2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. Resources

33. 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.