Defense Strategies

When facing criminal charges, having an effective defense strategy can mean the difference between a guilty verdict and exoneration. Defense attorneys have a variety of options when building a defense case, and must carefully consider the facts of the case, credibility of witnesses, and attitudes of the community. This article will examine common defense strategies, their implications, and relevant laws and precedents.

Affirmative Defenses

Affirmative defenses aim to justify or excuse the defendant’s actions by arguing mitigating circumstances. They do not dispute the facts of the case, but rather provide context that aims to reduce or eliminate culpability.

Self-Defense

One of the most common affirmative defenses is self-defense, which argues the defendant’s actions were necessary to prevent imminent harm. Defendants must show they reasonably believed force was needed to protect against death or serious injury [1]. However, the amount of force used must be proportional to the threat [2]. Self-defense laws vary by state, with “stand your ground” laws eliminating the duty to retreat in some jurisdictions [3].

Insanity

The insanity defense argues the defendant lacked criminal responsibility because of mental illness. The legal standard varies – most states use the M’Naghten rule, which requires showing the defendant didn’t know right from wrong during the crime [4]. Some see the insanity defense as a “loophole” but successful use is rare [5].

Duress

Duress claims the defendant acted under coercion or threat of harm. They must reasonably have believed they or others faced imminent peril without other options besides criminal action [6]. Duress cannot justify murder in most states [6]. It requires an immediate threat, so ongoing abuse doesn’t qualify [6].

Negating Elements of the Crime

Rather than justify the actions, defendants can argue the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the alleged crime.

Alibi

An alibi defense asserts the defendant couldn’t have committed the crime because they were elsewhere at the time. Alibis must be corroborated by additional evidence – a defendant’s testimony alone is rarely enough . Strong alibis should leave no question the defendant was at the alleged location.

Intoxication

Voluntary intoxication can negate intent for specific intent crimes like theft or assault. The defendant must show intoxication prevented them from forming the required mental state . For general intent crimes like manslaughter, intoxication rarely provides a full defense but may reduce the charge .

Consent

Consent defenses argue the alleged victim approved of the defendant’s conduct, negating required elements. In assault cases, evidence of consent makes the act legal. For crimes like statutory rape, consent may only mitigate charges rather than provide a full defense .

Procedural and Evidentiary Defenses

These defenses focus on legal errors in the proceedings rather than directly contesting guilt or innocence.

Unlawful Search and Seizure

Defendants can argue evidence was obtained illegally in violation of 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. If successful, the excluded evidence cannot be used at trial . However, impeachment, inevitable discovery, and good faith exceptions may still allow use .

Miranda Rights

Statements made during custodial interrogation are inadmissible without Miranda warnings about right to silence and counsel . Violations generally only exclude statements made before warnings are given . Exceptions include public safety and questioning outside interrogation.

Double Jeopardy

The 5th Amendment prohibits double jeopardy – charging someone twice for the same crime . Exceptions include prosecuting separately for the same act under different laws, or retrying after mistrial or appeal . It generally doesn’t prohibit state prosecution after federal or vice versa .

Sentencing Considerations

Even if a defense against conviction fails, arguments at sentencing may lead to reduced punishment.

Mitigating Factors

Defense attorneys present mitigating evidence trying to show the defendant deserves less punishment. Common factors include mental illness, youth, abuse, lack of criminal history, and showing remorse . The impact depends on the discretion judges have under sentencing guidelines.

Alternative Sentencing

Rather than prison, the defense may request alternative sentences like probation, restitution, rehabilitation programs, or community service based on mitigating factors. Especially for first-time or low-level offenders, alternatives allow avoiding the social and economic costs of incarceration .

Conclusion

Defense strategies require thorough investigation into the facts of a case and applicable laws. While defenses should not be fabricated, zealous advocacy demands presenting the best argument for acquittal or mitigation. For the accused facing loss of liberty, a vigorous defense can mean the difference between justice and injustice.

References

1. [1] Self-Defense – Wex Legal Dictionary, Cornell Law School
2. [2] CALCRIM No. 505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another, Justia
3. [3] States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws, FindLaw
4. [4] Insanity Defense – Wex Legal Dictionary, Cornell Law School
5. [5] The Insanity Defense: Fact and Fiction, Psychology Today
6. [6] CALCRIM No. 3403. Duress or Threats, Justia
7. CALCRIM No. 3400. Alibi, Justia
8. CALCRIM No. 3426. Voluntary Intoxication, Justia
9. CALCRIM No. 1003. Consent, Justia
10. Exclusionary Rule – Wex Legal Dictionary, Cornell Law School
11. Miranda Warning – Wex Legal Dictionary, Cornell Law School
12. Double Jeopardy – Wex Legal Dictionary, Cornell Law School
13. Mitigating Circumstances – Wex Legal Dictionary, Cornell Law School
14. Alternatives to Incarceration, National Institute of Justice