Assignment task: The defendant Jeen Han and her twin sister Sunny had a long history of violence against each other (People-v. Han, 2011). Defendant Han became enraged when Sunny pressed charges against her for theft. Testimonial evidence presented at trial showed that she expressed the intent to kill her twin before any conspiracy was formed (People v. Han, 2011). She actively sought out individuals to help her with her sister's murder (People v. Han, 2011). Thereafter, she met up with her teenaged cousin and a friend, the other two codefendants. The three broke into Sunny Han's apartment, tied up Sunny and her roommate at gunpoint and placed them in the bathtub, and then ransacked Sunny's purse. Receipts produced at trial indicated a purchase of garbage bags, twine, utility tape, and Pine Sol previous to the incident. The Court of Appeal of California held that although circumstantial, the evidence supported the verdict. The court reasoned that the purchase of the twine, garbage bags, utility tape, and Pine Sol, combined with the actions of the defendants in breaking into the apartment, tying up the two roommates at gunpoint, and putting them in the bathtub, could be interpreted as circumstantial evidence of intent to kill. The trier of fact did not err in making that conclusion (People v. Han, 2011).
Q1. Do you think it is ethical to impute Jeen Han's intent to murder her twin to the two other coconspirators based on the circumstantial evidence presented at trial?
Q2. Did Han's actions satisfy solicitation?
Q3. According to the Pinkerton Rule (look up), should all the coconspirators