Analysis of D:

Solicitation to rob bank with F:

The issue at hand is whether D solicited F for a crime when he propositioned to F

that they should rob the bank at 10 PM. Solicitation when someone asks another for
assistance to participate in, or help further a crime. When D walked up to F and
propositioned a plan to rob the bank at 10 PM, he effectively solicited F for a crime.
However, if D were convicted of Conspiracy, the charges for solicitation would
merge with conspiracy.

Conspiracy to rob bank with F:

However, When F responds that it would be a great idea to rob the bank, and shows
up to do so the next night, now they two are involved in a conspiracy. A conspiracy
is the intent to work in collaboration to commit a crime. Solicitation gets absorbed
into Conspiracy since F decided to partake in the crime. If F had refused to take part
in the crime, then D would only be guilty of solicitation. The mens rea part of the
conspiracy is fulfilled since they had the intent to commit a robbery. The actus reas
part may not be fulfilled since they did not go through with the conspiracy. He
might get charged with attempted robbery, but the argument does not seem strong
enough in order to constitute a conviction.

Attempted robbery

D fulfills the Mens Rea element of attempted robbery when he showed up to the
bank at 9:50 to rob it with F (the intent to rob the bank was there, so it is fulfilled).
However, there is a question of whether the actus reas element is satisfied when
they did not actually go through with robbing the bank. He can be charged with
attempted robbery since he intended to do so, but the jury would have to decide
whether or not the attempt was committed close enough in time to the actual crime
in order to convict D, I think the jury would be unlikely to find him guilty.

Analysis for F

Conspiracy to rob bank with D.

F effectively enters into a conspiracy with D when he agrees to rob the bank after D
solicits him to do so. A conspiracy is the intent to work in collaboration to commit a
crime. When F agrees that robbing the bank would be a good idea, and shows up at
9:50 to rob the bank, he has fulfilled the mens rea requirement of a crime by
showing intent to commit a crime with D. The actus reas of the crime is up for
debate since they never actually committed the robbery. F may get charged with
conspiracy to commit a robbery, however, the likelihood of the jury to find him
guilty seems a bit unlikely. They never actually robbed the bank, so the actus reas
element of the crime is unsatisfied; only the mens rea requirement is fulfilled.
Solicitation of P to rob the bank:

When F calls P and says that they tried for too many years to make an honest living,
and that its not worth it, and tells P to meet him at a bank at 10 PM, he strongly
makes a case for solicitation. Solicitation is Solicitation when someone asks another
for assistance to participate in, or help further a crime. One can try to make the
argument that just meeting at the bank at 10 PM might not constitute a solicitation,
but it seems highly unlikely that they would be there for anything else. However, F
most likely would not get charged with this crime because he winds up entering into
a conspiracy with P to rob the bank.

Conspiracy to rob the bank

F never informs D, or P that they would be working with anyone other than F to rob
the bank. A conspiracy is the intent to work in collaboration to commit a crime.
Therefore, in terms of the three of them getting conspiracy altogether, it seems
highly unlikely that they would be matched as one big group. F and D are one
separate conspiracy, and P and F are another. There is no conspiracy between F, D,
and P since F never told P and D about each other. Most likely there would not be a
charge for all three being involved in a conspiracy, but two separate conspiracies.
There is no Mens Rea element for P and D to work together, nor was there an Actus
Reas. However, there is a Mens Rea element to rob the bank in two separate
conspiracies. Since, however, there was no actus reas of the robbery, the conspiracy
to rob the bank might not be applicable, and the jury would not find in favor of the
state.

Attempted Murder of D

When F shoots D in the head as he’s running away, there arises an issue of
attempted murder of D by F. There is no murder in the 1st degree due to the fact
that F did not premeditate to kill D. However, you could make a strong argument
that M2 is applicable since the act was willful and showed a malignant heart. There
may be an argument that it is M1 because there was an attempted burglary about to
happen at the bank, but, the attempt was over when D was running away, so the M1
charge most likely would not hold in a jury’s eyes. It most likely would also not be
either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. For VM, yes the act was done
intentionally, but was not in a sudden heat of passion, nor was F adequately
provoked. Its also not IVM because the act did not show gross negligence, F did not
recklessly fire his weapon in the general direction of D, he fired it at D’s head in an
attempt to kill him. The mens rea element of the attempted murder is fulfilled when
F says “Let’s just get rid of you”, he fulfills the actus reas element by voluntarily
acting to shoot the gun at D’s head.

Conspiracy of F and P in an attempted murder of D.

There is an argument of whether P is involved in a conspiracy to kill D when he
stood by as F shot D, and ran away after D was shot without helping him. There is
no intent on P’s part that he wanted to help F shoot D, nor does P have any legal
obligation to help D after he had been shot, other than a moral one, so any
arguments of omission become null in void. P did not fulfill either the actus reas or
mens rea requirement to attempt to kill D.