Objectives To identify types of defenses used in criminal cases. To analyze when and why each type of criminal defense is used. To discuss what must be established for each criminal defense to succeed.

Criminal Charges Are brought against a person who is believed to have committed a crime this person is known as the defendant the government brings charges, and the person arguing on behalf of the government is known as the prosecutor

Criminal Charges Require a defendant to plead guilty, no contest or not guilty pleading guilty means the defendant admits to charges and accepts punishment pleading no contest means the defendant accepts punishment without admitting guilt pleading not guilty means the defendant wants to argue against the charges

Plea Bargaining Occurs when the defendant and prosecutor negotiate an agreement to avoid going to court the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser charge or a more lenient sentence in some cases, the defendant agrees to testify or provide evidence against others as well Is very common more than 90 percent of cases end in plea bargains

Plea Bargaining May be beneficial for the defendant in the following instances: being found guilty is likely because of overwhelming evidence possible sentences are devastating for example, death penalty defendant is concerned with the time and money required to carry out the case in court

Plea Bargaining May be beneficial for prosecution in the following instances: case is particularly difficult or costly to pursue courts and prosecutors are virtually always overloaded, making effective prosecution difficult if evidence is lacking, it may not be worth taking the chance of a “not guilty” verdict the defendant can provide testimony or evidence for another case

A Not Guilty Plea Requires the defendant to go to court to argue the charges against him or her while the prosecution must prove the guilt of the defendant Requires the defendant choose a criminal defense

Criminal Defense Is the strategic argument attempting to challenge the validity and sufficiency of evidence against the defendant May claim innocence the defendant did not commit the crime May claim justification the defendant committed the crime, but due to circumstances, should not be found guilty these are known as affirmative defenses

Innocence Defense Seeks to prove the defendant did not commit the crime Is the most basic and commonly used defense used when evidence of guilt is not strong Relies on the following: presumption of innocence reasonable doubt alibi

Presumption of Innocence Is a legal principle in the U.S. court system Requires the judge and jury to assume the defendant is innocent until they are shown otherwise means it is the prosecution’s job to prove the defendant is guilty, not the defendant’s job to prove he or she is innocent

Reasonable Doubt Is the legal standard for proving guilt defendant must be proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” the defendant’s guilt is the only logical explanation which can be derived from the facts Allows the defendant to introduce other possibilities to cast doubt on his or her guilt the jury or judge should not convict based simply on thinking or assuming guilt

Alibi Is a claim or evidence to show the defendant could not have committed the crime based on when and where it occurred because the defendant was elsewhere at the time Requires the defendant to present testimony or evidence they were not at the crime scene creating serious doubt of guilt

Affirmative Defenses Admit the defendant committed the crime, but seeks to prove he or she should not be held responsible for some reason requirements of proof for each justification or excuse vary by state, but are generally similar

Affirmative Defenses Include: self-defense or defense of others necessity insanity or diminished capacity intoxication duress entrapment infancy

Self-Defense/Defense of Others Is most commonly used in cases involving violent crimes for example, assault or murder Claims the defendant acted against an alleged victim because the victim posed a danger to the defendant’s life and/or to another person’s life for example, the victim was attempting to kill the defendant

Self-Defense/Defense of Others Typically requires proving the following: the defendant had a reasonable belief his or her life (and/or someone else’s life) was in danger there was no reasonable alternative to the defendant’s actions the force used by the defendant was not greater than necessary to end the threat posed by the alleged victim

Necessity Is most commonly used in cases involving minor crimes for example, trespassing or driving violations Claims the defendant needed to commit the crime in order to avoid an injurious consequence for example: trespassing to save a life or property speeding to get someone to the hospital

Necessity Typically requires proving the following: there was a specific threat of danger causing an immediate need to act the defendant did not cause or contribute to the threat there was no practical, lawful alternative to the crime the harm caused was not greater than the harm prevented

Insanity/Diminished Capacity Is not commonly used four states have even abolished the defense Claims the defendant was incapable of understanding his or her actions at the time of the crime due to mental limitations insanity usually requires a greater burden of proof than diminished capacity if successful, insanity results in a “not guilty” verdict and diminished capacity results in a lesser sentence in both cases, institutionalization is common

Insanity/Diminished Capacity Is complex to prove and varies greatly from state to state some states require proving one test, while others require more than one Typically requires proving the defendant’s mental capacity led the individual to fail to: understand actions committed distinguish right from wrong understand the criminality of actions be able to control impulses

Intoxication Is most commonly used in cases involving intent as a major factor meaning if the defendant accidentally committed the crime, the charge or sentence is different Claims the defendant was unable to understand actions because he or she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol Includes voluntary and involuntary

Voluntary Intoxication Refers to when the defendant knowingly and willingly consumes the substance affecting judgement and behavior Is not typically sufficient to disprove guilt although it may influence sentencing Typically requires proving the following: the defendant’s mental state was affected by the substance consumed it is unlikely the defendant would have commit the crime if not intoxicated

Involuntary Intoxication Refers to when the defendant consumes the intoxicating substance unknowingly and/or unwillingly Is generally a more accepted defense than voluntary intoxication Typically requires proving the following: the defendant was forced to consume or tricked into consuming the substance the intoxication altered the defendant’s mental state to the point of diminished capacity

Duress Is most commonly used in cases involving crimes committed by two or more people Claims the defendant committed the crime because someone else threatened or forced the defendant to do so for example, someone holding a gun to the defendant’s head to force illegal behavior May also be referred to as coercion or compulsion

Duress Typically requires proving the following: there was an immediate threat of death or serious injury to the defendant the defendant had a substantial fear the threat would be carried out the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to escape or act outside of committing the crime

Entrapment Is used in cases involving crimes influenced by law enforcement officials Claims the defendant only committed the crime because of extreme or overbearing behavior by an officer for example, harassment, threats, fraud, etc.

Entrapment Is either judged by a subjective or objective standard, depending on the state with a subjective standard, jurors decide if the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime regardless of law enforcement pressure focus is on defendant’s character with an objective standard, jurors decide whether the officer’s actions would have induced a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime focus is on officer’s behavior

Infancy Is used in cases involving crimes committed by minors Claims the defendant is too young to be emotionally and cognitively mature enough to understand the nature of his or her actions May excuse a defendant completely or may result in a lesser sentence depending on the crime and age of the defendant

Infancy Can be applied at varying ages depending on the state and crime less than seven years old is most common Typically requires proving the child’s age and maturity are below the threshold set by the state factors considered include the defendant’s: chronological age understanding of the consequences of the crime reason for committing the crime

Criminal Defenses Are complex and highly varied often, a defendant will use elements from multiple types of defenses to fit the case Are usually guided by professional defense attorneys particularly in cases involving serious crimes

Resources http://www.attorneys.com/criminal-defense/types-of-criminal-defenses http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/affirmative-defense.htm# http://legaldictionary.net/affirmative-defense/ http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defenses-criminal-charges

Acknowledgements Brand Manager Amy Hogan Graphics Editor Melody Rowell Quality Control Director Angela Dehls V.P. of Brand Management Clayton Franklin Executive Producer Gordon W. Davis, Ph.D. © MMXVII CEV Multimedia, Ltd.