Defenses to Criminal Charges

Here are some of the common defenses that criminal defendants can raise to
defend against criminal charges.

To convict a criminal defendant, the prosecutor must prove the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of this process, the defendant is
given an opportunity to present a defense. There are many types of defenses,
from “I didn’t do it” to “I did it, but I was too drunk to know what I was
doing.” Here are some of the most common defenses that criminal defendants can
raise.

The Defendant Didn’t Do It

Most often defendants try to avoid punishment by claiming they did not commit
the act in question.

The Presumption of Innocence

All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they
are convicted, either in a trial or as a result of pleading guilty. This
presumption means not only that the prosecutor must convince the jury of the
defendant’s guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in
his own defense. A defendant may simply remain silent, not present any
witnesses, and argue that the prosecutor failed to prove his or her case. If the
prosecutor can’t convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant
goes free.

Reasonable Doubt

The prosecutor must convince a judge or jury of a defendant’s guilt “beyond a
reasonable doubt.” This heavy burden of proof in criminal cases means that
judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all reasonable doubts about the
defendant’s guilt in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed
on the prosecutor, a defendant’s most common defense is to argue that reasonable
doubt of guilt exists.

The Alibi Defense

An alibi defense consists of evidence that a defendant was somewhere other
than the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. For example, assume
that Freddie is accused of committing a burglary on Elm Street at midnight on
Friday, September 13. Freddie’s alibi defense might consist of testimony that at
the time of the burglary, Freddie was watching Casablanca at the Maple Street
Cinema.

The Defendant Did It, But…

Sometimes a defendant can avoid punishment even if the prosecutor shows that
that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the act in question.

Self-Defense

Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime
of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a deadly weapon,
or murder. The defendant admits that he or she did in fact commit the crime, but
claims that it was justified by the other person’s threatening actions. The core
issues in most self-defense cases are:

• Who was the aggressor?
• Was the defendant’s belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable
  one?
• If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?

Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect
themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait
until he or she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable
person in the same circumstances would think that he or she is about to be
physically attacked, that person has the right to strike first and prevent the
attack. However, an act of self-defense cannot use more force than is reasonable
– someone who uses too much force may be guilty of a crime.

The Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is based on the principle that punishment is justified
only if the defendant is capable of controlling his or her behavior and
understanding that what he or she has done is wrong. Because some people
suffering from a mental disorder are not capable of knowing or choosing right
from wrong, the insanity defense prevents them from being criminally
punished.

The insanity defense is an extremely complex topic; many scholarly works are
devoted entirely to explaining its nuances. Here are some major points of
interest:

• Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas
  of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” When they do, judges and jurors rarely
  uphold it.
• Various definitions of insanity are in use because neither the legal system
  nor psychiatrists can agree on a single meaning of insanity in the criminal law
  context. The most popular definition is the “McNaghten rule,” which defines
  insanity as “the inability to distinguish right from wrong.” Another common test
  is known as “irresistible impulse”: a person may know that an act is wrong, but
  because of mental illness he or she cannot control his or her actions (this
  person is described as acting out of an “irresistible impulse”).
• Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set
  free. They are usually confined to a mental institution until their sanity is
  established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than
  they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
• An insanity defense normally rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who
  testifies after examining the defendant, his or her history, and the facts of
  the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor
  defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.
• Once a defendant raises his or her sanity as a defense, he or she must
  submit to psychological tests conducted at the behest of the prosecution. This
  can be a very painful and humiliating experience, one that many defendants
  choose to forgo rather than rely on the insanity defense.

Under the Influence

Defendants who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol
sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so impaired that they cannot
be held accountable for their actions. Generally, however, voluntary
intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct. Defendants know (or should know)
that alcohol and drugs affect mental functioning, and thus they should be held
legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of their voluntary
use.

Some states allow an exception to this general rule. If the defendant is
accused of committing a crime that requires “specific intent”
(intending the precise consequences, as well as intending to do the physical act
that leads up to the consequences), the defendant can argue that he was too
drunk or high to have formed that intent. This is only a partial defense,
however, because it doesn’t entirely excuse the defendant’s actions. In this
situation, the defendant will usually be convicted of another crime that doesn’t
require proof of a specific intent. For example, a defendant may be prosecuted
for the crime of assault with specific intent to kill but only convicted of
assault with a deadly weapon, which doesn’t require specific intent.

Entrapment

Entrapment occurs when the government induces a person to commit a crime and
then tries to punish the person for committing it. However, if a judge or jury
believes that a suspect was predisposed to commit the crime anyway, the suspect
may be found guilty even if a government agent suggested the crime and helped
the defendant to commit it. Entrapment defenses are therefore especially
difficult for defendants with prior convictions for the same type of crime.

Want More Information?

To learn more about criminal defenses and all other aspects of a criminal
trial, get The Criminal Law
Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by Paul Bergman and
Sara Berman (Nolo). If you need a lawyer, check out Nolo’s trusted Lawyer Directory for a criminal defense
attorney in your area.