Viable Defenses
Chicken little felt the sky was falling, so he ran out of the way in this emergent situation to prevent significant harm to himself, this is a defense known as
Necessity
Stand Alone
Just because they didn't mean to do it doesn't mean they didn't have this, which can be general or specific
Intent
Direct or Circumstantial evidence
I will represent myself, thank you very much, no need for a Public Pretender I am going
Propia Persona (Pro Per)
Ignorance is no excuse mister, but you could have lacked the intent and mental state, in which case you have this defense
Mistake of Fact
The defendant is not guilty of <insert crime[s]> if (he/she) did not have the intent or mental state required to commit the crime because (he/she) [reasonably] did not know a fact or [reasonably and] mistakenly believed a fact. If the defendant’s conduct would have been lawful under the facts as (he/she) [reasonably] believed them to be, (he/she) did not commit <insert crime[s]>. If you find that the defendant actually believed that <insert alleged mistaken facts> [and if you find that belief was reasonable], (he/she) did not have the specific intent or mental state required for<insert crime[s]>.If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant had the specific intent or mental state required for <insert crime[s]>, you must find (him/her) not guilty of (that crime/those crimes).
Jay Z said it best "allow me to re-introduce myself", but you don't have to under this PC, so long as you did it right the first time ...as the song goes, "Because to tell you the truth when I leave here I'm gone, And I don't care what you think about me—but just remember, when it hits the fan, brother, whether it's next year, ten years, twenty years from now, you'll never be able to say that these brothers lied to you jack"
1054.8
(a) No prosecuting attorney, attorney for the defendant, or investigator for either the prosecution or the defendant shall interview, question, or speak to a victim or witness whose name has been disclosed by the opposing party pursuant to Section 1054.1 or 1054.3 without first clearly identifying himself or herself, identifying the full name of the agency by whom he or she is employed, and identifying whether he or she represents, or has been retained by, the prosecution or the defendant. If the interview takes place in person, the party shall also show the victim or witness a business card, official badge, or other form of official identification before commencing the interview or questioning.
Ex: Defendant is charged in Count I with Kidnapping, but it could be determined that it is less severe resulting in the jury instruction adding these
Lesser included
(in this example could be a false imprisonment)
Zach ate all the cookies from the cookie jar, then hid the jar, cleaned up shop and tried to run away before anyone saw him, this can be considered _____ of _____
Consciousness of Guilt
It's so romantic when you speak Latin and say, "I compel you to bring documents to court" otherwise known as this
"under threat of penalty you will bring it with you"
Sub = under
Poena = penalty
Duces = you will bring
Tecum = with you
007 is one of these and that is okay, but if we determine someone was one for the police and lured our clients it becomes this
Entrapment
A person is entrapped if a law enforcement officer [or (his/her) agent] engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.
PIP Time!!! Core competencies dictate that your reports will be these three things:
Computer generated (typed)
Generally free from typographical errors
Clear/Complete
True or False - Must both sides provide an opening statement
False! The defense may reserve the right to provide an opening statement; could be after the DA opening or at the commencement of the defense case (after DA closes their case)
It's raining it's pouring, no one is snoring, but someone walks in with droplets, this is an example of this type of evidence that it is raining outside (oldest analogy in the book)
Men or women can form this, as a female led court, I'd argue more men, but I'll play fair
As the initial or primary you are done-zo, but if you both engaged in this warfare, great defense
Mutual Combat
This is not retaliatory Mr. DA, we just a have different discovery obligations, ours say we do not have this type of discovery obligation
Reciprocal
(we do not have to turn over reports until we form the intent that we are calling a witness or they are deemed material to the defense AKA Alibi)
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt leaves you with this
An abiding conviction that the charge is true
Was the RP wearing glasses, lighting conditions, vantage point, had they been drinking that night??? Other than credibility we want to highlight that this is the most unreliable form of evidence
Eyewitness Testimony
What the "writ"! You can't hold them like that, it is unjust
Habeas Corpus
To challenge unlawful detention, you generally file a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a legal document demanding authorities justify holding someone, often used in immigration or criminal contexts when rights are violated or detention lacks legal basis, requiring detailed facts, constitutional grounds, and legal arguments. It's crucial to consult a lawyer for this complex process, but essentially, you or someone on your behalf tells a court you're held illegally, asking a judge to review the case and order release if warranted.
Tick tock, dickory dock, the time has tolled and therefore no longer can the file as this has been exhausted
Statute of limitations
In 1991, was a good year, the end of the cold war, the conclusion of Desert Storm, Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and this case law defining when reports are to be turned over
Izazaga v. Superior Court (Tualre County)
Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) is a landmark California Supreme Court case that upheld reciprocal discovery in criminal cases under Proposition 115, establishing that the defense must disclose intended witnesses and their statements, but only those that refute the prosecution's case, not all defense evidence, balancing fairness and preventing surprise, a key win for criminal procedure
Reputation is everything! Do you believe them, do you believe some, all or none, the decision is up to you as the fact finders when given this instruction
226- Witnesses (credibility)
You alone must judge the credibility or believability of the witnesses. In deciding whether testimony is true and accurate, use your common sense and experience. You must judge the testimony of each witness by the same standards, setting aside any bias or prejudice you may have. You may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and decide how much of it you believe. In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of that testimony.
Sasha may not be able to "draw" very well, but her favorite jury instruction is "sufficient" enough to "conclude" in a NG verdict!
Sufficiency of Evidence:
"If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from, one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you MUST accept the one that points to innocence"
It is kind of like falling in love at first glance, but don't be fooled, it is just what the DA presents at a Prelim
Prima Facie (evidence)
In law, prima facie (Latin for "at first look") means sufficient evidence exists to prove a case unless contradicted; it's a low standard, showing enough for a case to proceed, not necessarily to win