In criminal law cases, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution who must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest legal standard and requires that the evidence presented to the jury convinces them, with close to certainty, that the defendant is guilty of the crime. This standard of proof upholds the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental principle of criminal law in the U.S. and supports the right of each individual to a fair trial.
Given the standard of proof in criminal cases, a defendant cannot be convicted if there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt. It is, therefore, up to the criminal defense attorney to cast doubt on the evidence put forth by the prosecution. If you have been charged with a criminal offense, an experienced attorney such as top criminal lawyers in Melbourne can help you put together a strong defense that secures a verdict of not guilty. In this article, we have outlined some of the defense strategies used by attorneys to cast doubt on the arguments and evidence put forward by the prosecution.
Challenge Credibility of Witnesses
The outcome of a criminal case often centers on the testimony of key witnesses. Doubt can be cast if the defense can find ways to discredit or call into question their evidence. Some of the ways they may do this include the following:
- Look for Inconsistencies: Inaccurate or inconsistent accounts can be damaging to a witness’ credibility. Testimony from a witness that contradicts their own behavior may also work against them. For example, a witness may claim they always wear a seatbelt and did so at the time of the crime charges, however, footage from a surveillance camera shows otherwise.
- Look for Lies: A witness who has a history of lying or of holding a grudge against the defendant will have doubt cast upon their credibility. The defense could also suggest they are lying to protect someone or have been bribed by the prosecution into giving false testimony in order to secure immunity for criminal charges against them.
- Character Flaws: A witness for the prosecution will be examined for any character flaws that could weaken their evidence. This might include a history of dishonesty or criminality, biases, poor memory, defects in perception, intoxication at the time of the event, or a desire for a particular outcome.
Flaws in Police Work
Exposing potential flaws in procedure and the gathering of police evidence can lead to certain evidence being dismissed by a judge. The prosecution may be able to create reasonable doubt by identifying mistakes in the way the police gathered or stored evidence. Failure to pursue or properly investigate leads as well as technical errors on behalf of the police can also work against them, and therefore, cast doubt on the evidence put forward by the prosecution.
Some examples of flaws in police work include unlawful searches and seizures where a warrant was not issued or failure to read the defendant their Miranda rights at the time of their arrest. In the latter case, the prosecution cannot use what the defendant said as evidence against them at trial.
These are just some of the strategies a defense lawyer may employ to cast doubt on the prosecution’s arguments.
