Question 1

What "conceptual arguments" did Ford make in claiming that it could not be prosecuted? How did this relate to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the idea that federal laws preempt state laws? What about the ex post facto argument that Ford's lawyers made? How did this end up limiting the prosecution's case to a 41-day window during which Ford would be criminally culpable?

Accepted Answer

Ford made several conceptual arguments in claiming that it could not be prosecuted. First, Ford argued that as a federally regulated entity, it was subject to federal laws and regulations, and therefore could not be prosecuted under state laws. This argument relates to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal laws take precedence over state laws in the event of a conflict. Essentially, Ford was asserting that federal laws preempted any potential state prosecution.

Additionally, Ford's lawyers made an ex post facto argument, claiming that the state's attempt to prosecute Ford for conduct that occurred before the state's criminal laws were enacted violated the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. This argument limited the prosecution's case to a 41-day window during which Ford would be criminally culpable, as the state's criminal laws had only been in effect for that period of time.

Overall, Ford's conceptual arguments were based on the idea that federal laws and regulations took precedence over state laws, and that the state's attempt to prosecute Ford for conduct that occurred before the enactment of its criminal laws was unconstitutional. These arguments ultimately limited the prosecution's case and played a significant role in Ford's defense.

Question 2

Judge Jones ruled:

Accepted Answer

A)   in favor of Ford's conceptual argument
B)   in favor of Ford's constitutional argument
C)   that Ford could be convicted only on the basis of having built a defective car
D)   that the ex post facto issue meant that the prosecution would have to show that Ford was reckless in its recall during that 41-day period D

Question 3

"Since Ford is not a living human being, it cannot possibly commit a crime like homicide. As a result, Ford's indictment should be quashed." In making this statement, what kind of argument was Ford proposing?

Accepted Answer

A)   conceptual
B)   corporate
C)   constitutional
D)   criminal A

Question 4

Which of the following was the first American case to recognize corporate homicide?

Accepted Answer

A)   U.S. v. Van Schaick
B)   State v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co.
C)   State v. Pacific Power Co.
D)   B.,C. and M. Railroad v. State

Question 5

What are the "distributive" and "reductive" functions of the civil law? How do these relate to compensatory and punitive damages? Which kind of damages are used to deter corporations from future wrongdoing?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What are the "distributive" and "reductive" functions...

Question 6

In its attempt to quash its indictment, Ford argued that ex post facto considerations prevented it from being prosecuted. What did Ford mean by this?

Accepted Answer

A)   individual executives, but not a corporation can be tried under Indiana law
B)   after Ford had met all existing federal regulatory standards in making the Pinto, a state like Indiana could not then come along at a later date and prosecute the company
C)   the conduct for which Ford was indicted (making the Pinto)  occurred before the legal statute being used to prosecute the company was passed and made law by the Indiana legislature

Question 7

Ford contended that it could not be charged with reckless homicide because the statute violated the ex post facto clause of both the State of Indiana and the U.S. Constitution. What type of argument was Ford making?

Accepted Answer

A)   conceptual
B)   corporate
C)   constitutional
D)   criminal

Question 8

What is the purpose of allocating "punitive" damages in a civil case?

Accepted Answer

A)   to give victims adequate compensation for their losses and suffering
B)   to give lawyers, who are on a contingency fee arrangement, payment for winning the case
C)   to reduce or deter future harmful behavior on the part of the corporation
D)   to try to put particularly harmful corporations completely out of business

Question 9

Ford argued that the state of Indiana should not be able to bring criminal charges against the company because Ford conducts interstate commerce and is regulated by the federal government. That is, Ford argued that its indictment should be quashed because federal regulatory standards should preempt state criminal law. In making this statement, what kind of argument was Ford proposing?

Accepted Answer

A)   conceptual
B)   corporate
C)   constitutional
D)   criminal

Question 10

Which of the following is true regarding the types of punitive and compensatory damages the Ulrichs could have collected for their daughters' deaths?

Accepted Answer

A)   they could have collected both punitive and compensatory damages
B)   they could have collected only punitive damages
C)   they could have collected limited punitive and compensatory damages
D)   they could have collected no punitive but limited compensatory damages

Question 11

Traditionally, in what type of court had cases in which a corporation physically harmed an individual been tried? Why in civil court? How had the law "edged" toward criminal culpability for corporations, including automakers? Still, what made this prosecution of Ford so unusual?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Traditionally, in what type of court had...

Question 12

What was Ford's strategy to prevent this case from ever coming to trial? How did they try to "quash the indictment"? In what way did Ford and its lawyers try to place an "obstacle course" in the way of the prosecution?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What was Ford's strategy to prevent this...

Question 13

Before the Ford Pinto case, it was an infrequent occurrence for corporations to be indicted for homicide.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 14

In order to take on Ford, why did the prosecutor-Michael Cosentino-have to "build a team"? How was the need to build a prosecution team different from a typical homicide case Cosentino would bring to trial? Why was prosecutor a corporation a very different enterprise?

Accepted Answer

The answer of In order to take on Ford, why...

Question 15

Cosentino sought to have the case brought in criminal rather than civil court because there was no practical way for the Ulrichs to pursue either the distributive or the reductive goals through civil remedies.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 16

Which of the following is not true regarding the "team" Cosentino built to prosecute Ford?

Accepted Answer

A)   he used local talent such as Neil Graves and John Ulmer
B)   he used distinguished law professors from Valparaiso and DePaul Universities
C)   he used the 185-member law firm of Mayer, Brown, and Platt
D)   he used a small, dedicated group of law students

Question 17

What was the primary result of the 1909 landmark case of New York Central Railroad v. United States?

Accepted Answer

A)   that because corporations were not physical beings, they could not be held liable for crimes
B)   that corporations could be held accountable for crimes of intent committed by its agents
C)   that corporations had no mind and therefore could not establish the mens rea necessary to be held accountable
D)   that corporations were protected by federal statutes from being prosecuted for crimes that require mens rea

Question 18

What "conceptual arguments" did Ford make in claiming that it could not be prosecuted? How did Ford claim that because a corporation was not a living human being, it could not be prosecuted for a crime like homicide?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What "conceptual arguments" did Ford make in...

Exam 5: Getting to Trial: The Obstacle Course Begins

Judge Jones ruled:

"Since Ford is not a living human being, it cannot possibly commit a crime like homicide. As a result, Ford's indictment should be quashed." In making this statement, what kind of argument was Ford proposing?

Which of the following was the first American case to recognize corporate homicide?

What are the "distributive" and "reductive" functions of the civil law? How do these relate to compensatory and punitive damages? Which kind of damages are used to deter corporations from future wrongdoing?

In its attempt to quash its indictment, Ford argued that ex post facto considerations prevented it from being prosecuted. What did Ford mean by this?

Ford contended that it could not be charged with reckless homicide because the statute violated the ex post facto clause of both the State of Indiana and the U.S. Constitution. What type of argument was Ford making?

What is the purpose of allocating "punitive" damages in a civil case?

Which of the following is true regarding the types of punitive and compensatory damages the Ulrichs could have collected for their daughters' deaths?

Traditionally, in what type of court had cases in which a corporation physically harmed an individual been tried? Why in civil court? How had the law "edged" toward criminal culpability for corporations, including automakers? Still, what made this prosecution of Ford so unusual?

What was Ford's strategy to prevent this case from ever coming to trial? How did they try to "quash the indictment"? In what way did Ford and its lawyers try to place an "obstacle course" in the way of the prosecution?

Before the Ford Pinto case, it was an infrequent occurrence for corporations to be indicted for homicide.

In order to take on Ford, why did the prosecutor-Michael Cosentino-have to "build a team"? How was the need to build a prosecution team different from a typical homicide case Cosentino would bring to trial? Why was prosecutor a corporation a very different enterprise?

Cosentino sought to have the case brought in criminal rather than civil court because there was no practical way for the Ulrichs to pursue either the distributive or the reductive goals through civil remedies.

Which of the following is not true regarding the "team" Cosentino built to prosecute Ford?

What was the primary result of the 1909 landmark case of New York Central Railroad v. United States?

What "conceptual arguments" did Ford make in claiming that it could not be prosecuted? How did Ford claim that because a corporation was not a living human being, it could not be prosecuted for a crime like homicide?