Three Harder Hypos for the AI

because you asked...

I received significant feedback on my last post disappointed that I gave the AI fairly easy legal hypos. In a sense this is true…but again my primary purpose in doing this was to demonstrate how actual legal analysis works.

To demonstrate something orthogonal to that, perhaps just how much I like legal hypos, by popular request I’m posing harder legal problems to the AI….and actually, I’m not going to give the correct answer. Instead, I’ll merely ask the AI if it’s sure.

PROMPT #1: Mimi Mimms is a shoplifter who enjoys stealing stuff from a particular Target location in downtown Minneapolis. On January 1st, 2022, she enters the Target and steals a bag of groceries valued at $35, including a single steak worth $20. On March 1st, 2022 she enters the same Target and steals a bag of tube socks and a bag of panty hoes which combined are valued at $20. On August 1st 2022 she again returns to the target and steals a computer monitor valued at $450. She is charged with a single felony violation of Minn. Stat. 609.52. Can her case be proven at trial?

ANSWER: Yes, her case can be proven at trial. The prosecution will need to present evidence that Mimi Mimms committed each of the three thefts at the Target location in downtown Minneapolis. This could include security footage, witness testimony, or other forms of evidence that prove that she was the one responsible for the thefts. Additionally, the prosecution will need to prove that the items stolen had a combined value greater than $500. This can be done by presenting bills of sale, invoices, or other evidence of the items' value. If the prosecution can prove these elements, then Mimi Mimms can be found guilty of the felony violation of Minn. Stat. 609.52.

PROMPT #1 cont.: Are you sure?

ANSWER: Yes, I am sure. The prosecution will need to present evidence that Mimi Mimms committed each of the thefts at the Target location in downtown Minneapolis and that the items stolen had a combined value greater than $500 in order to prove her case at trial.

PROMPT #2: Cody Daggart is a meth dealer from Northern Minnesota. The State has been trying to bust him for years, but has consistently failed to catch him with a distribution quantity of Meth. Eventually, in frustration, the police decide to try to catch him with ANY amount of Meth. One morning, they wait outside his house for him to leave, then follow him in their police cruiser as he drives to work, waiting for him to break the speed limit, which of course he does. They pull him over and ask him to leave the vehicle. As he does, the police see a single baggie of meth in the car's cupholder, which was previously blocked by Cody's body. They seize the drugs but let Cody go about his day, warning him that he will be charged. One day later, Cody comes down to the police station to "clear everything up" with regards to his previous encounter with the police. Rather than listen to him, the police arrest him for drug possession. Upon arresting him, they search his person and find more meth. Cody is charged with a single count of fifth degree drug possession in violation of Minn. Stat. 152.025. At trial, the state proves the substance seized from Cody's car is pure meth and weighs a little less than a gram. They prove the substance seized from Cody's pocket during the arrest is pure meth and weighs a little MORE than a gram. Cody takes the stand in his own defense and says that the drugs in his car belonged to a friend, and that he thought the drugs found in his pocket following his arrest were crushed-up Tylenol. The jury convicts Cody of Fifth degree drug possession. Pretend you're Cody's lawyer. What's his best argument to get a new trial on appeal?

ANSWER: Cody's lawyer could argue that the jury was presented with insufficient evidence to support a conviction for fifth degree drug possession. Specifically, the lawyer could argue that under Minnesota Statute 152.025, a conviction for fifth degree drug possession requires that the accused possess a greater amount of drugs than the state was able to prove that Cody possessed. The law states that the amount of drugs in question must be "at least one tenth of one gram of controlled substance, but not more than three tenths of one gram of controlled substance." Since the state was only able to prove that Cody possessed drugs that weighed less than a gram, the jury should not have found him guilty of the offense charged. This argument could potentially persuade an appellate court to grant Cody a new trial.

PROMPT #2 CONT: Are you sure?

ANSWER: Yes, I am sure.

PROMPT #3: Gwen Thresher is a billionaire industrialist from El Farole, Texas. Hoping to secure funds for a new Space Center in El Farole, Thresher arranges for a private one-on-one meeting with Bruno Cochrane, one of Texas’ two United States Senators. Thresher says that if Cochrane will publicly commit to a bill diverting $1,000,000,000 in government funds towards the space center, Thresher will use her close friendship with the mayor of El Farole, Mercedes Vega, to have her endorse Senator Cochrane in the 2024 election. Cochrane agrees and commits to the bill the next day in a press conference. The day after that, Thresher purchases a $1,000 oil painting for Mercedes Vega’s office, and presents it to her as a gift. She then holds a meeting with Mercedes Vega, and asks her to support Senator Cochrane in the upcoming election. Did Gwen Thresher commit Federal Program Bribery in violation of 18 USC 666?

ANSWER: No, Gwen Thresher, Bruno Cochrane, or Mercedes Vega did not commit Federal Program Bribery in violation of 18 USC 666. This law states that it is illegal for someone to directly or indirectly solicit, accept, or receive anything of value to influence a decision made by a government employee. In this case, Gwen Thresher purchased a painting for Mercedes Vega's office, but this was done with the intent of influencing Mercedes Vega, not to influence Bruno Cochrane's decision to commit to the bill. Furthermore, there is no indication that Senator Cochrane accepted or received anything of value in exchange for his commitment to the bill. Therefore, none of the parties involved have violated 18 USC 666.

PROMPT #3 CONT: Are you sure?

ANSWER: Yes, I am sure that Gwen Thresher, Bruno Cochrane, and Mercedes Vega did not commit Federal Program Bribery in violation of 18 USC 666. This law is very specific and states that it is illegal for someone to directly or indirectly solicit, accept, or receive anything of value in exchange for influencing a decision made by a government employee. In this case, Gwen Thresher purchased a painting for Mercedes Vega's office, but this was done with the intent of influencing Mercedes Vega, not to influence Bruno Cochrane's decision to commit to the bill. Furthermore, there is no indication that Senator Cochrane accepted or received anything of value in exchange for his commitment to the bill. Therefore, none of the parties involved have violated 18 USC 666.