Defense (legal) explained

In a civil proceeding or criminal prosecution under the common law or under statute, a defendant may raise a defense (or defence) in an effort to avert civil liability or criminal conviction. A defense is put forward by a party to defeat a suit or action brought against the party, and may be based on legal grounds or on factual claims.[1]

Besides contesting the accuracy of an allegation made against the defendant in the proceeding, the 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. Acceptance of a defense by the court completely exonerates the defendant and not merely mitigates the liability.

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 defense 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, a defendant who is charged with assault may claim provocation, but they would need to prove that the plaintiff had provoked the defendant.

Common law defenses

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

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

In English law, one could raise the argument of a contramandatum, which was an argument that the plaintiff had no cause for complaint.[2]

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.[3] [4] The goal of presenting character evidence about the victim may be to make more plausible a claim of self-defense, 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.[5]

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. A defendant can pay with their own money, through legal defense funds, or legal financing companies. For example, in the United Kingdom, a defendant's legal fees may be covered by legal aid.[6]

See also

Notes and References

  1. Web site: "Defense" . The Law Dictionary . 9 November 2011 . 24 July 2021.
  2. Contramandatum. 1. 318.
  3. Behan . Christopher W. . When Turnabout is Fair Play: Character Evidence and Self-Defense in Homicide and Assault Cases . Oregon Law Review . 2007 . 86 . 3 . 733–796 . 31 July 2017 . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20150915094041/http://www.law.siu.edu/_common/documents/publications/behan/turnabout.pdf . 15 September 2015 . dmy-all .
  4. Kleiss . Mary K. . A New Understanding of Specific Act Evidence in Homicide Cases Where the Accused Claims Self-Defense . Indiana Law Review . 1999 . 32 . 1439 . 31 July 2017 . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20170801050751/https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol32p1437.pdf . 1 August 2017 . dmy-all .
  5. Imwinkelreid . Edward J. . 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 . January 2006 . 40 . 2 . 426 .
  6. Web site: Legal aid . GOV.UK . Government of the United Kingdom.