Legal Analysis of Embezzlement Case: Mental Health and Miranda Rights

Is Jerry Guilty of Embezzlement?

The case under analysis features Jerry, who works for TikTok. Jerry’s current responsibility involves managing international wire transfers for the company, which suggests that the extent of his responsibilities and the risk that his failure to meet the company standards entails are quite high. Presently, Jerry is suffering from a mental health issue that prevents him from performing core tasks. Specifically, he has been facing issues with managing wire transfers. Recently, when handling a wire transfer from China, Jerry accidentally placed the money into the company’s account but into his personal one. Failing to notice the specified mistake, he continued performing the rest of the tasks without making any corrections or adjustments necessary for the further management of the transfer.

Rule

In reviewing the case being analyzed, it is necessary to consider some of the statutes related to embezzlement. Under the 2019 California Penal Code, “every clerk, agent, or servant of any person who fraudulently embezzles or conceals with fraudulent intent to embezzle any property of another which has come under his control or care because of his employment as such clerk, agent, or servant is guilty of embezzlement” (California Penal Code § 508 (2019)). Under these standards, Jerry is legally liable for the damages he caused, so he must be punished accordingly. The elements necessary to prove embezzlement under the common law and California Penal Code include:

1. The owner entrusted his property.
2. The owner did so because he trusted the criminal.
3. The offender fraudulently took or used the property for his or her benefit.
4. The perpetrator intended to deprive the owner of the right to use his property.

Jerry did not commit any of the elements mentioned because he had unintentionally committed the crime and did not use deceptive means to steal or use the property for his benefit.

Analysis

The case in question features quite a range of controversies, most of which stem from the failure to adhere to the standards of managing the process of apprehension and further questioning of the suspect. First and most importantly, the fact that the police required a warrant to perform the specified operation and enter Jerry’s house must be mentioned (Kwesell v. Yale University (2019)). The specified course of action is inconsistent with the current legal standards, which require that officers should have a warrant for an arrest in case of embezzlement (Kwesell v. Yale University (2019)). Moreover, the fact that Jerry was not given his Miranda rights and was not informed that he could ask for a legal representative before speaking to the police warrants further consideration (Kwesell v. Yale University (2019)). Thus, the process of apprehending Jerry cannot be described as fully legal.

Are Jerry’s Bank Account Records Found on His Laptop and the Signed Admission of Guilt Admissible Aa Evidence at Jerry’s Criminal Trial?

However, as it turned out afterward, the financial crisis mentioned above was a rumor generated by the media that did not correspond to the actual reality. Nonetheless, Jerry was still unaware of the mistake that he made. After another employee noticed the missing money, Jerry was apprehended and taken to the police, where he was not given his Miranda rights and, instead, was subjected to rather challenging questioning. Additionally, Jerry was not provided with a lawyer who could represent him as he was being questioned, which was another obvious violation. Eventually, the police rushed Jerry into signing an agreement that confirmed his guilt.

Rule

The important factor is that Jerry did not intend to commit the crime, but the man’s bank account records were found on his laptop and may serve as evidence. A signed guilty plea is also admissible in evidence at Jerry’s criminal trial. However, the California Labor Code of 2020 requires special accommodations for employees with disabilities (California Labor Code § 3212.86 (2020)). Even if Jerry failed to disclose his disability to his employer, this situation exempts Jerry from some degree of liability for his misconduct.

Analysis

The fact that Jerry has a mental health issue and was affected by one of his episodes when performing the act of withdrawing money into his personal account proves that he was not responsible for the specified action and, therefore, should not be judged on the merits thereof. Instead, the specified issue must be viewed as a direct result of Jerry being affected by his condition and, thus, not being criminally responsible for his actions (Kwesell v. Yale University (2019)). Admittedly, according to California laws, the sole fact of being mentally ill should not preclude one from being responsible for a crime (Kwesell v. Yale University (2019)).

However, the situation under analysis can be seen as more complex than merely viewing Jerry culpable since the extent of his ability to grasp the situation and affect its outcomes is yet to be determined. Therefore, the case features a range of violations combined with the lack of proper understanding of Jerry’s condition, which is why further reexamination of the issue at hand is required.

Case Conclusion

Although the existing California regulations regarding embezzlement imply that the presence of a mental health issue does not void a person committing it of any responsibility, it should be seen as an alleviating condition that must affect the verdict accordingly. Thus, the case at hand needs to be revisited thoroughly. Specifically, the fact that Jerry was not provided with his Miranda rights and was arrested without an order from the police indicates that certain violations did occur and affect the outcomes of the trial. For this reason, further reconsideration of the issue is required.

Works Cited

CA Labor Code § 3212.86 (2020).

CA Penal Code § 508 (2019).

Kwesell v. Yale University (2019).