Defending the Self-Defense Case

[DaveM55]

I found this article which is interesting.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1...c?OpenDocument

A self-defense case is fundamentally different from most other criminal prosecutions. The essence of the defense is that the defendant is the victim of an attempted or completed violent felony such as assault, rape, or homicide which, but for the defendant’s lawful actions, would have resulted in the defendant’s death or in serious bodily harm. The complainant is, in fact, a violent aggressor who, but for the defendant’s lawful actions, would be the one standing trial. The defendant is the “good guy” and the victim is the “bad guy,” despite the prosecution’s efforts to portray the converse.

Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents some evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, then he or she is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue, which places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to disprove self-defense, the client is acquitted. In practice, however, the defense attorney has a great deal of work to do in order to convince the jurors that the client’s conduct fell within the common law of self-defense or within applicable state statutes.

This article is a starting point for attorneys representing clients in a self-defense case. It is focused on the common law of self-defense, using Massachusetts as its primary example, but the general principles are applicable in any state. It also introduces attorneys to some of the research regarding use of force conducted by police and self-defense instructors.

A self-defense case often requires counsel to understand a moderate amount of technical information about weapons and crime scene reconstruction. Such knowledge is needed in order to: (1) review and challenge the prosecutor’s experts, and (2) understand eyewitness memory issues and how the client, the deceased, and bystander witnesses were affected by the stress of the incident.

continued at link...

[markheck1]

Very Interesting

[dacid pire]

I found this article which is interesting.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1...c?OpenDocument

This article is a starting point for attorneys representing clients in a self-defense case. It is focused on the common law of self-defense, using Massachusetts as its primary example, but the general principles are applicable in any state. It also introduces attorneys to some of the research regarding use of force conducted by police and self-defense instructors.

A self-defense case often requires counsel to understand a moderate amount of technical information about weapons and crime scene reconstruction. Such knowledge is needed in order to: (1) review and challenge the prosecutor’s experts, and (2) understand eyewitness memory issues and how the client, the deceased, and bystander witnesses were affected by the stress of the incident.

continued at link...

Thanks for sharing this, it will be very useful for those lawyers who are handling trial defense cases.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Thanks.

[Kabloosh]

I thought self defense was a form of defense a defendant takes.

Generally the defendant admits to doing the act which would be criminal outside of the fact that it was in self defense.

It's like pleading insanity but self defense is an actual absolute defense. That means if you prove your actions were in self defense you are proven not guilty.

Otherwise you're on trial for something like murder. You as an defendant just make the claim it was in self defense. I'm sure there are times where your lawyer tells you don't even bother claiming self defense since the prosecution's case might be so weak that you don't need to do anything but poke holes and create enough reasonable doubt.