Defending Against a Felony Criminal Defense Case
Defending against a felony is not always the same as defending against a civil case. It is important that you understand some of the differences so that you can make a better decision when you are facing charges for a crime.
O.J. Simpson’s case
Throughout the trial, Simpson’s lawyers claimed that his client was framed by unscrupulous police officers. They also called into question the reliability of the Los Angeles Police Department.
The defense attorneys also questioned the character of detective Mark Fuhrman. They also claimed that the glove found at Simpson’s house was too small for Simpson to wear. This glove allegedly had blood on it.
It was believed that the glove was worn during the crime. However, Professor MacDonell testified that the glove didn’t shrink when blood was smeared on it. This would make it impossible to believe that the glove belonged to Simpson.
The LAPD’s crime lab didn’t have enough information to counter the idea that the blood was lost. It also didn’t know how much reference blood was taken from Simpson. This meant that the person who drew the blood could only guess at the amount.
Another reason for the trial’s closure was reasonable doubt. The standard of proof in a criminal case is that the defendant be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite the trial’s closure, the jury did find it more likely than not that Simpson killed his ex-wife and her friend, Ronald Goldman. However, the criminal and civil jury did not find that Simpson’s actions contradicted the jury’s findings in the civil case.
Defending against a felony
Defending against a felony criminal defense case in Athens, GA requires the assistance of an attorney. A good attorney will use the facts of your case to build the best defense possible. The right attorney will also inform you of the legal options available to you.
Self-defense is a legal concept based on a person’s right to use reasonable force to prevent harm. This defense applies to both people and property, and is often used to defend against assault charges. It is important to remember that a defendant must prove that he or she truly feared harm before using force against another person.
A lack of intent is also a defense against crime. If a defendant is under the influence of drugs, they can argue that they were too high to form a specific or physical intent. In some states, an exception is made for driving under the influence.
A good lawyer will provide a free initial consultation. Most lawyers will also require a retainer fee in advance, but some attorneys offer payment plans. In the long run, a flat fee may save you money.
Other legal defenses include the insanity defense, the duress defense, and the entrapment defense. These defenses are especially difficult to prove in cases where a defendant has a prior conviction.
Defending against legal malpractice
Defending against legal malpractice in criminal defense cases is a bit different than defending against a legal malpractice claim in a civil case. While plaintiffs and defendants are both interested in establishing the standard of care, they have different legal posturing.
Defense attorneys may be tempted to point to a number of defenses in their defense against a malpractice claim. This includes arguing that the losses were not due to injury. Alternatively, the lawyer may rely on the client’s representations.
Defending against a malpractice claim may seem like a simple matter, but in reality, it requires the assistance of an experienced attorney. Attorneys who are unfamiliar with malpractice claims may not understand the unique defenses that apply in their particular case.
To prevail on a malpractice claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the lawyer’s mistake prevented the client from proving a valid claim. Typically, this is done by proving that the client would have won the case without the mistake.
Although this may seem like a no-brainer, lawyers often fail to challenge the evidence on which a claim is based. This can result in inadequate legal representation or the failure to present a relevant expert.
In defending against a malpractice claim, a lawyer can expose factual inaccuracies in the client’s complaint. For instance, the client may have made claims that are not true, such as claiming that the lawyer failed to file a document on time.