Why do you think the Clinton health reform failed but the Obama health reform succeeded?

What are the main challenges faced by long-term care in the future? 

FACT PATTERN (next 5 questions)A asks B for his help in robbing the FDIC-insured U.R. Safe National Bank.  B agrees to help A rob the bank, and procures guns for each of them, giving A the better of the two guns since A is to be the one who scares the bank customers and employees into compliance with their orders.  Despite the fact that they mutually agreed to arm themselves, they promised each other that should things go wrong, they would surrender rather than kill anyone.  As planned, upon entering the bank, A keeps all the customers and bank employees at bay while B goes into the bank vault with the bank manager to get the loot.  While in the vault, however, B rapes the bank manager.  An off duty security guard comes in from the security entrance to the bank, and hears the bank manager screaming.  He goes into the vault, and witnesses B committing the rape.  B shoots and kills the guard.  A runs in, sees what B has done, turns his gun on B, and says, “Damn it.  Let the woman go.  Drop your gun.”  A then instructed one of the bank employees to call the police.  A kept B at gunpoint while all waited for the police to arrive. A may be properly convicted of solicitation to commit bank robbery. 

Marilyn left Rumors Bar after having consumed five double Kamikazes in less than one hour.  While she was walking to the Metro, she bumped into Jinny, a homeless woman on the street.  Jinny swore at Marilyn and took a swing at her.  Marilyn responded by kicking Jinny in the face, and left the scene.  Unbeknownst to Marilyn, the five-inch spike on her high-heeled shoes went right into Jinny’s eye, causing massive bleeding.  Jinny died within an hour of the incident on the street from loss of blood.  An eyewitness identified Marilyn and she was arrested. If Marilyn were charged with involuntary manslaughter, her best chance for acquittal would be:

A person may be held indefinitely in a psychiatric institution upon a judicial determination that they are incompetent to stand trial.

Jessie age 19, burglarized a house with two of her friends, both of whom are in their early 20s.  Jessie really did not want to commit the crime, but her buddies pressured her into it.  In preparation for trial, Jessie’s lawyer sent him to Dr. Fred Della, a forensic psychiatrist, for a full evaluation.  Dr. Della called Jessie’s lawyer and agreed to testify in favor of the defense since he concluded that Jessie did not entertain the required mens rea of purpose or knowledge.  Dr. Della explained that while Jessie did not suffer from any mental illness, she is severely learning disabled.  As a result of her learning disability, she has certain personality characteristics that made it unlikely that the required mens rea was actually entertained.  Specifically, Jessie is naive, extremely suggestive, and in effect, is capable of being hoodwinked by the other people on the occasion involved.  In fact, Dr. Della believes that is exactly what happened.  Based upon this information, Jessie’s lawyer chooses to use the insanity defense.  The Model Penal Code formulation of the insanity defense is in effect in the controlling jurisdiction.  Presuming that Jessie’s learning disability were a bona-fide mental disease or defect sufficient to qualify for invoking the defense of diminished capacity, the defense would most likely:

The phrase “willful, deliberate, and premeditated” in a first-degree murder statute necessarily means that the defendant must have carefully and thoughtfully formed a specific intent to kill. 

An honest mistake as to whether the victim consented to sexual intercourse will be a defense to rape in most U.S. jurisdictions. 

With exceptions made for the “Discovery Rule” and a small number of crimes (e.g., homicides, some types of tax fraud, etc.), criminal prosecutions must be instituted within a certain time period in the overwhelming majority of U.S. jurisdictions.

NEW FACT PATTERN (Next 3 questions) Johnny lived with his wife and three kids.  He had an erratic temper and sometimes beat his wife and children.  Lately, he had been having problems at work and had taken to stopping at the neighborhood pub before coming home.  On many of these nights, Johnny had attacked his family members while in a drunken state.  Three days after a particularly savage beating of his 17-year-old son, Garry, Johnny came home late from work in another drunken state.  Johnny’s wife was not home, and Garry was taking care of his younger siblings.  Johnny asked where his dinner was, knowing that his wife usually left him a plate of good if he missed the family meal.  Garry told his father than he had given the good to the family dog.  Angered by his son’s statement, Johnny said, “I’ll have to teach you to have some respect for your father,” but feeling a little unsteady, he added, “after a little nap.”  Johnny then collapsed on the couch.  Garry knew that there would be trouble when his father came to, so he took the children to a neighbor’s house and asked the neighbor to mind them for a while.  Garry then returned home and looked for his father’s shotgun, but could not find it.  After thinking for a while, he got a large knife from the kitchen drawer and waited near the couch for his father to awaken.  When Johnny awoke to find his son holding a knife, he said in a worried voice, “Garry, my son, what are you doing?”  Garry said, “You won’t hurt us anymore.”  And then he jabbed the knife into his father’s chest.  Johnny died nearly instantly.  Garry was brought to trial as an adult for the killing of his father. In a common law jurisdiction, the court is most likely to find that: