pageok
pageok
pageok
Problem for My Criminal Law Review Session Thursday:

Bert and Ernie are walking down the street from the local bar, when they see their old nemesis the Count. Drunk and a little paranoid, they conclude that the Count is trying to kill them, so they decide to kill him to prevent that from happening; but they don't want to confront him directly.

Fortunately, they see Oscar sitting in his trashcan. "Help us out, Oscar," they say; "come up to the Count and ask him to count your trash bag collection." "No!," says Oscar, annoyed by the request. "You'd better do it, or else we'll beat you up." "Okay," says Oscar, and does what they ask of him.

While the Count is distracted, Bert pulls out his handgun and pulls the trigger; but it turns out that Bert had forgotten to load the handgun. Bert and Ernie then run away, but Oscar isn't as fast. The Count jumps on Oscar and tries to kill him by drinking his blood, but the police come before Oscar is entirely drained, and save Oscar's life.

What crimes have been committed, or may have been committed, here? Apply the Model Penal Code as well as the various common-law rules that we've studied.

Bruce:
The heck with it. Lock 'em all up!
5.2.2006 7:40pm
J-L:
A very comprehensive and entertaining CrimLaw problem.

If I may be jocular, this reminds me of something Stephen Colbert recently said on his show:

"Calle de Sesamo. I for one do not want to know how to get there."
5.2.2006 7:45pm
alkali (mail) (www):
"I count ... 1, 2, 3 crimes, bwhah hah hah!"
5.2.2006 7:51pm
Cornellian (mail):
That's easy, no crimes were committed as none of the parties involved are people - they're all puppets.
5.2.2006 7:51pm
roy (mail) (www):
Trademark infringement?
5.2.2006 7:54pm
Jake (NYU):
Shouldn't somebody have died while working to rescue Oscar? I don't think any criminal law hypo is complete without a potential felony-murder issue.
5.2.2006 7:56pm
PoohPoohBear:
1) Hate crime. Bert &Ernie are gay.
2) Endangered Species Act. VAmpires are a dying breed.
3) Loitering. What else can you charge a homeless vagrant like Oscar rummaging through trash cans?
5.2.2006 8:02pm
Been There, Done That:
Bert and Ernie are DIP.

I'll bet that most of your students miss that one.
5.2.2006 8:03pm
bornyesterday (mail) (www):
I'm pretty sure they could get Oscar for littering.
5.2.2006 8:03pm
earlhushpuppy (www):
Is Count Dracula an American Citizen? He is from Transylvania, is he not? If that is the case, I believe he has some Vienna Convention rights and he should be allowed to contact a Romanian Consulate.

As for Bert...this guy needs to be dealt with! I don't care how you do it, just get it done. He is Evil!

http://www.bertisevil.tv/
5.2.2006 8:04pm
roy (mail) (www):
Serious hunches from a layman...

Bert &Ernie: Public intoxication. Conspiracy. Attempted murder.

Ernie: Some firearm violation; it's usually illegal to carry while intoxicated.

Oscar: Probably no crime, as he was coerced, but I wonder if the threat of being beat up is strong enough coersion to excuse helping to kill somebody.

The Count: Aggravated assault or attempted murder. He might be able to convince a judge that he was merely trying to stop Oscar from fleeing after commiting a crime, but we know he was really trying to kill Oscar. I forget the list of crimes from which you can use deadly force to stop a person fleeing, and it varies between states anyway.
5.2.2006 8:05pm
Malvolio:
Isn't the coercion applied to the Grouch a crime? Extortion perhaps? Assault? Uttering a terroristic threat?

Could you also get the Count on grand larceny for theft of the blood?
5.2.2006 8:10pm
Malvolio:
Oh, and Oscar hasn't committed a crime: he didn't know what Bert and Ernie were planning and so isn't party to the conspiracy.
5.2.2006 8:11pm
Vovan:
God how I wish I was taking Crim again instead of Civ Pro II and Property - Crim Law - best class in the 1st year, torts comes close, but my prof sucked - so its crim law all the way.
5.2.2006 8:12pm
Stephen Aslett (mail):
Well, I'm not going to waste time putting out all the MPC and common law elements, but here's my take.

------

Bert and Ernie

1) Conspiracy to murder the Count. Their intoxication is no defense.

2) Assault on Oscar by threatening to beat him up.

3) Attempted murder of the Count for Bert. Accomplice to attempted murder for Ernie. No aggravated assault since the Count was distracted and didn't apprehend anything.

Oscar

1) Oscar isn't an accomplice to any crime since he didn't intend to commit any crime. He's simply there under duress. Poor guy.

Count

1) Attempted murder on Oscar. No claim of self-defense since everyone was running away at the time the Count attacked so the count couldn't reasonably believe that he was in any danger, and, in those few states that still have a duty to flee, the Count was able to flee without danger to himself but chose not to.

2) Assault on Bert and Ernie.
5.2.2006 8:15pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Whatever they're charged with, it is quite certain they're all going to raise an insanity defense.
5.2.2006 8:18pm
Porkchop (mail):
Conspiracy to commit murder (BE); solicitation to aid &abet murder (BE); extortion (BE on O); assault (B on C; E as coconspirator; O as accessory, but with defense of duress); attempted murder (B on C; E as co-conspirator; O as accessory, but with defense of duress); aiding and abetting assault (E); aiding and abetting attempted murder (E); assault (C on O); attempted voluntary manslaughter (C on O). Felony evasion of police? Probably not, but maybe in Virginia. Accessory to assault and attempted voluntary manslaughter (BE)? Maybe -- they placed O in danger. Public intoxication? In Dallas, Texas -- yes, definitely; elsewhere -- fogedaboudit.
5.2.2006 8:22pm
John R. Mayne (mail):
I don't remember anything about the Model Penal Code, but that won't stop me from trying:

Bert and Ernie meet the standard for insanity (failure to understand that what they are doing is wrong; lethal self-defense is allowed to a lethal threat.) However, the reason for that may be voluntary intoxication, which excludes them from a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) defense. Sorry, gentlemen.

If their paranoia stems entirely from mental problems and not the voluntary intoxication, they might be able to go NGI. For $400 an hour, they ought to be able to get someone to say they are NGI, but then those people aren't that credible.

I'm not going to touch on the mental defect aspects of conspiracy here, but I don't want my grade brought down too far. So: Conspiracy. I see it.

The next question is whether Oscar knows they want to murder ol' Count. If he does, no amount of duress is sufficient to justify his actions. If he thinks they will do no crime, or less than murder, then he's got a duress defense.

Bert's good for an attempted murder for the whole gunplay thing. He gets a personal use of a firearm enhancement. Ernie's in on it, so he's good for the attempted murder, too. Oscar, see above.

I'm not charging The Count. He's just had Oscar trick him into almost getting killed. Oscar's running.... where, exactly? The Count doesn't have to wait for Oscar to turn and blow him away. Even if The Count is mistaken that Oscar tried to get him capped, he's allowed to try to stay alive until the next episode.

For grading purposes, we need to ask whether Oscar's completely detached from the event and that he's done all the things that he needs to do; notification of an intent to retreat, actual retreating, etc. It's unclear from the hypo whether he has. Don't care. Not charging The Count.

The police saved Oscar's life. They get a nice word in the post-trial press release.

--JRM
5.2.2006 8:27pm
John Jenkins (mail):
1 Count each of Conspiracy for Bert &Ernie
1 Count each of Attempted Murder for Bert &Erine (via conspriacy): factual impossibility is not a bar.
1 Count each of Extortion for Bert &Ernie

Self defense is a reasonable person standard, and Bert &Ernie could not reasonably have been in fear for their lives, so they are not able to claim it.

1 Count of attempted murder on the Count; Oscar never threatened the Count and once Oscar turned to flee, the Count's right to defend himself with commensurate force was vitiated: he was no longer in danger, so now he is the aggressor.

The facts do not counsel toward including Oscar as part of the conspiracy, so none of the conspiracy's crimes can be attributed to him.

I guarantee I did better on this than I did on the Corporate Tax final I just finished.
5.2.2006 8:36pm
Stephen Aslett (mail):
Porkchop. Good calls on the extortion and attempted manslaughter. We didn't cover extortion in crim and I plain forgot about it. And though attempted manslaughter can't occur in involuntary manslaughter (b/c no intent), it can occur in voluntary manslaughter.

I don't know if the solicitation is right, though. Are you claiming that the "Come help us out" language implies that Oscar was asked to kill the Count? I'm not so sure. It seems that they were just asking for Oscar to bring his trash bag collection to the Count for some undefined purpose.
5.2.2006 8:39pm
Tinhorn (mail):
The Count is undead. So, attempted desecration of a corpse, perhaps, but is it attempted murder to misfire at someone who's not alive (even if the actor thought the corpse was alive)?
5.2.2006 8:50pm
John Jenkins (mail):
Tinhorn, oddly enough, yes. Factual impossibility doesn't matter, only legal impossibility. Shooting someone who is already dead, whom you thought was alive, is attempted murder, or at least it was in the classroom of the crazy man who taught me criminal law, at least the common law thereof, which to my knowledge bears little resemblance to the real thing (as I learned working at the Public Defeder's office).
5.2.2006 9:05pm
Cornellian (mail):
"God how I wish I was taking Crim again instead of Civ Pro II and Property - Crim Law - best class in the 1st year, torts comes close, but my prof sucked - so its crim law all the way."

No way Dude, Civil Procedure is the best course in first year.
5.2.2006 9:05pm
SB (www):
Tinhorn: I think it depends on whether we're using 2nd or 3rd edition D&D rules.
5.2.2006 9:08pm
Glenn W Bowen (mail):
when I read this post, I said to myself, "Eugene has put out a direct call for students to assess the problem... therefore, the likes of me, and my usual tone, really aren't required, nor would be appreciated"

but I see by several of the replies others have me covered.

(strolls away gigglin')
5.2.2006 9:24pm
Tom952 (mail):
"a little paranoid", meaning perhaps the Count was indeed out to kill them. So, their scheme with Oscar is justified as pre-emptive self-defense, but the coercion of Oscar is not.

B&E: Assault for intimidating Oscar into the scheme.

The Count: Attempted Murder for attacking Oscar.
5.2.2006 9:37pm
U.Va. 1L (mail):
John Jenkins:

Attempted murder to shoot a corpse you think is alive, sure, but since B&E (presumably) know that the Count is a vampire and thus undead, would that negate it?
5.2.2006 9:37pm
John Jenkins (mail):
Given that they were shooting, intending to kill him, they must have believed that so doing would kill him. They therefore had the requisite intent for attempted murder, even though an ex ante review of the facts makes it clear that they could not have killed him. I can't believe I wrote that. I'm going to study insurance law now. T minus 11 and counting.
5.2.2006 9:49pm
Ex-Fed (mail) (www):
Attempted Muppicide?

I'm pretty sure that the administration would say that we're fools to handle Bert criminally instead of as an enemy combatant. He's on a watch list based on his Al-Qaida connections and should probably wind up in Gitmo with disaffected staff seargents smearing fake menstrual blood on him. (And let me tell you, that's a bitch to get out of felt).
5.2.2006 9:59pm
NYU 1L:
Assuming that EV wasn't trying to set a trap for his students or open up a question on criminal policy analysis re: the undead, I think we have to assume that the Count is considered an ordinary person with fangs for the purpose of the problem.
5.2.2006 10:02pm
Michael Lopez (mail):
If it ain't human, it ain't murder.
5.2.2006 10:02pm
crimlawdunce (mail):
If they didn't do that, they did something else. They're good for it. Nudge the evidence a little closer to the scene and lock them up.
5.2.2006 10:05pm
Alaska Jack (mail):

Bert and Ernie are walking down the street from the local bar ...


How slowly are they walking? There may be a charge of Mopery in there somewhere.

- Alaska Jack
5.2.2006 10:35pm
Taimyoboi:
"Loitering. What else can you charge a homeless vagrant like Oscar rummaging through trash cans?"

Not if the show was filmed in LA.
5.2.2006 11:08pm
Truth Seeker:
I'm thinking thank god I'm not still in law school and some other guy writes "God how I wish I was taking Crim again"!
5.2.2006 11:20pm
GW 3L:
There's a "Muppet Penal Code" joke just waiting to be made.
5.2.2006 11:21pm
Porkchop (mail):
Stephen Aslett wrote:


I don't know if the solicitation is right, though. Are you claiming that the "Come help us out" language implies that Oscar was asked to kill the Count? I'm not so sure. It seems that they were just asking for Oscar to bring his trash bag collection to the Count for some undefined purpose.



I'd charge it -- might not win, though.

By the way, I feel s-o-o-o sorry for you all. I graduated from law school 25 years ago. This is just fun for me. :-)
5.2.2006 11:24pm
Bleepless (mail):
1. Zoning violation (living in a garbage can);
2. Hate crime (the Count is white, very white);
3. Public indecency (only the Count is clothed, and only
partially);
4. Noise (I bet Oscar yelled);
5. Reckless endangerment (running down the street with a
firearm:
6. Causing unnecessary anxiety to law students.
5.2.2006 11:25pm
Fishbane (mail):
Count

[...]

2) Assault on Bert and Ernie.


I'm a layman (with an interest), and agreed with the rest. But where does this come from? Unless the assailant is Eugene, I don't get it. (Or are you assuming Bert and Ernie had a reason to fear the Count that might be interesting enough to warrant consideration at trial?)
5.2.2006 11:32pm
ReaderY:
In NC,

1. Drunk and Disorderly for Ernie and Bert
2. Attempted murder for Ernie (as principal) and Bert (as aider-and-abbetter)
3. Conspiracy to commit murder for Ernie and Bert
4. If E and B discussed the murder scheme with O, solicitation to commit murder for E &B and attempt/conspiracy for O (with arguable defense of duress). Otherwise, no charges for Oscar.
5. At most, attempted voluntary manslaughter for the Count. In 0North Carolina this would be the only possible crime to charge, since there was no premeditation (and there in no attempted murder without it). The Count may be able to offer a self-defense justification, and a jury might well convict on involuntary manslaughter.
5.2.2006 11:38pm
logicnazi (mail) (www):
I'm sure this has been addressed before but could you charge someone for murder for shooting an alien? Not the kind from another country but the kind from space. Say E.T. drops down says in perfect english that he means no harm but you hate aliens so you shoot him anyway? Just curious after all the talk about killing the undead.
5.2.2006 11:41pm
ReaderY:
Also, since the Count is from Transylvania, in case the Count is really another sweet TV from Transexual, Transylvania (I don't know what's suitable to show on Sesame Street these days) and perhaps has arrived by Time Warp, E and B may be guilty of Assault on a Female since I don't believe North Carolina recognizes a sex-change operation (or dress) as affecting the elements of the crime, and I believe the crime (as long as an assault is intended) doesn't require specific intent for the female element.
5.2.2006 11:45pm
Rob Apgood (mail) (www):
Which one of them has the most money... and does he need a good criminal defense attorney? ;)
Hi Eugene.
5.3.2006 12:05am
Porkchop (mail):
Another point to ponder: Everyone knows that you can't kill a vampire unless you use a silver bullet. If Bert knew that and knew he didn't have a silver bullet, would there be a vampiride attempt -- or just an assault?
5.3.2006 12:19am
John Jenkins (mail):
We don't have all of the story. You see, the Count works for the IRS and Bert &Ernie were worried that the Service would find out about the net built in loss in their business assets as well as the accumulated earnings and profits they had in B&E, Inc. when they made a valid subchapter S election at the beginning of the year. Faced with unfavorable tax treatment, their paranoia was well-founded, so they should probably be let off lightly. Someone should tell me why in the second semester of my 3L year I took corporate tax and partnership tax. (Best first-year course is clearly contracts: the guy being forced to pay child support for a kid that isn't his is priceless, and who doesn't love Eastern v. Gulf?)
5.3.2006 12:43am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Another point to ponder: Everyone knows that you can't kill a vampire unless you use a silver bullet. If Bert knew that and knew he didn't have a silver bullet, would there be a vampiride attempt -- or just an assault?
Porkchop -- I don't know how you are as an attorney, but you'd suck as a bodyguard against the undead. Silver bullets are for werewolves, not vampires. Vampires require wooden stakes through the heart, sunlight, beheading, fire.
5.3.2006 12:48am
Peter Wimsey:
I think most people have listed most of the relevant crimes. I would charge Oscar with conspiracy to commit murder - it seems like he know why he was luring the count in, there certainly is an overt act, and I don't think the defense of duress has been established.

My state has a pointing a firearm statute; I don't know if that's MPC, but I'd charge B with it.

In addition to conspiracy, B and E also get charged with att/Murder. O doesn't.

The count gets charged with Att/M on Oscar - the specific intent to kill is present, and I don't see a good self defense claim given that the blood draining seems to be a drawn out process.

Specific intent can be hard to prove (although maybe not here, since the blood draining seems to be ongoing), so I would also charge the C with battery. *Maybe* he could be convicted of both - there are double jeopardy problems, but, arguably, the "biting" would be enough to establish the "touching" element for battery, while the att. murder element could be proved by the "sucking".

(To the extent that vampires cause others to become vampires by biting them and infecting them, maybe battery by body waste...).

I never really liked sesame street, but if it had been more like this, I would have watched it. ("This episode is sponsored by the letters 'D-N-A' and the numbers '9-1-1'."
5.3.2006 12:50am
Paul McKaskle (mail):
I agree with Cornellian. How can anybody doubt that Civil Procedure is not only the most interesting, but the most valuable course in the first year of law school. The only ones who disagree are those who have never practiced law.
5.3.2006 1:04am
abb3w:
Since the question of Addison v. Clarke has yet to reach the real world Supreme Court (actual vampires belonging to cryptobiology in our world), I would suggest that the Count should be assumed (despite odd skin color) to just be an eccentric immigrant, and not a member of the undead of questionable rights (with uncertain personhood) under US and international law.

I would also suggest that anyone who wishes to speculate on the possible grounds used in Addison v. Clarke (cf. 54 F.R.D. 282, Western District of Pennsylvania), and rights (or lack thereof) vampires might have should wait for the next open thread. I'll also ignore that to note that a vampire, citizenship might also be obtainable by having been a resident of one of the states at the time of the ratification of the constitution.

And yeah, the trademark case is probably the easiest to make here. =)
5.3.2006 1:34am
earlhushpuppy (www):
It might very well be the most valuable, but how can you honestly say it is the most interesting???

which sounds like more fun to discuss--

the equal protection clause or 12(b)(6)???

the eye of ordinary vigilance or service of process???

adverse possession or discovery rules???

to me, civ pro loses every time.
5.3.2006 1:41am
Lev:
The Count is guilty of snacking while white.
5.3.2006 1:48am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Don't know about all these attempted murder and attempted manslaughter charges for the count. He was arguably effecting a citizen's arrest and had just had an attempt on his life. Maybe one of the more serious flavors of assault, if that. I think some of you are acting out your obvious prejudice towards vampires, and upper class Transylvanians - shame on you.
5.3.2006 2:21am
Pete F.:
Treat them as enemy combatants and ship them to Guantanamo, which trumps the Model Penal Code. Would save a lot of paperwork too. Never liked E&B anyway. The Count is kinda cool though.
5.3.2006 2:56am
Rob F. (mail):
Crimes:
B&E: Conspiracy to commit murder under CL and MPC (no overt act needed); Solicitation; Attempted Murder by Bert and possibly accomplice liability (principal in the second degree) for Ernie; public intoxication

Oscar - complicity (conspiracy but the argument is weak...did he intend that the Count die? unlikely)

The Count - Attempted Murder

Defenses:
B&E - insanity/voluntary intoxication negating the mens rea/self-defense (thought the Count was trying to kill them)/impossibility (no bullets)/Necessity (one dead instead of two)

Oscar - Duress

The Count - Self-Defense
5.3.2006 9:11am
PersonFromPorlock:
Rob F.: The Count - Self-Defense

But since Sesame Street is on PBS, shouldn't we presume that Muppetland has a Liberal government? In that case, the charge would be Felony Self-Defense.
5.3.2006 9:37am
Matt Barr (mail) (www):
The problem contains no direct evidence that the Count is a vampire, nor any of the participants Muppets.

I always thought people in these hypos had to have the initals of A, B, C and D, though. Unless they're in litigation, when they have to have the initials P and D. (And witness W.)

An analysis would be incomplete unless you accounted for the possibility the Count really was trying to kill Bert and Ernie.
5.3.2006 11:09am
Lawstsoul:
Good call Matt. The practice of reading additional facts into the hypothetical remains alive and well!
5.3.2006 11:46am
Dubs:
Query -- who had the unibrow? What is Bert or Ernie? I am not entirely sure that is relevant to this hypothetical. But I'm curious.
5.3.2006 12:09pm
Windypundit (www):
I think Bert's and Ernie's defense team should use the media to put the cops on trial by accusing them of being in thrall to the Count.
5.3.2006 12:18pm
New Lawyer:
As a recent grad and licensee three months into his first job: God I miss law school! Issue spotters are like brain teasers. They're fun. The real world... the real practice of law? Working for a senile moonbat who can't even remember your name, much less offer you actual "training" -- not as much fun.
Enjoy it while it lasts, my friend.
5.3.2006 12:25pm
Eh Nonymous (mail) (www):
Just to be safe,

Wire fraud!
5.3.2006 1:20pm
KeithK (mail):
2. Hate crime (the Count is white, very white);
and
The Count is guilty of snacking while white.

Come on people! Everyone knows that Count von Count is purple, not white. Or maybe that's pink. Whatever. http://pbskids.org/sesame/number/3.html
5.3.2006 2:14pm
Bored Attorney:
"And yeah, the trademark case is probably the easiest to make here."

Nope. No use in commerce. See 15 USC 1114(1) and 1125(a).
5.3.2006 2:52pm
pennywit (mail):
Blood drain ... isn't that practicing medicine without a license?

And .. ahem ..

Vone! Two! Three! Three crimes! Three crimes committed!

--|PW|--
5.3.2006 3:41pm
Frank Drackmann (mail):
check out the "Bert is evil" web site..It has all sorts of pics of Bert with Hitler,on the grassy knoll, as one of the roman soldiers at the Crucifixion..
5.3.2006 4:19pm
Nillion (mail):
If vampirism is transmitted through the biting and sucking of blood (as some vampire legends state), would the Count then be able to be charged with murder for turning Oscar into the undead?
5.3.2006 5:45pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Still don't see anyone hitting the citizen's arrest angle for the Count. And excessive force arguments are somewhat compromised because he had just been in imminent danger due to a violent attempt on his life which Oscar was a party to. Get a couple bug eaters and/or women on the jury and he walks.
5.3.2006 6:01pm
crane (mail):
Nillion:
If vampirism is transmitted through the biting and sucking of blood (as some vampire legends state), would the Count then be able to be charged with murder for turning Oscar into the undead?


Except that if the undead are officially "dead" in that sense, the Count himself is already dead. Can a dead man be charged with a crime? If so, what if any legal penalties is he subject to?

This also complicates the issue of whether Bert and Ernie are guilty of attempted murder. Other comments above have said that it's still murder to try to "kill" a corpse if the corpse is believed to be alive, but as the hypo describes the Count as Bert and Ernie's old nemesis it's reasonable to assume that they are aware of his undead nature.
5.3.2006 6:18pm
markm (mail):
Crane:
1. And how would they apply the death penalty, if the court picked that sentence?

2. I've never heard of, "They were too stupid to pick an effective way of committing the crime", as a successful defense to a criminal charge.
5.3.2006 6:38pm
daughter of icarus (mail):
B&E are definitely going down for attempted murder as everyone knows you can stop a vampire with a cross. And it's no defense that they were afraid of being sued by the ACLU for having a cross on public property.
5.3.2006 6:42pm
Louis Bonham (mail):
Since Ernie and Bert see the Count after they left a bar, then it appears logical that Ernie had his handgun with him while *in* the bar . . . which is itself an offence in most states, even if Ernie has a concealed carry permit. (Assuming, of course, that Ernie isn't a peace officer . . . . )

LKB
5.3.2006 7:16pm
crane (mail):
markm:
2. I've never heard of, "They were too stupid to pick an effective way of committing the crime", as a successful defense to a criminal charge.


Well, no, but if (a) the undead are considered dead in the eyes of the law and (b) Bert and Ernie were aware of both this legal principle and the undead nature of the Count, then it follows that they knew they would not be committing a crime by killing him.

This, of course, is why undead citizens would require the creation of a new legal status. Think of all the potential litigation that would surround the issue! Is it a crime to make a living person undead? What if the living person wants to become undead? What if, prior to the conversion, the living person had maintained that she would not want to exist in such a state, but afterwards decided it wasn't so bad after all? And, of course, since undead creatures can't reproduce (except insofar as converting the living or raising the dead counts as reproduction), should they have the right to convert the living/raise the dead?
5.3.2006 9:04pm
Lev:

Come on people! Everyone knows that Count von Count is purple, not white. Or maybe that's pink.


Only post snack.
5.4.2006 1:20am
PeteRR (mail):
"should they have the right to convert the living/raise the dead?"

Only in the 1st trimester.
5.4.2006 1:21am
Kevin L. Connors (mail) (www):
OK Eugene, scanning quickly down the seventy-five-some comments, I don't see any from you, so I must assume this hasn't been answered, although I must apologize if it's already been asked:

Do the actual Sesame Street personas come into play here, or could it just as easily be "Does 1 through whatever" (one of which, it seems, has fangs)?
5.4.2006 3:35am
Kevin L. Connors (mail) (www):
I mean, I can think of no case law concerning vampires. But it would seem as though any prosecutor that attempted to bring charges against The Count, for doing what comes naturally (particularly if vampires can be considered an endangered species), would have every organization from the ACLU to the Sierra Club coming down on him/her. ;)
5.4.2006 3:46am
RBH (mail):
Which (if any) of the comments above were posted by current or former prosecutors or public defenders? For some reason, that was the main question I had after quickly reading through all of the comments. Any thoughts? Any of you want to fess up? My bet would be John R. Mayne, ReaderY and maybe Porkchop. Oh, and I'm not a current or former prosecutor or public defender, i.e. a real trial lawyer.
5.4.2006 8:36pm
Kevin L. Connors (mail) (www):
RBH: "Oh, and I'm not a current or former prosecutor or public defender, i.e. a real trial lawyer."

And a troll. A funny troll, to be sure. But still a troll. :)
5.5.2006 6:34pm