Difference between revisions of "Defenses"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 25: Line 25:
 
* [[Maltreated Women Syndrome]]
 
* [[Maltreated Women Syndrome]]
 
* Intoxication
 
* Intoxication
 +
* [[Criminal act with Sincere Intent]]
  
 
== Defense strategies ==
 
== Defense strategies ==

Revision as of 10:30, 7 April 2010

There are two types of legal defenses:

Procedural Defenses

Normal Defenses

Defense strategies

In the process of developing a theory of the case, a defense lawyer shall decide whether it is possible to exonerate the client from guilt. If so, he should further consider how to prove the innocence of the client at trial. The following are possible defenses for exonerating an accused from criminal liability.

Has the prosecution borne the burden of proof? Remember that your client is entitled to the right og being innocent until proven guilty. No person shall be found guilty without being judged as such by the court according to the law. It is the prosecution's duty to prove that the client is guilty of the charges against him. It means that the prosecution must prove that the facts are clear and the evidence is sufficient.

Before forming other defenses the lawyer should critically scrutinize the bill of prosecution to confirm whether the alleged crime has already occurred or not. If it has occurred, further consider whether the prosecution has presented evidence sufficient enough to support the charge. Consider whether another charge (a lighter charge) fits better with the case evidence. The following are necessary questions to consider:

What are the elements of the accused offence? For example:

  • Self-driven act: Did the client act from his own free will? What evidence has the prosecution presented to prove that the client acted of his own accord?
  • State of mind: Under what state of mind would the client's act constitute a crime (ex: intentionality, negligence, disregard of the outcome)? What evidence has the prosecution presented to prove that the client in his actions had the requisite criminal intent, had specific knowledge or skill necessary for committing the act or was criminally negligent?
  • Cause and effect: Did the client's act result in the ultimate injury?
  • Direct cause: Were the client's actions far enough from the charged crime that he should not be subject to any criminal responsibility?
  • Legal obligation: Does the law stipulate that the client must act in specific ways to exercise his distinctive legal obligation?

What laws define the elements of a crime? Are these laws contradictory with each other?

How much evidence must be presented in order to sufficiently meet all the required elements of the accused crime? What are the elements of the crime that the client should have been charged with, but was not?

Does the evidence presented meet the evidence requirements for all the elements of the alleged offence? What are the legal stipulations regarding evidence for elements of the accused crime? What evidence supports the prosecution's case? What evidence is not consistent with the prosecution's argument?

If the prosecutor cannot present sufficient evidence to support the charged offence or even support a lighter offence, the defense lawyer shall point out the insufficiency of evidence to the court and request that the court either judge the client as innocent or dismiss the charges.

Has the statutory time limit for criminal prosecution expired?

Is it possible to make an affirmative defense if the facts of the crime cannot be denied? In an affirmative defense, counsel does not deny the elements of the alleged offense but still attempts to prove the innocence of the accused. Such a defense requires counsel to present sufficient evidence, including witness testimony or material evidence. Even if the lawyer does not deny that the accused committed the alleged acts, the defense will try to prove that the acts were justified or provide another legal defense for negating the accused's criminal liability.

Can the defense lawyer prove the innocence of the accused? This is one type of affirmative defense and aims to prove that the accused did not commit the crime, i.e. that the accused could not possibly have committed the alleged offense. The two most common methods of proving the accused innocent are:

  • Proving the accused's alibi
  • Using the material evidence to prove that the alleged offense could not have happened.

In employing the first strategy, the lawyer can provide credible evidence, such as the testimony of a witness at the scene to prove an alibi; if adopting the second strategy, the legal aid lawyer can cite credible evidence demonstrating the weaknesses of the material evidence against the accused, and explain how these limitations or weaknesses exclude the possibility of the alleged offense. For example, suppose the accused was accused of stabbing the victim, and the evidence provided by the prosecutor indicates that the victim was stabbed by an assailant who used his right hand. In such circumstances, if the criminal legal aid lawyer can provide credible evidence to prove that the accused's right hand was previously injured and that he could not have used it at the time that the crime was committed; this demonstrates that the accused could not have committed the alleged offense.

Can the defense lawyer justify the crime committed by the accused? Justifying the crime for the accused is another type of affirmative defense wherein the accused does not deny the alleged offense, but argues that he should not bear legal responsibility for it. Counsel is arguing that the accused committed the alleged offense for justified causes that are socially accepted or that conform to moral principles.