Chapter 5 - Criminal Defenses

According to the video about the 6th Amendment, which case extended the right to an attorney to those accused of committing state crimes? Gideon vs Wainwright

Factual Defense: Someone employing a factual defense is simply claiming that he or she did not commit the crime.

the Latin translation of the word "alibi" means somewhere else

Legal defense: A legal defense asserts that there is a legal reason to not hold someone criminally responsible for a crime.

Justifications: when the accused admits to committing the act but makes a claim that it was necessary to do so to avoid some greater evil

Excuses: when the accused makes a claim that due to some personal circumstance or condition at the time of the act, he/she should not be held criminally responsible.

Affirmative Defense: a response to a criminal charge where the accused puts forth their own evidence claiming why they should not be held criminally liable for their actions.

Placing the burden of proving an affirmative defense on the shoulders of the defendant is fair. It's fair because an affirmative defense introduces new facts and requires the defendant to prove their justification rather than simply denying the plaintiff's allegations.

Justification Defenses

Common types of justification defenses include:

• Necessity = the defense of necessity asserts that to avoid or prevent a great harm, it was necessary to commit an act that was unlawful

• Self-defense

• Defense of others

• Defense of home and property

• Consent

What case in the US did the British courts look to for comparison? U.S vs Holmes

Read section (a) of Sec. 53a-19 above carefully. Describe and detail any terms or descriptions you see as problematic in the application of this law. A term that can be seen as problematic in the application of this law is "Exemptions and Restrictions." This is true because the difference between reasonable force and deadly force can cause complications. For example, if someone starts with non-deadly force but later uses deadly force because they feel more threatened, it might be hard to prove in court that their initial belief was reasonable.

Reasonable Person: someone with common sense, someone who acts with a level of caution that a normally prudent person would, someone who possesses the average mental capacity of normal human being.

Apparent danger: a form of danger that is imminent when the action or behavior of an aggressor makes that threat of harm or danger obvious

Imminent danger: danger that is obvious, present and immediate

Opinion on the Trayvon Martin Case: The case highlighted the deep issues of racial profiling, inequality in the justice system, and the complexities surrounding self-defense laws. I feel the impact of the case left many feeling that justice was not served.

Execution of public duty defense: a legal defense to a charge of criminal conduct, for example an assault, that is legislated and that prevents sworn law enforcement personnel, such as police officers and other public officials from being held criminally responsible for the lawful execution of their duties.

What are some problems you see with the case of Joe Horn? Some problems I can see with the case of Joe Horn are the use of deadly force for property protection, the lack of accountability, and racial dimensions.

Defense of property can include:

• The protection of one’s personal property

• The defense of one’s home or dwelling

• The defense of another person’s property

• The use of mechanical devices to protect one’s property

Consent Defense: The defense of consent asserts that someone claiming an injury either had agreed to sustaining the injury in question or understood and accepted the possibility of sustaining injury prior to the injurious activity that was undertaken

What type of criminal case is the consent defense often used and why? The type of criminal cases that the consent defense is often used for are sexual assault cases because a key element of these crimes is the lack of victim consent. If the defendant can prove the victim consented to the sexual activity, it can negate the crime and serve as a defense.

Excuse Defenses: An excuse defense admits that the behavior committed by the accused was wrong and unlawful while asserting the they should be excused from criminal responsibility due to some type of special circumstance or condition.

Common types of excuse defenses include:

• Duress = a circumstance where a person is forced to act against their own will, also referred to as compulsion

• Intoxication

• Mistake

• Age

• Entrapment

• Mental incompetence

Two types of intoxication

• Voluntary Intoxication: voluntary and willful intoxication by ingestion, injection or some other method of intoxicating substances. 

• Involuntary Intoxication: intoxication that is not voluntary or willful

Mistake of fact: a misunderstanding, misinterpretation or forgetting about a fact that relates to a particular situation OR a belief that something or some condition exists when it does not. 

Ignorance of fact: a lack of knowledge of a fact that relates to a particular situation.

What are some examples of mistakes that would not relieve someone of criminal liability?  Some examples of mistakes that would not relieve someone of criminal liability are mistakes of law, mistakes of fact, and negligence/recklessness.

Mistake of law: a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of the law as it relates to a particular circumstance. 

Ignorance of the law: an absence of knowledge about the law or of the presence of a law as it relates to a particular situation.

What are some examples of spheres of activity that you participate in, things that have certain laws that you need to aware of? Some examples are driving a vehicle (traffic laws), working in a professional setting (employment laws), and operating a business (commercial laws).

Culpable Ignorance: when a person fails to use normal or ordinary care to attain knowledge of the law they may be held criminally responsible

Age: Defenses based on age are often referred to as immaturity or infancy defense

Entrapment: The foundation of the defense of entrapment asserts that if it had not been for the actions on the part of the government,   there would have been no crime committed.

Subjective test: examines the characteristics of the defendant to determine if the accused was predisposed to the behavior /commission of the crime. 

Objective test: examines the behavior of law enforcement to determine if actions were extreme and/or outrageous.

Do you think the bait car program in the video is a form of entrapment? Why or why not? Please explain. Bait cars aren't considered entrapment because they only provide an opportunity for those already inclined to commit a crime rather than encouraging someone to commit a crime they wouldn't have otherwise.

Mental Incompetence: Criminal defenses based on a lack of mental competence can be divided into two categories: competency and sanity.

According to the video on competency to stand trial the two-prong test to determine someone's competency to stand trial (Dusky vs. U.S.) A sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding

It is important to note that insanity is a matter that is decided by a jury as opposed to competence, which is decided by the court.

According to the video on insanity defenses, which of the following is NOT one of the rules/tests? Competency Rule

Four different instances in which insanity is argued

1. At the time of the crime

2. At the time of trial (incompetency)

3. During incarceration

4. Just prior to execution

What is the logic behind delaying an execution for a defendant who is insane? The idea is that the death penalty is for those who commit the most serious crimes. Mentally incompetent individuals are less responsible for their actions, so their ability to be executed should depend on their mental state at the time of execution.

According to the video on insanity defense myth-busting, the insanity defense is used in what percentage of felony cases? 1%