Defenses and How They Differ

Key Notes:

Criminal defendants are not required to

prove anything at trial
Plaintiff must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt
Defense strategy is to discredit the
prosecution's witness(es)

Defenses Include.
Alibi Defense A witness may testify that the
defendant was somewhere else than the
crime scene

Character Defense Rarely used; A witness

may testify on behalf of defendant of good
character. Ex. Witness could testify that
defendant is peace loving/non-violent if
charged for a crime of violence

Justification Defenses
(In each instance the accused claims to have acted correctly)

Self Defense and Defense of others

Justified in defending his/her own person and property
and in defending others; entitled to use reasonable
force in self-defense to protect from death or serious
bodily harm but never justifiable to use force that could
cause death/serious bodily injury solely in defense of
property

Necessity Defense (choice-of-evils)

Limited circumstances; defense must be able to
establish that he/she had no other choice than to
violate the law

United States v. Perdomo

Did Perdomo meet the requirements of a
necessity defense when he re-entered the U.S.
illegally because of his illness?
Perdomo states the reason he crossed the
border into the U.S. was b/c he feared for his
life having type 2 diabetes and not the proper
medication in Tijuana, Mexico.
His argument was that the elements needed
were not viewed subjectively but objectively

Elements needed for a Necessity

Defense
1. That he was faced with a choice of evils and
chose the lesser evil;
2. That he acted to prevent innocent harm;
3. That he reasonably anticipated a casual
relation between his conduct and the harm
to be avoided;
4. That there were no other legal alternatives to
violating the law

 The court referred to U.S. v. Rivera where they upheld the

defendants subjective believe that this legal alternative was
unavailable to him was insufficient to sustain his necessity
defense therefore in Perdomos case they hold that the test for
entitlement to a defense of necessity is objective
determined that under these elements viewed objectively
Perdomo failed to establish all 4 therefore
Perdomo was not entitled to a jury instruction regarding
necessity because the defense lacked a necessary foundation in
evidence based on the following
concluded that Perdomo was in no immediately dire medical

condition when he was treated in the emergency room soon

after crossing the border; thus Perdomos crossing was not
averting any objective imminent harm. (2nd element)
there are multiple clinics in Tijuana where Perdomo could have
received medical treatment (4th element)
Perdomos tactic of hiding in bushes trying to escape border
patrols detection, thwarted rather than advanced the speedy
receipt of medical treatment (3rd element)

Affirmative or Excuse Defenses

(In each instance defendant admits to having acted unlawfully but
argues no criminal responsibility should be imposed)

Duress/Coercion

This defense is based on the theory that the

person who committed the criminal act was
not exercising free will.
-most states do not allow this defense
-difficult to establish

United States v. Scott

Did Scott receive a fair trial when the district
court refused to instruct the jury on the
defense of coercion based on his claim against
the co-defendant Morrow?
Scott claims he feared that the Morrow would
kill him and/or his family if he did not make
trips to get chemicals. Which were used to
supply methamphetamine laboratories
operated by Morrow
Scott needed 3 elements to establish a
defense of coercion

Elements needed for a Coercion or

Duress Defense
1. An immediate threat of death or serious
bodily harm;
2. A well grounded fear that the threat will
be carried out and;
3. No reasonable opportunity to escape the
threatened harm

Scott did not meet all 3 requirements and

therefore the defense of coercion was not
introduced to the jury
He was lacking the 3rd element absence of
any reasonable opportunity to escape the
threatened harm
Scott had countless opportunities to contact
law enforcement authorities or escape the
perceived threats by Morrow

Affirmative or Excuse Defenses

continued
Insanity Defense
Least used and most controversial defense; legal not a
medical term
-Different tests are used to define insanity
1. MNaghten Rule defendant has diseased mind;
unable to distinguish right from wrong or was
unaware
2. Irresistible-Impulse-Test defendant is not guilty if
he/she knows the act is wrong but cannot refrain
from committing the act.
Idaho, Utah and Montana do NOT recognize insanity as a
defense

Involuntary Intoxication Defense

Limited circumstances; completely relieves a
defendant of all criminal responsibility; most
jurisdictions distinguish between voluntary and
involuntary intoxication. Ex. Being drugged
without consent
Most do not recognize voluntary intoxication
unless quite severe. A defendant can not be
convicted of a specific intent crime if the
intoxication as so severe that the person was
incapable of forming specific intent. Hawaii does
not recognize voluntary intoxication at all.

Another Affirmative or Excuse Defense is...

Entrapment
Occasionally police officers induce innocent
people to commit crimes. If an officer placed the
notion of criminal wrongdoing in the
defendants mind, and that person was
previously indisposed to commit the act,
entrapment has occurred, and the charges will
be dismissed.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Criminal procedure is that area of the law that
deals with the administration of criminal justice,
from the initial investigation of a crime and the
arrest of a suspect, through trial, sentence, and
release.
See chart on page 279

Proceedings prior to Trial

Police investigation; locate offender
Police are only permitted to make arrests if
they have sufficient evidence to constitute
probable cause; limited in conducting
searches and making seizures
Failure to follow correct procedures or
violations of a defendants constitutional
rights can result in dismissal or a civil/criminal
lawsuit against officers

Arrest
Police officer makes an arrest based on probable
cause; felony arrests at home need to obtain a
search warrant. A warrant is issued if a court
decides;
1. Evidence supports belief that;
2. Probable cause exists to believe that;
3. A crime has been committed and that;
4. The suspect is the probable culprit

Draper v. United States

Was the knowledge of related facts and
circumstances given to Marsh (U.S.) probable
cause within the meaning of the 4th amendment
and reasonable grounds?
Draper contended the information the U.S.
received was heresay and therefore not legally
competent evidence in a criminal trial and that
Marshs information be held insufficient to show
probable cause
Court sited Brinegar v. U.S. where they held that
there is a large difference between the two things
to be proved which are guilt and probable cause

They disagreed that the information was

insufficient based on Herefords (special
agent) reputation of reasonably trust worthy
information; court held that arresting officers
had probable cause and reasonable grounds
to believe that Draper was committing a
violation of law under the Narcotic Drugs Act

Custodial Interrogation
Criminal Investigative procedure involves
questioning suspects with the aim of obtaining
confessions and disclosures of crimes
Miranda rights must be read to person
being questioned; courts will suppress
statements obtained by police if Miranda
warnings were not informed to defendant

State of Vermont v. Tran

Was the defendants rights violated under the 5th
amendment because police conducted a custodial
interrogation without providing defendant with the
necessary Miranda warnings. (Miranda v. Arizona)
Courts had to determine if a custodial interrogation was
made based on the following elements
1. The location of the interview
2. Interviewers communication to the suspect of this
belief in the suspects guilt
3. Whether the suspect arrives to the interview voluntarily
4. Whether police told him he was free to leave and
terminate the interview

After applying this analysis of elements they

found police conducted a custodial
interrogation without providing necessary
Miranda warning and therefore the
information provided from the defendant
must be suppressed

Searches and Seizures

Examinations of a person or premises are conducted by
officers in order to find stolen property or other evidence
of guilt to be used by prosecutor in a criminal action
4th amendment requires probable cause for search and
seizures
A valid warrant must be specific and sufficiently
descriptive
Supreme court recognizes that warrantless searches or
seizures are constitutionally reasonable in some
circumstances
See charts on pages 286 & 287