Joint Criminal Defenses

When the defendant is tried for a crime, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. At the same time, the criminal defendant has the right to file a defence and may do so through a variety of means. The defendant may try to make holes in the prosecutor's case, argue that someone else committed the crime, or argue that he actually committed the crime but had a legal and reasonable defense to do so. There are many criminal defences available that may allow the defendant to avoid punishment for his actions.

The defendant did not understand the importance of criminal proceedings.

Defenses based on state of mind and intentions

insanity

sugar

The mistake of the law or the truth.

One category of defence available to the criminal defendant is that the defendant cannot be convicted of the crime because he did not understand what he was doing or that his actions were wrong. At its most severe, this includes defending insanity. The defense of insanity requires the defendant to prove, depending on the case in which the case was tried, that he either suffered from a mental disorder that left him unable to understand right from wrong, or that he prevented him from controlling his actions and resist violent motives. In some states, the insanity defense will allow the defendant to avoid imprisonment but will require the defendant to be detained in a psychiatric facility for treatment.

Similarly, the defence of poisoning also relies on the theory that the defendant could not meet all elements of the crime because he did not understand what he was doing. If the defendant is involuntary intoxicated, this can be a defence of both general and specific intent offences under the theory that poisoning prevents the defendant from understanding right and wrong. Voluntary poisoning is also a defense, but only for specific intent offences when the defendant argues that poisoning prevented him from forming the necessary intent for the crime.

Finally, the criminal defendant may be able to defend a law error/factual error. Under this defence, the defendant made a fundamental mistake denying an element of the crime. For example, the defendant accused of theft may argue that he mistakenly believes that the victim gave him the property. Similarly, the error of law applies when the criminal defendant believes that his actions are legal. This defense applies only in very limited circumstances.

The defendant was justified in his actions.

Defences based on justification

Self-defense (or defense of another)

Forced

need

Another category of defence applies when the defendant commits the crime but argues that it was justified in doing so. The most recognized of these defences is self-defence and the defence of others. The defendant may argue, for example, that he shot an intruder but did so in self-defence because the intruder was threatening him with a knife. Similarly, in defence of coercion, the criminal defendant argues that he committed the crime only because he was forced to do so by another person. For example, the criminal defendant may argue that the other defendant told him that if he did not commit a robbery, the other defendant would kill him. Finally, under the defence of necessity, the criminal defendant may argue that he committed the crime in order to prevent greater harm. For example, the defendant may claim that he had to steal a car in order to chase another person who was threatening to use an explosive device.

There's actually no crime.

Defenses claiming no crime

Approval

Give up or withdraw

trap

Finally, a smaller set of defences could be used to argue that although there appeared to be a crime, the defendant had not actually committed a criminal act. First, the defendant may argue that no crime has occurred because of the defence of consent. For example, the defendant may argue that although sexual intercourse occurred, it was not rape because there was consent. Similarly, he may argue that there was no assault because the victim agreed to the damage. Secondly, the criminal defendant can confirm the defence of abandonment/withdrawal if he initially intends to commit or participate in a crime, but subsequently changed his mind and withdrew from participation. Third, the defendant may argue the trap. The trap occurs when the Government urges the individual to commit the crime and then tries to punish the person for committing it. The defendant may argue that no crime would have occurred without the temptation of the Government and therefore should not be held responsible.

Criminal proceedings

Criminal justice systems at the federal, state and local levels must follow a series of rules governing the stages of the criminal case, starting with police investigations and continuing throughout way through trial and appeal. Federal criminal proceedings are subject to substantive criminal laws in Section 18 of the United States Act and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Each state has its own criminal code. Procedural rules help ensure that the government applies the law as consistently as possible, and also helps protect the constitutional rights of individuals. These procedures apply in all criminal matters, as well as in some quasi-criminal proceedings, such as deportation hearings.

A key fact

The rules of criminal procedure ensure consistency and protect constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment rights

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the police. In order to prevent violations of this right, the police are required to obtain a search warrant from the judge, after showing probable cause to believe that the search is likely to result in evidence relating to a crime. A defendant who claims that the police confiscated evidence violating his Fourth Amendment rights may petition for suppression of such evidence under the exception rule.

Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights

A series of constitutional rights, known as Miranda's, protect people during police investigations and during the trial. The right to remain silent, known to anyone who watches police shows on television, means that the police cannot force people to incriminate themselves, and prosecutors cannot call the defendant as a witness in the defendant's own trial.

1. A person has the right to be a lawyer of his own choosing once he or she has been arrested and during any police interrogation. In some cases, a person who cannot afford a lawyer is entitled to be a public defender or a court-appointed lawyer. Once a person invokes his or her right to remain silent or counsel, each interrogation must cease.

Other rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments include the right to face the accused in court, known as the confrontation clause; the right to try the accused; the right to be charged with the same crime More than once, known as double jeopardy; the right to a trial before a neutral jury; and the right to a speedy trial without undue delay.

Eighth Amendment rights

The Eighth Amendment protects people after arrest, which may be in the early stages of a criminal case, and after conviction. "Excessive bail" is prohibited, which means that while the judge is not obliged to release a person on bail after his arrest, the amount of bail may not be unreasonable or excessive.

U.S. Constitution Explained

To view the entire Constitution, visit the annotated U.S. Justia Constitution.

The Eighth Amendment also prohibits "excessive fines" and "cruel and unusual punishment.""Supreme Court Justice William Brennan outlined four principles to be considered in determining whether the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment: (1) whether its "seriousness" is "degrading to human dignity"; and (2) whether Its "severity" is "degrading to human dignity"; (2) whether "severity of punishment" is an "affront to human dignity"; (2) whether "severity of punishment" is an "affront to human dignity"; and (2) whether "severity of punishment" is "insulting (2) what If they are assessed "in a completely arbitrary manner;" (3) whether society has generally been dismissed as punishment; and (4) whether it is "clearly unnecessary". Foreman vs. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). That decision ruled that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment, but the court overturned that sentence four years later in Greg v. Georgia, 428 United States 153 (1976).

Stages of the criminal process

After arresting someone, the state must file formal charges, either by filing a complaint or obtaining a grand jury indictment. The court informs the defendant of the charges against him when he first appears in court, known as indictment. Preliminary proceedings allow the defendant to request that evidence be withheld under the exception rule and that other issues be resolved.

The criminal trial process begins with the disappearance of a jury, unless the defendant chooses to hold a trial in court. The State, which bears the burden of proving guilt, presents its evidence and witnesses first. The defendant then has the opportunity to refute the State's allegations or to prove a positive defence. The judge or jury determines the verdict. If the jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision, the court may declare the trial ill-trial. If the defendant is found guilty, the court will determine the verdict.