Richard Scotti - Common Defenses Argued in Criminal Cases
A prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of the offence when he or she stands trial for allegedly committing it. Simultaneously, the criminal defendant has the right to provide a defence, which he or she may do in a variety of ways. The defendant may try to find flaws in the prosecutor's case, claim that the crime was committed by someone else, or argue that he or she committed the act but had a valid and reasonable defence. Judge Richard Scotti understands every possible outcome a case could have and, as a result, makes choices and leads the case in a systematic fashion that serves equity. There are a variety of criminal defences that a defendant can use to avoid punishment for his or her actions.
A criminal defendant can argue that he or she cannot be found guilty of the crime because he or she did not understand what he or she was doing or because his or her actions were improper. This includes, at its most extreme, the defence of insanity. The defence of insanity requires the defendant to show that he or she had a mental disorder that rendered him or her incapable of understanding right from wrong, or that it prevented him or her from controlling his or her actions and resisting violent impulses, depending on the state in which the case is tried.
Another type of defence is when the defendant admits to committing the crime but claims that it was justifiable. Self-defence and defence of others are the most well-known of these defences. For example, a defendant could plead that he shot an intruder in self-defence because the intruder was threatening him with a knife. Similarly, a duress defence asserts that the criminal defendant committed the offence solely because he or she was forced to do so by someone else.
Finally, a criminal defendant may be able to claim a Legal or Factual Error. According to this argument, the offender made a critical error that renders an aspect of the offence irrelevant. A defendant charged with larceny, for example, may claim that he mistakenly believed the victim had given him the property. Similarly, when a criminal defendant felt his or her acts were legal, it is called a misunderstanding of the law. Only in very specific circumstances does this defence apply.
