When a criminal defendant is facing charges, they must build a strong defense strategy that will address the underlying facts of their case. A successful defense will not only help to mitigate a defendant’s punishment, but it will also potentially protect them from conviction altogether. The most common type of criminal defense involves asserting that the crime charged is unfounded or exaggerated. This could include claiming that law enforcement officers misinterpreted evidence, for example in cases of sexual assault or possession of drug paraphernalia. Other common types of criminal defenses include arguing that a crime was justified, such as in self-defense or duress.
A negative criminal defense, such as innocence or insanity, seeks to prove that a defendant was not responsible for their actions at the time of the crime. A criminal attorney must dig into the details of a case to find any possible evidence that supports this claim, including expert witnesses and testimony on matters such as blood, gunshot residue (GSR), bullet trajectory, fingerprints, breathalyzer results, cloth fibers, hair strands, seminal fluid, DNA, tire tread or bullet fragments.
Procedural defenses, on the other hand, are not focused on the guilt or innocence of a defendant. These defenses are often based on a claim that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof or that the defense was deprived of due process, such as being subjected to an unreasonable search or not provided with sufficient evidence at the time of their arrest.
The most common form of justification for breaking the law is the defense of acting in self-defense. This defense asserts that the defendant’s actions were justified, such as stabbing someone because they feared for their safety. This can be a valid defense for violent crimes, but it must be proven that the defendant believed that their actions were proportional to the perceived threat and that they did not commit the offense willingly. Cain and Herren Law Firm can help you determine acceptable defense options.
Another common justification for breaking the law is the defense entrapment. This defense is based on the argument that the government agent who entrapped the defendant into committing the crime should be excluded from trial. This can be a difficult defense to mount, but it is possible in some cases.
A third justification for breaking the law is abandonment or withdrawal, which is when a defendant claims that they originally agreed to participate in or commit the crime, but ended up withdrawing from participation at some point during the act. This can be a viable defense for a variety of crimes, but it may be particularly effective in cases of theft. This defense can also be strengthened by offering alibi evidence, such as witness testimony or video evidence that the defendant was in a different location at the time of the crime.
Cain & Herren, ALC
2141 W Vineyard St, Wailuku,
HI 96793, United States
+1 808-242-9350
cainandherren.com
cain-herren-attorney.business.site
