TD d’anglais juridique

Licence 2, Semestre 3

Professeur responsable : Benoît CHAZE

Le semestre comptera 10h30 de TD (soit 7 séances d’1h30), durant lesquelles les étudiants débattront d’affaires et de questions qu’ils auront préparées à

l’avance. Différents documents (extraits de décisions de justice ou de films, articles de presse, reportages télévisuels), précédés et/ou suivis de questions,

permettront aux étudiants d’enrichir les notions vues lors des cours magistraux et leur connaissance du droit pénal de C ommon Law. Les étudiants sont tenus

d’imprimer le fascicule avant le premier TD et de l’avoir avec eux à chaque séance. Les ordinateurs et les téléphones sont autorisés pendant les cours d’anglais,

sauf mention explicite du contraire. Les téléphones devront bien entendu être en mode silence, et n'être utilisés que pour effectuer des recherches si

nécessaire. Chaque semaine, les étudiants seront invités à lire les documents contenus dans le fascicule et à répondre aux questions avant de venir en cours,

afin de pouvoir participer activement.

Notation

La moyenne de TD est composée d’une note de participation orale et d'une note d’écrit, comptant respectivement pour 1/3 et 2/3 de la moyenne de TD. La

note de participation orale sera remise lors de la dernière séance, tandis que la note du devoir écrit et la moyenne finale seront rendues aux étudiants lors d’une

séance de consultation de copies (dont la date sera fixée ultérieurement et indiquée sur le tableau d’affichage).

Participation orale

Le chargé de TD relèvera le nombre de fois qu’un étudiant intervient pendant les séances et convertira ce nombre en note sur 20. Il convient de garder à l'esprit

que la note de participation orale n’est pas strictement quantitative : le chargé de TD évalue la pertinence de l'intervention et, dans une moindre mesure, la

qualité́ de l’anglais.

Pour pouvoir participer activement en classe, il est évidemment indispensable d’avoir lu les documents au préalable et d’avoir réfléchi aux questions posées. Le

chargé de TD n’est aucunement tenu de formuler ses questions de la même manière que dans le fascicule : l’objectif principal du chargé de TD est d’amener ses

étudiants à une prise de parole spontanée.

La fiche de participation peut être consultée à la fin de chaque séance. Il revient aux étudiants de la vérifier s’ils ne sont pas certains que leurs interventions ont

été́ prises en compte par leur chargé de TD : il sera ensuite trop tard pour porter réclamation. Si un étudiant ne participe pas une seule fois dans le semestre, il

va sans dire que sa note de participation sera de 0/20 ; à l'inverse, les chargés de TD n'hésiteront pas à donner la note de 20/20 aux étudiants qui participent

régulièrement tout au long du semestre.

Note d’écrit

Lors du TD n°7, les étudiants auront une heure pour rédiger une plaidoirie à partir d’un cas pratique. Il pourra s’agir d’une déclaration d’ouverture ( opening

statement) ou d’une déclaration de clôture (closing statement), si bien que les caractéristiques des deux interventions doivent être maîtrisées de manière

égale ; de même, les étudiants pourront être amenés à représenter l’état ou le défendeur. Cet exercice permettra au chargé de TD d'évaluer la compréhension

des notions étudiées en cours magistraux et en travaux dirigés, ainsi que la capacité́ à écrire dans un anglais clair et à argumenter de façon pertinente. La bonne

maîtrise des affaires vues en CM et lors des TD est impérative.

Afin de préparer au mieux le devoir final, un travail facultatif (et non noté) est proposé aux étudiants. Ce travail peut être rendu  au chargé de TD et fera l'objet

d'une correction détaillée lors du TD n°3 – ce qui permettra aux étudiants d'avoir une idée précise de ce qui sera attendu, autant sur le fond que sur la forme.

Absences

La présence en cours est obligatoire, les étudiants n'ayant droit à aucune absence non justifiée. Les étudiants absents lors d'un TD doivent fournir leur justificatif

directement au chargé de TD, dans un délai maximum de quinze jours à compter du jour de l’absence. Les étudiants comptant une absence non justifiée seront
considérés comme défaillants dans ce TD ; à ce titre, la moyenne ne sera pas calculée et la mention « RNC » (résultat non calculé) apparaîtra sur le relevé de

notes.

Si l'absence concerne la dernière séance de TD, les étudiants devront prendre contact avec leur chargé de TD par e-mail ; pour les étudiants ayant été en mesure

de fournir un justificatif d’absence dans les délais indiqués plus haut, un examen de rattrapage sera organisé.́

Seul votre chargé de TD est concerné́ par vos absences et les gère administrativement  : les autres professeurs de l'équipe ne sont pas habilités à s'occuper des

étudiants d'autres groupes que les leurs.

Les chargés de TD ne participent pas au processus d'attribution des groupes de TD. Si, pour une raison ou pour une autre, vous aviez besoin de changer de

groupe, veuillez-vous adresser à l'administration le plus tôt possible et à en informer le chargé de TD. Si votre changement est autorisé́, un document vous sera

délivré́ par l'administration, qu'il vous faudra remettre au chargé de TD ; cela sera la seule garantie que votre présence dans un groupe sera prise en compte.

Rattrapage

La note de participation orale ne peut pas faire l'objet d'un rattrapage. Les devoirs écrits ne peuvent être rattrapés que sur présentation d'un justificatif

d'absence au chargé de TD. Pour cela, prenez contact avec le chargé de TD par e-mail. S’il accepte votre justificatif d'absence, il organisera votre rattrapage

selon ses horaires de disponibilité et les vôtres.

Programme

TD n°1: Opening statements, closing statements

TD n°2: The right to remain silent + chain of causation

TD n°3: Correction of the optional work

TD n°4: Important notions in criminal law

TD n°5: Murder or self-defence?

TD n°6: Insanity defence and legal responsibility

TD n°7: Test (1h) + participation marks and individual questions

 TD n°1: Opening statements, closing statements
A) Preliminary questions

1. What is the main function of an opening statement? What about the closing statement?

2. To what extent does the style of the two types of statements differ?

B) Watch this real-life opening statement and answer the following questions.

(382) Examples of Persuasive Opening Statements - YouTube

1) What phrase is used as a hook to grab the jury’s attention? Picte your intention
2) Why does the advocate use the present tense? Make feel normal, predictability of her life
3) How and why does the attorney present Brady as an ‘all-American’ mother? Make her relatable, image of innocent, non violent and typical woman,
4) ‘Do you know what it sounds like when the world ends?’: why did the attorney choose that rhetorical question?
5) What kind of emotional blackmail does the attorney resort to? The children, emapty, injustice
6) What does the lawyer establish between 2’00’’ and 3’00’’?
Why does he remain a bit vague? To change the case, no evidence, no facts, introduce doubt
7) Why does he refer to the closing statement to come? It’s them to make the final decision
8) What is the only thing that the lawyer presents, at this early stage, as solid and absolutely certain? Brady is not guilty, the position is clear

C. Watch this extract from For the People (https://youtu.be/Nu6eR1Htq74), a TV show produced by ABC, in which the lawyer makes his closing statement.

What are the characteristics of this statement? What strategy does the lawyer use?

Catchy question to the jury, involved the jury

The gesture

Take time

Raise his voices with pointing at the suspect

The trial for felony is not common

D) Optional work

Read the following case, then think of what you might write if you had to prepare an opening/closing statement for the prosecution/defence (for this exercise,

you are free to choose). Your statement should be approximately 300 words long.

In 1989, the defendant burgled a house occupied by an 87-year-old man who suffered from a heart condition. The defendant disturbed the victim and verbally

abused him, but left without stealing anything. The police were called shortly afterwards, and a local council workman arrived to repair the windows broken by

the defendant in gaining entry. An hour and a half after the burglary the victim had a heart attack and died. The defendant was arrested and charged with

manslaughter.

Since there is no point in letting them work on a case that they don’t understand, you may go through the case and check that the vocabulary is clear. As

explained in my previous email, they should try and hand in their optional work by week 3, but you can always accept papers a bit later.

TD n°2: The right to remain silent + chain of causation

A) Preliminary questions

1. What are the Miranda rights?

It’s rights that are written on police cards and the police man have to tell the person their rights.

You have a right to remain silent.

Any statement you make may be used as evidence against you

You have a right to the presence of an attorney

This lawyer may either be retained or appointed

Have you understood these rights?

Do you wish to speak to us now?

2. What case do they come from? Sum up the facts of the case and the verdict.

They come from the case of Miranda v Arizona. Miranda, an immigrant was arrested in Arizona for killing and raping a young woman. The man was aggressively

interrogating for hours, and the policeman didn’t tell the man his rights. They plead with the procedure. There was no doubt that the man was guilty but it was

about the unconstitutionally of the procedure. Miranda’s conviction was overturned and it enhance the fact that the police man have to read their rights to the

people who are arrested.

3. What is the purpose of the Miranda rights?

It is to reaffirm the right of the people who are arrested an denounce the abusive interrogations of the police in these years.

4. What constitutional amendment do these rights enact?

th th
The 5 amendment and the 6 amendment.

5. What happens when those rights are not respected?

It can unconstitutional a trial, a case

6. Give three constitutionally protected rights of a defendant in a criminal trial in the US.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right

to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.

7. Why does the constitution provide those rights?

To avoid these problems with the police.

B) Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)

After advising respondent Van Chester Thompkins of his rights, in full compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, Detective Helgert and another Michigan officer

interrogated him about a shooting in which one victim died. At no point did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the

police, or that he wanted an attorney. He was largely silent during the 3-hour interrogation, but near the end, he answered “yes” when asked if he prayed to

God to forgive him for the shooting. He moved to suppress his statements, claiming that he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, that he had

not waived that right, and that his inculpatory statements were involuntary.

A Michigan state court convicted Thompkins of first‐degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and several firearms related charges.

After exhausting his remedies in Michigan state court, Thompkins petitioned for habeas corpus relief in a Michigan federal district court. The district court

denied the petition.

On appeal, Thompkins argued that his confession was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and that he was denied effective counsel at trial . The U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the Michigan Supreme Court's finding that Thompkins waived his Fifth Amendment right was unreasonable

because Thompkins refused to sign an acknowledgement that he had been informed of his Miranda rights and rarely made eye contact with the officer

throughout the three‐hour interview. On June 1, 2010, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's decision.
In the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Kennedy, the Court ruled that Thompkins's silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain

silent and that he had waived his right to remain silent when he knowingly and voluntarily made a statement to police. The Court reasoned as follows on

Thompkins' various arguments:

● There was no good reason why the standard for invoking the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel should differ. “Both

protect against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring an interrogation to cease when either right is invoked”. Making either of these statements would

have ended the questions but the accused made neither of them.
● The court further considered whether invocation of Miranda rights could be implied from the behavior or ambiguous words of the accused. It

concluded (in line with previous cases such as Davis v. United States) that there was good reason why invoking these rights should require an unambiguous act

of the accused, including certainty for police, prosecutors, and accused, and social benefit in law enforcement.
● The court then considered whether the accused had taken action that waived those rights. Waiver must be a free choice with full awareness

(Moran v. Burbine). The Miranda ruling states that “a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently

waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.” It was noted that the accused had read and expressed

understanding of the rights, and had them read aloud, he had not pleaded lack of understanding, was given time, and therefore knew his rights. Specifically,
th
having read the 5 warning (“you have the right to decide at any time before or during questioning to use your right to remain silent and your right to talk with

a lawyer while you are being questioned”) he was aware this right was enduring and could be applied at any time in the questioning if he chose, and the police

would have to honor the invocation if he did so. The court observed that “police are not required to re-warn suspects from time to time”. That a question is

linked to religious beliefs does not cause the reply to be "involuntary". The accused, understanding his rights and that they were capable of invocation at any

point, had not chosen to invoke them. The case of North Carolina v. Butler (1979) showed that a waiver of Miranda rights may be implied through “the

defendant's silence, coupled with an understanding of his rights and a course of conduct indicating waiver”. The court held that where a Miranda warning had

been given and was understood by the accused, an accused's uncoerced statement established an implied waiver of the right to remain silent. Thompkins’s

answer to the police question, having understood but not chosen to invoke his rights, was sufficient to show a course of conduct indicating waiver. Further

corroboration was that he had sporadically made other comments as well. The court concluded that: “In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the

Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police. Thompkins did not

invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement

to the police.”

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion for four Justices, her first major dissenting opinion on the Court. She wrote that the case

represented “a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self‐incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided during custodial

interrogation”, and that “suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent – which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same

time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”

Questions
1. Sum up the facts of the case.

A man is arrested by the police for murder. He have said something to the police and so were accused of murder but the man
2. How did the case move through the court system?

A Michigan state court convicted Thompkins of first degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder and several firearms.

He petitioned for habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition.

He made an appeal, he was denied.

The supreme court reversed the US court of appeal.

3. What is the main legal question involved in the case?

th
Can the 6 amendment be use even if he talks?

4. What is a habeas corpus relief?

It’s a legal concept about the right not to be imprisoned without trial.

5. Sum up the main arguments of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion.

6. What legal precedent do they rely on? What does it say?

Miranda v Arizona

7. Sum up the main arguments of the Supreme Court’s dissenting opinion.

8. If you had been a Supreme Court justice, would you have issued a verdict in favor of Thompkins (defendant) or in favor of the State of Michigan and Mary

Berghuis (petitioner)? Explain why.

C) The chain of causation

Read the facts of R v. Blaue (1975), then answer the questions about the case.

rd
During the late afternoon of 3 May, 1974, Robert Blaue came into a young woman’s house and asked her for sexual intercourse, which she refused. He then

attacked her with a knife inflicting four serious wounds. One pierced her lung. An ambulance took her to hospital, where she arrived at about 7.30pm. Soon

afterwards she was admitted to the intensive care ward. At about 8.30pm, she was examined by the surgical registrar who quickly decided that serious injury

had been caused which would require surgery. As she had lost a lot of blood, before there could be an operation there would have to be a blood transfusion. As

soon as the girl appreciated that the surgeon was thinking of organising a blood transfusion for her, she said that she should not be given one and that she

would not have one. To have one, she said, would be contrary to her religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. She was told that if she did not have a blood

transfusion she would die. She said that she did not care if she did die. She was asked to acknowledge in writing that she had refused to have a blood

transfusion under any circumstances. She did so.

Counsel appearing for Mr. Blaue invited the judge to direct the jury to acquit his client generally on the count of murder. His argument was that the girl's refusal

to have a blood transfusion had broken the chain of causation between the stabbing and her death. As an alternative he submitted that the jury should be left to

decide whether the chain of causation had been broken. Mr. Herrod submitted that the Judge should direct the jury to convict, because no facts were in issue

and when the law was applied to the facts there was only one possible verdict – manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.

Questions

1. What process is described by the notion of “chain of causation”? Why is it a relevant concept in this particular case?

2. Sum up the arguments of the defense.

3. Should Mr. Blaue be found guilty for the victim’s death? You be the judge!

TD n°3: Correction of the optional work

A) Correction of the optional test

In order to fully benefit from the correction, you should at least give some thought to the subject. Make sure that you know what the correct methodology for

writing an opening statement and a closing statement is, and that you understand which grammar mistakes should be avoided at all costs!

TD n°4: Important notions in criminal law

A) Introductory questions

1. What is the difference between a misdemeanour and a felony?

2. What are the different kinds of sentences that exist to punish somebody for a crime?

3. What is the common law definition of murder?

4. What is the difference between first‐degree murder and second-degree murder?

5. What is the difference between second‐degree murder and manslaughter?

6. What are the different categories of manslaughter?

B) First-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter: choose the charge and explain why!

Case example 1: Mike is walking along a busy street. Forrest bumps into Mike and continues walking without saying "Sorry." Angered by Forrest's rudeness,

Mike immediately pulls out a gun and kills Forrest.

Case example 2: Standing next to each other in a bookstore a few feet away from the top of a flight of stairs, Tom and Pete argue over the proper interpretation

of free will in Hobbes's philosophy. The argument becomes increasingly animated and culminates when Pete points a finger at Tom and Tom pushes Pete

backwards. The push is hard enough to cause Pete to fall backwards and down the stairs. Pete dies from the resulting injuries.
Case example 3: John comes home to find that his wife Laura has been badly beaten and sexually abused. John takes Laura to the hospital. On the way, Laura

tells John that her attacker was Sam, the owner of a tavern that she and John occasionally visit. After driving Laura home from the hospital about four hours

later, John goes to a gun shop and buys a gun. John then goes to the tavern and shoots and kills Sam.

C) Introducing actus reus and mens rea

1. Translate into English the legal maxim actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. How would you explain the notions of actus reus and mens rea in simple terms?

The following video may help you understand the two concepts better (I apologise for the bad music).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm_5Ns-uEEQ

2. What are the actus reus and mens rea of murder, in the definition that was given in class?

3. For each crime, there is a specific mens rea. Do you understand why that is?

4. What happens if the court determines that the mens rea is missing?

5. Read the facts of R v Majewski (1976). What do you think of the arguments given by Mr. Majewski’s legal team?

One night in 1976, Robert Majewski got highly intoxicated after consuming large amounts of drugs and alcohol. He became violent and assaulted the manager of

a pub in Basildon, and was also aggressive towards the police when they arrived at the pub. Mr. Majewski was charged with assault and found guilty by a jury.

The defendant appeal against the decision, maintaining that he was so intoxicated that he was in a state of automatism, meaning that he did not know what he

was doing. According to the defence, assault is a crime that requires a guilty mind and Mr Majewski could not have possessed that guilty mind.

TD n°5: Murder or self-defence?

A) Preliminary questions
1. What is the law about self‐defense in France?

It’s the article 122-5 of penal code which precise that the attack must be unjustified, without valid reason. The defense must be for oneself or for another

person. And the defense must be immediate. Proportional, actual

2. In the US, what elements do you have to demonstrate to prove self-defense?

In the US, people have to prove they had to defend their house, their car or their work place. Necessary, reasonably belief. Imminent, unlawful, proportionnality
3. Is there a significant difference between the laws of the two countries above?

In the USA, the self defense is very large, people can use it for more situations than in France whereas in France it’s framed with some conditions and people

can’t use it when they want.

4. What are the “castle doctrine” and the “stand your ground” doctrine? In what way do these two doctrines differ? To better understand the notions,

you may watch this video (please don’t try to become a member of the USCCA, though…): https://youtu.be/sIWPPOzLwNU

Castle doctrine: it’s when someone comes into a house, the same person can use strength to defend himself against the intruder with risking any legal

proceedings. From 1628, deadly force to defend your castle. No duty to get away.

Stand your ground: people may use deadly force when they think it’s necessary to defend themselves. For anywhere. 46 states.

5. In your opinion, does the “stand your ground” doctrine reduce or increase the number of homicides?
it increases the number of homicides because people can use it as an excuse to kill anyone.

B) The Munir Hussain case (2009)

Read the following article, then answer the questions.

Self-defence or malicious revenge? Jail for brothers who beat burglar with bat

A businessman who fought off knife-wielding burglars who were threatening to kill his family was jailed for 30 months in a case that has reignited the debate on

how far householders can go to protect themselves and their property.

Munir Hussain, 53, discovered three masked men in his house when his family returned from their local mosque during Ramadan in September last year. The

burglars tied up and threatened to kill Hussain and his family, but a teenage son managed to escape and alert Hussain's brother, Tokeer. The intruders fled when

help arrived at the house, but the brothers chased and caught one, Walid Salem, a criminal with more than 50 previous convictions. He was then subjected to

what Judge John Reddihough described as a "dreadful, violent attack" by the Hussain brothers: Salem was left with a permanent brain injury after he was struck

with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.

The revenge attack was self-defence that went too far, Reading crown court was told. The judge said Hussain's family had been subject to a "serious and wicked

offence" and praised the bravery of his teenage son who escaped. "This case is a tragedy for you and your families," the judge told Munir Hussain. "Sadly, I have

no doubt that my public duty requires me to impose immediate prison sentences of some length upon you. This is in order to reflect the serious consequences

of your violent acts and intent and to make it absolutely clear that, whatever the circumstances, persons cannot take the law into their own hands, or carry out

revenge attacks upon a person who has offended them."

The brothers, described as family men at the heart of the local community, were found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent after a trial earlier this

year. Munir Hussain was given a 30-month sentence while his brother was jailed for 39 months after the judge decided he had not been subject to as much

provocation as his brother.

The law allows for people to use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. However, attacks motivated by

malice or out of revenge and intended to cause injury are unlikely to constitute reasonable force, according to advice published by the Association of Chief

Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service. "It may be that some members of the public, or media commentators, will assert that Salem deserved what

happened to him at the hands of you and the two others involved, and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished," the judge added.

"However, if persons were permitted to inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course,

then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse."

Speaking outside the court, defence lawyer Michael Wolkind said: "The criminal justice system has failed twice. The court was unable to sentence Walid Salem

with sufficient harshness, or Munir and Tokeer Hussain with sufficient compassion. It's difficult to believe that this outcome reflects the thinking of the public, or

the interests of justice." He said he intended to appeal against the sentence.

Questions
1. What were the facts of the case?

A family were coming back in their house when they found peoples in this. They tied up the family, but rescues had come. The intruders escape but brothers of

the family follow them until they catch one and they beat him to death. The brothers who beat the man was sentenced to prison but with different sentences.
2. What was the verdict? Why did the brothers get different sentences?

One of the brothers was sentenced with 30 months of prison whereas the other was sentenced with 39 months. They got different sentences because the judge

declared that one of the brothers had not been subject to as much provocation as his brother, that his brother was more violent.
3. What were the arguments given by Judge Reddihough?

The judge said that it was normal, it was admirable that the brothers defend the house but he had to punished them for the violent action of the brothers. And

he said that people can’t do justice themselves.

4. Do you believe that the brothers’ behaviour was self-defence? Justify your position.

I don’t think that what the brothers did was self-defence because the man was outside de house, and it was proportional to the intrusion.

5. Find out online what happened to Munir Hussain after this first trial.

Sentences reduce because of appeal

TD n°6: Insanity Defence and Legal Responsibility

A) Preliminary questions
1. What does it mean to be insane in the eyes of the law? How does it differ from the medical definition of insanity?

Be insane in the eyes of the law means people are judge criminally irresponsible of their acts. They have not the same sentence as people who are not insane.
2. What is the difference between competency to stand trial and legal responsibility?

Competency determines whether a defendant will be able to appear at trial and understand the proceedings; sanity determines whether a defendant will be

held responsible for his criminal actions

Ignorance of the action

Ignore the morality of the action

3. Who has the burden of proof when the insanity of the defendant is at stake?

The burden is shift to the defendant to prove the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
4. Why does the law treat the sane and the insane differently? What issues does it raise?

B) The Slender Man cases

Read the following article, then answer the questions.

Anissa Weier found not guilty by mental disease in Slender Man stabbing

Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 15, 2017.

WAUKESHA – A jury late Friday agreed Anissa Weier should get treatment for the Slender Man delusion  that led her to try to kill her sixth-grade classmate, and

not go to prison for the crime.

The jurors agreed Weier, 15, was suffering from a mental disorder when she and Morgan Geyser tried to fatally stab their sixth-grade classmate in 2014, and

that it prevented her from knowing her conduct was wrong, or from conforming her actions to the law.

Circuit Judge Michael Bohren ordered Weier committed to the Department of Health Services, and ordered a predisposition investigation report returned by

Oct. 2. In the meantime, Weier will remain at a West Bend juvenile jail where she has lived for three years.

Weier and Morgan Geyser were just 12 when they stabbed their friend 19 times and left her to die in some woods after a sleepover. They later told investigators

they had plotted the shocking offense to please Slender Man, an internet boogeyman, and the case became an international sensation and subject of an HBO

documentary. But it dragged on for years as experts tested their legal competency, and their lawyers fought unsuccessfully to have the case moved to juvenile

court, suppress their statements to detectives, or have them released pending trial before they both finally entered insanity pleas. Anissa Weier's attorneys then

challenged the legality of that law as applied to a 12-year-old's thinking.

The jury of seven men and five women has been sequestered since Monday night while they heard Weier’s lawyers present their case that she should be found

not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. She pleaded guilty last month to attempted second-degree intentional homicide.

They relied heavily on three psychologists – two of them appointed by the court – who all agreed that Weier and Geyser’s friendship created a perfect storm of

shared delusion. Their belief in Slender Man grew so strong that they could not derail their plan to murder a classmate and therefore become proxies of Slender

Man to avoid having him kill their families.

Prosecutors offered no evidence of their own, but argued Weier never had that fear until after the stabbing. As the two girls were tiring in the first hours of their

planned 300-mile walk to Slender Man’s mansion in the forest, Weier had second thoughts. That’s when, she later told a detective, Geyser told her she’d made

a deal with Slender Man, and if they didn’t join him, he would kill their families.

Though Weier had introduced Geyser to the Creepypasta website where they learned about Slender Man – a tall, faceless man in a suit, with tendrils coming out

his back – it was Geyser who later said they could become his proxies by killing a friend.

Maura McMahon, Weier’s attorney, said justice would be putting Weier where she belongs, in a secure mental hospital. "There's no walking away for Anissa, no

loophole," McMahon said. "There've been consequences for 3 years, and it will continue one way or the other."

The victim, Payton Leutner, survived multiple surgeries and returned to school to start seventh grade the next fall. Her family's story was featured on the ABC

News show 20/20, but they have not spoken with other news media, though her parents and other relatives appeared at nearly all the hearings in the case.

Questions
1. Who are the parties involved in this case and what crime were they involved in? Who is the Slender Man?

The judge

An attempted murder of a sixth grade student by Anissa Weier and Morgan Geyser two teenager
2. According to you, why was the jury sequestered?

I think the jury were sequestered to avoid them to be hurt by someone and to avoid the jury to be influenced by the media or the family of the victim so they

were able to take their decisions with their own mind. Well known in the news
3. What was the jury’s decision? What then happened to the defendants?

The jury tell the girls suffered from mental disorder and she was not guilty.
4. People often say that insanity pleas are a way of escaping justice for criminals. What does Mrs. McMahon say about that in the article?

Mrs Mcmahon says that mental hospital is where the girl belongs. The girl is not escaping prison.
5. The article indicates that the girls were tried as adults rather than as children. Do you find this normal? Can you explain what might have explained

that choice?

The age can explain this, 10 years old. I don’t it’s normal that the girls were tried an adults.
6. You are now the prosecutor. What would you choose to write in the opening statement? The crime was decided. The girls are enough old to kill on

of their classmate, someone they knew. No insanity. Contemplated (prémidité). 19 times

What about in the closing statement?

Twinkie defense 