The defendant in this case is charged with conspiracy in the first degree (in addition to murder in the first degree). However her conduct does not constitute first degree conspiracy because her fellow conspirators were adults.
New York penal code, article 105, section 17 states: "A person is guilty of conspiracy in the first degree when, with intent that conduct constituting a class A felony be performed, he, being over eighteen years of age, agrees with one or more persons under sixteen years of age to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct."
The appropriate charge in this case would be conspiracy in the second degree since the persons the defendant conspired with to commit murder were obviously well over the age of 16. It may not seem like a big deal as to which exact degree a person would be charged with, but there is a significant difference sentence wise between conspiracy one and two. Conspiracy in the first degree is a class A-I felony and carries a minimum sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years (parole after 25 years being the maximum). Whereas conspiracy in the second degree is a class B felony with a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum of 25 years in prison.
The appropriate charge in this case would be conspiracy in the second degree since the persons the defendant conspired with to commit murder were obviously well over the age of 16. It may not seem like a big deal as to which exact degree a person would be charged with, but there is a significant difference sentence wise between conspiracy one and two. Conspiracy in the first degree is a class A-I felony and carries a minimum sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years (parole after 25 years being the maximum). Whereas conspiracy in the second degree is a class B felony with a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum of 25 years in prison.
The age of consent in New York state is 17, so Mark Dale would not have been considered a minor. While Briscoe and Green's bit about the Supreme Court ruling that minors can't be held legally responsible for their actions was just an interrogation tactic, they were betting a teenager wouldn't know the difference. However it would be likely that Mark knew he was no longer considered a minor in the state of New York.
Kate Pierce supplies the DA's office with documentation with confidential paragraphs scored out heavily in black ink. Unfortunately for her the documents are originals, not photocopies - the backs of the documents are visible and the black ink has soaked through the paper. Anyone with an ultraviolet lamp could read every word on every page. It is hard to believe that Pierce wouldn't know that, impossible to believe the DA's office wouldn't.
In memorium is considered an English misspelling here, but in Latin this spelling translates to in memory, therefore it is hard to know if this is a true misspelling, or in keeping with the tradition of the use of Latin terminology common to the practice and study of law.
Another comment here mentioned that 'in memorium' is Latin for 'in memory', and therefore not an English misspelling. However, memorium is the genitive plural of the Latin adjective memor, which would make the phrase 'in memorium' incorrect in both Latin and English. As a genitive plural, memorium would mean something like 'of the mindful [ones]'.
During the recount when Jack hands Abbie a cup of coffee, the defense attorney, James Lindle, glances at the camera.