Article: The New Yorker trial by fire by David Grann

Trial By Fire Name Institution Page Break Trial By Fire 1) What key element of the crime was missing from the beginning? Before the ascertainment of an act or omission to be a crime, it must be proved that there existed various criminal elements, including intent, causation, conduct, and concurrence. According to the facts highlighted in the article, concerning the case of Willingham after the fire that took the lives of his kids, it is evident that the last three elements of a crime, including causation, conduct, and concurrence were inevitable from the beginning. As such, it is evident that the crime substantially lacked intent. This was among the primary reasons why the arson investigators took time at the house of Willingham to unearth the cause of the fire, thus arriving at the various bits of evidence they collected. There did not exist substantial justification, at the start, that Willingham had intended to execute the arson. 2) What is your reaction to defense attorney David Martin’s comment to the reporter: “Everyone thinks defense lawyers must believe their clients are innocent but that’s seldom true. Most of the time, they’re guilty as sin.” The comment by Martin regarding the underlying guilt of a defense lawyer’s client is quite unprofessional. While the law is unambiguous that all citizens are innocent until proved guilty, it is ironical and unimaginable that a renowned legal practitioner could make such a statement. The sentiment overrides the need for having him as a defense lawyer because if he can claim the guilt of his client, then he contradicts the first reason why he was hired for the client, to defend him. While it may be clear to the ordinary citizens that a person who commits a crime must be punished, the legal perspective operates...

Buy now to view the complete solution