Comments on: Analysis: A focus on intent http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-a-focus-on-intent/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: DavidinNY http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-a-focus-on-intent/comment-page-1/#comment-9401 DavidinNY Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:08:43 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-a-focus-on-intent/#comment-9401 It is interesting that this case comes the day after the argument in Zedner v. US. Although the legal issue in Zedner involved an interpretation of the speedy trial act, the underlying case, to which the court referred at argument, was all about the intent of a crazy person. As the Scotusblog post of April 17 states: "Jacob Zedner ran afoul of the federal government by trying to get various banks to accept a forged $10 million “U.S. Dollar Bond.” The banks declined the document over Mr. Zedner’s protestations that its errata (references to institutions like the “Onited States,” “Thunted States,” “Cgicago,” and the “Ministry of Finance of U.S.A.”) were a “secret code” proving the bond was authentic." In short, Zendner was a real loon, and the case was finally tried, after years of delay, with the defense being that he had no criminal intent since he sincerely believed, as the result of his delusions, that the bonds were genuine. So the fact that the Federal courts permit such a defense was probably at the front of the court's mind for the argument in Clark v. Arizona. Hey, how do you make paragraph breaks in these commments, anyway? It is interesting that this case comes the day after the argument in Zedner v. US. Although the legal issue in Zedner involved an interpretation of the speedy trial act, the underlying case, to which the court referred at argument, was all about the intent of a crazy person. As the Scotusblog post of April 17 states: “Jacob Zedner ran afoul of the federal government by trying to get various banks to accept a forged $10 million “U.S. Dollar Bond.” The banks declined the document over Mr. Zedner’s protestations that its errata (references to institutions like the “Onited States,” “Thunted States,” “Cgicago,” and the “Ministry of Finance of U.S.A.”) were a “secret code” proving the bond was authentic.”

In short, Zendner was a real loon, and the case was finally tried, after years of delay, with the defense being that he had no criminal intent since he sincerely believed, as the result of his delusions, that the bonds were genuine.

So the fact that the Federal courts permit such a defense was probably at the front of the court’s mind for the argument in Clark v. Arizona.

Hey, how do you make paragraph breaks in these commments, anyway?

]]>