In the Opening Case Round 3,United States v.Hearst,the authors state that Hearst's attorney,F.Lee Bailey,argued that Hearst was not guilty of armed (or aggravated)robbery because no one was injured in the bank holdup.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The authors state that Hearst's attorney argued that the acts committed by Hearst did not constitute evidence of premeditated intent to commit armed robbery, not that Hearst was not guilty because no one was injured.

In the Opening Case Round 3,United States V