Defense (legal)
























In civil proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the common law, a defendant may raise a defense (or defence) in an attempt to avoid criminal or civil liability. Besides contesting the accuracy of any allegation made against them in a criminal or civil proceeding, a defendant may also make allegations against the prosecutor or plaintiff or raise a defense, arguing that, even if the allegations against the defendant are true, the defendant is nevertheless not liable.


The defense phase of a trial occurs after the prosecution phase, that is, after the prosecution "rests". Other parts of the defense include the opening and closing arguments and the cross-examination during the prosecution phase.


Since a defence is raised by the defendant in a direct attempt to avoid what would otherwise result in liability, the defendant typically holds the burden of proof. For example, if a defendant in an assault and battery case attempts to claim provocation, the victim of said assault and battery would not have to prove that he did not provoke the defendant; the defendant would have to prove that the plaintiff did.




Contents






  • 1 Common law defences


  • 2 Strategies


  • 3 Costs


  • 4 See also





Common law defences



In common law, a defendant may raise any of the numerous defences to limit or avoid liability. These include:



  • Lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction of the court, such as diplomatic immunity.

  • Failure to state a cause of action or other insufficiencies of pleading.

  • Any of the affirmative defences.

  • Defences conferred by statute - such as a statute of limitations or the statute of frauds.


  • Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - the action against the defendant arises from an illegality.


  • Volenti non fit injuria - consent by the victim or plaintiff.


  • In pari delicto - both sides equally at fault

  • Unclean hands


In addition to defences against prosecution and liability, a defendant may also raise a defence of justification - such as self-defence and defence of others or defence of property.



Strategies


The defense in a homicide case may attempt to present evidence of the victim's character, to try to prove that the victim had a history of violence or of making threats of violence that suggest a violent character.[1][2] The goal of presenting character evidence about the victim may be to make more plausible a claim of self-defense,[1] or in the hope of accomplishing jury nullification in which a jury acquits a guilty defendant despite its belief that the defendant committed a criminal act.[3]



Costs


Litigation is expensive and often may last for months or years. Parties can finance their litigation and pay for their attorneys' fees or other legal costs in a number of ways. Defendants can pay with their own money, through legal defence funds, or legal financing companies.



See also



  • Absolute defense

  • Lawsuit

  • Legal defense fund

  • Legal financing

  • Self-defence

  • Atturnato faciendo vel recipiendo








  1. ^ ab Behan, Christopher W. (2007). "When Turnabout is Fair Play: Character Evidence and Self-Defense in Homicide and Assault Cases" (PDF). Oregon Law Review. 86 (3): 733–796. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 September 2015. Retrieved 31 July 2017..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output q{quotes:"""""""'""'"}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-lock-free a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}


  2. ^ Kleiss, Mary K. (1999). "A New Understanding of Specific Act Evidence in Homicide Cases Where the Accused Claims Self-Defense" (PDF). Indiana Law Review. 32: 1439. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 August 2017. Retrieved 31 July 2017.


  3. ^ Imwinkelreid, Edward J. (January 2006). "An Evidentiary Paradox: Defending the Character Evidence Prohibition by Upholding a Non-Character Theory of Logical Relevance, the Doctrine of Chances". University of Richmond Law Review. 40 (2): 426.








Popular posts from this blog

The Sandy Post

Danny Elfman

Pages that link to "Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co."