Shadow defense

Last updated

A shadow defense is a legal defense that cannot be sustained on its own merits but opens the door to introducing evidence that will assist in seeking jury nullification, and gives the jury an excuse to acquit. [1] A "shadow defense" also may refer to a tactic by defending counsel that is not expected to be successful as a matter of law; it is, instead, a pretext for bringing information into the court that would otherwise be irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.

Jury nullification is a concept where members of a trial jury find a defendant not guilty if they do not support a government's law, do not believe it is constitutional or humane, or do not support a possible punishment for breaking the law. This may happen in both civil and criminal trials. In a criminal trial, a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did commit the alleged crime. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. A jury can similarly convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken.

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is simply abandoned by the prosecution. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict, or whether it results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction.

An insanity defense might be used to present evidence about a person's troubled childhood, for instance, or a defendant might claim self-defense or duress in order to present evidence about an abusive relationship that nonetheless did not present an imminent mortal danger to the defendant.

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themselves or to others.

Defendant accused person

A defendant is a person accused of committing a crime in criminal prosecution or a person against whom some type of civil relief is being sought in a civil case.

Self-defense countermeasure that involves defending oneself, ones property, or the well-being of another from harm

Self-defense is a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions.

An entrapment defense opens the door to presenting evidence about the behavior of police and informants.

In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit. It "is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer."

It is reversible error for a trial court to refuse a jury instruction on a theory of defense after a defendant makes a threshold showing as to each element of the defense. [2]

In United States law, a reversible error is an error of sufficient gravity to warrant reversal of a judgment on appeal. It is an error by the trier of law (judge), or the trier of fact, or malfeasance by one of the trying attorneys, which results in an unfair trial. It is to be distinguished from harmless errors which do not rise to a level which brings the validity of the judgment into question and thus do not lead to a reversal upon appeal.

See also

Related Research Articles

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction. As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."

Jury instructions are the set of legal rules that jurors ought follow when deciding a case. Jury instructions are given to the jury by the jury instructor, who usually reads them aloud to the jury. They are often the subject of discussion of the case, how they will decide who is guilty, and are given by the judge in order to make sure their interests are represented and nothing prejudicial is said. They are a type of jury control procedure.

The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets its burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side. Burdens may be of different kinds for each party, in different phases of litigation. The burden of production is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the trier of fact to consider a disputed claim. After litigants have met the burden of production and their claim is being considered by a trier of fact, they have the burden of persuasion, that enough evidence has been presented to persuade the trier of fact that their side is correct. There are different standards of persuasiveness ranging from a preponderance of the evidence, where there is just enough evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in United States criminal courts.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today, such as the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The abuse defense is a criminal law defense in which the defendant argues that a prior history of abuse justifies violent retaliation. While the term most often refers to instances of child abuse or sexual assault, it also refers more generally to any attempt by the defense to use a syndrome or societal condition to deflect responsibility away from the defendant. Sometimes the concept is referred to as the abuse excuse, in particular by the critics of the idea that guilty people may use past victimization to diminish the responsibility for their crimes.

The urban survival syndrome, in United States jurisprudence, can be used either as a defense of justification or of excuse. The first case using, unsuccessfully, the defense of "urban survival syndrome" is the 1994 Fort Worth, Texas murder trial of Daimion Osby.

In civil proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the common law, a defendant may raise a defense 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.

In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion may be called the movant, or may simply be the moving party. The party opposing the motion is the nonmovant or nonmoving party.

Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings when used in criminal, civil or common law. Often the use of prejudice in legal context differs from the more common use of the word and thus has specific technical meanings implied by its use.

Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal.

The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a United States national jury education organization, incorporated in the state of Montana as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. FIJA works to educate all citizens on their authority when they serve as jurors. FIJA educates the public, provides commentary on current jury-related cases, and assists defendants with jury authority strategies—including the right to veto bad laws and the misapplication of laws—by refusing to convict the defendant. The organization was formed in the summer of 1989 by Larry Dodge, a Montana businessman, and his friend Don Doig. They formed FIJA following discussions about forming such a group at the National Libertarian Party convention in Philadelphia in 1989.

Battered woman syndrome (BWS) emerged in the 1990s from several murder cases in England in which women had killed violent partners in response to what they claimed was cumulative abuse, rather than in response to a single provocative act. Feminist groups, particularly Southall Black Sisters and Justice for Women, challenged the legal definition of provocation, and in a series of appeals against murder convictions secured the courts' recognition of battered woman syndrome. An early work describing the syndrome is Lenore E. Walker's The Battered Woman (1979).

Reasonable doubt is a term used in jurisdiction of common law countries. Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.

In criminal law, a mitigating factor, also known as extenuating circumstances, is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. Unlike a legal defense, it cannot lead to the acquittal of the defendant. The opposite of a mitigating factor is an aggravating factor.

Jury nullification in the United States has its origins in colonial America under British law. In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

A political defense is a defense to a criminal charge in which the defendant asserts at trial the political motivations behind the allegedly criminal conduct. In some circumstances, the defendant might assert political motivations in order to seek acquittal. In other circumstances, defendants might not have a realistic hope of acquittal but may nevertheless use the trial as a forum for expressing political views.

References

  1. ↑ Hall Jr., John Wesley (2003), Putting on a Jury Nullification Defense and Getting Away with It
  2. ↑ Conrad, Clay (1998), Using Theories and Themes to Acquit the Guilty


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.