issuing such a brief is an example of that group political power. I would say that considering the broad base of “politics” this example does indicate the ideas that Meares and Kahan were explaining.

4. Chin decides whether BWS should be considered in reasonableness and thus in the guilt or innocence. Jahnke is inconsistent, but because the battered-ness of the child seems to be overlooked. The Aris case literally says the exact opposite of Chin’s case, “Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the just on reasonable self-defense. We disagree.” The expert testimony was thrown out, and the BWS isn’t considered in reasonableness or guilt, but only in sentancing.

5. Police is not liable in this situation. This is straight from the Riss, DeShaney, and Pinder cases. The police have created no duty or special relationship. They have taken no action. In Sorichetti, the police were liable because they told Dina Sorichetti’s mother to “just wait,” and didn’t protect Dina when they had a special relationship and thus were required to. The police have done none of that and have none of the same duties.