|
| 1 | +[ |
| 2 | + {"defense":"Self-Defense","category":"justification","description":"Use of force was necessary to protect oneself from imminent harm.","elements":["Reasonable belief of imminent threat","Force used was proportional to the threat","Defendant was not the initial aggressor","Duty to retreat (in non-Stand Your Ground states)"],"applies_to":["Assault","Battery","Homicide","Manslaughter"],"key_cases":"District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); Castle Doctrine states"}, |
| 3 | + {"defense":"Defense of Others","category":"justification","description":"Use of force was necessary to protect another person from imminent harm.","elements":["Reasonable belief another person faced imminent threat","Force used was proportional to the threat","Defendant acted to protect the third party"],"applies_to":["Assault","Battery","Homicide"],"key_cases":"Similar standards to self-defense in most jurisdictions"}, |
| 4 | + {"defense":"Alibi","category":"factual","description":"Defendant was somewhere else when the crime occurred and could not have committed it.","elements":["Defendant was at a different location at the time of the crime","Corroborating evidence (witnesses, records, video)","Timeline makes commission of the crime impossible"],"applies_to":["Any crime"],"key_cases":"Must typically provide notice of alibi defense to prosecution"}, |
| 5 | + {"defense":"Insanity (M'Naghten)","category":"excuse","description":"Defendant did not know the nature of the act or that it was wrong due to mental disease or defect.","elements":["Mental disease or defect existed at the time of the offense","Defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act","Or did not know the act was wrong"],"applies_to":["Any crime requiring mens rea"],"key_cases":"M'Naghten's Case (1843); varies significantly by jurisdiction"}, |
| 6 | + {"defense":"Entrapment","category":"excuse","description":"Government agent induced the defendant to commit a crime they were not predisposed to commit.","elements":["Government agent initiated the criminal idea","Defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime","Government conduct would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense"],"applies_to":["Drug offenses","Bribery","Solicitation","Sting operations"],"key_cases":"Jacobson v. United States (1992); Sherman v. United States (1958)"}, |
| 7 | + {"defense":"Duress / Coercion","category":"excuse","description":"Defendant committed the crime because of an immediate threat of serious harm.","elements":["Threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury","Threat was directed at defendant or close family member","Defendant had no reasonable opportunity to escape","Defendant did not recklessly place themselves in the situation"],"applies_to":["Most crimes except homicide in most jurisdictions"],"key_cases":"United States v. Dixon (2008)"}, |
| 8 | + {"defense":"Necessity","category":"justification","description":"Defendant committed a lesser harm to prevent a greater harm.","elements":["Defendant faced a clear and imminent danger","No legal alternative was available","The harm avoided was greater than the harm caused","Defendant did not create the emergency"],"applies_to":["Property crimes","Trespass","Minor drug offenses","Traffic violations"],"key_cases":"United States v. Bailey (1980)"}, |
| 9 | + {"defense":"Intoxication (Involuntary)","category":"excuse","description":"Defendant was involuntarily intoxicated and could not form the required mental state.","elements":["Intoxication was involuntary (drugged, coerced, prescribed medication)","Intoxication prevented defendant from forming required intent","Defendant did not know they were consuming an intoxicant"],"applies_to":["Specific intent crimes"],"key_cases":"Burrows v. State; varies by jurisdiction"}, |
| 10 | + {"defense":"Intoxication (Voluntary)","category":"partial_defense","description":"Voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent (but rarely a complete defense).","elements":["Defendant was so intoxicated they could not form specific intent","Only applies to specific intent crimes, not general intent"],"applies_to":["First-degree murder (may reduce to second-degree)","Burglary","Larceny"],"key_cases":"Montana v. Egelhoff (1996); many states have limited or abolished this defense"}, |
| 11 | + {"defense":"Mistake of Fact","category":"excuse","description":"Defendant had an honest and reasonable mistaken belief about a fact that negates criminal intent.","elements":["Defendant held an honest belief about a fact","The belief was reasonable","If the facts were as defendant believed, no crime would have occurred"],"applies_to":["Theft (believed property was theirs)","Drug possession (did not know substance was illegal)","Statutory offenses"],"key_cases":"People v. Navarro (1979)"}, |
| 12 | + {"defense":"Mistake of Law","category":"limited_defense","description":"Defendant did not know their conduct was illegal. Generally NOT a defense, with narrow exceptions.","elements":["Defendant relied on official interpretation of the law","Official interpretation was later found incorrect","Reliance was reasonable"],"applies_to":["Regulatory offenses","Tax crimes","Complex statutory schemes"],"key_cases":"Cheek v. United States (1991) - tax cases; Lambert v. California (1957)"}, |
| 13 | + {"defense":"Statute of Limitations","category":"procedural","description":"The time period for prosecution has expired.","elements":["Crime was committed beyond the applicable statute of limitations","No tolling or extension applies","Defendant did not flee jurisdiction"],"applies_to":["Most crimes except murder (no SOL for murder in most jurisdictions)"],"key_cases":"Stogner v. California (2003) - retroactive extension unconstitutional"}, |
| 14 | + {"defense":"Double Jeopardy","category":"constitutional","description":"Defendant cannot be tried twice for the same offense after acquittal or conviction.","elements":["Defendant was previously tried for the same offense","Previous trial resulted in acquittal, conviction, or valid dismissal","Current prosecution is by the same sovereign (separate sovereigns doctrine applies)"],"applies_to":["Any crime previously adjudicated"],"key_cases":"Blockburger v. United States (1932); Gamble v. United States (2019)"}, |
| 15 | + {"defense":"Fourth Amendment Violation (Suppression)","category":"constitutional","description":"Evidence obtained through illegal search or seizure must be excluded.","elements":["Search or seizure occurred without a valid warrant or exception","Evidence was obtained as a result of the illegal search","No exception applies (good faith, inevitable discovery, independent source)"],"applies_to":["Any crime where evidence was obtained via search"],"key_cases":"Mapp v. Ohio (1961); Weeks v. United States (1914)"}, |
| 16 | + {"defense":"Miranda Violation","category":"constitutional","description":"Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings during custodial interrogation are inadmissible.","elements":["Defendant was in custody","Interrogation occurred","Miranda warnings were not properly given","Defendant did not voluntarily waive their rights"],"applies_to":["Any crime where confession or statements are key evidence"],"key_cases":"Miranda v. Arizona (1966); Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)"}, |
| 17 | + {"defense":"Fruit of the Poisonous Tree","category":"constitutional","description":"Evidence derived from an initial illegal action must also be excluded.","elements":["Initial police action was unconstitutional","Subsequent evidence was obtained as a result of the initial illegality","No exception applies (independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation)"],"applies_to":["Any crime with derivative evidence from illegal action"],"key_cases":"Wong Sun v. United States (1963); Nardone v. United States (1939)"}, |
| 18 | + {"defense":"Insufficient Evidence","category":"factual","description":"Prosecution has not proven each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.","elements":["At least one element of the crime lacks sufficient proof","Evidence is circumstantial and supports alternative explanations","Witnesses are not credible or evidence is unreliable"],"applies_to":["Any crime"],"key_cases":"Jackson v. Virginia (1979) - rational trier of fact standard"}, |
| 19 | + {"defense":"Consent","category":"justification","description":"The alleged victim consented to the conduct that is charged as criminal.","elements":["Victim gave voluntary, informed consent","Consent was not obtained through fraud or coercion","Victim had capacity to consent","Consent is a valid defense for the charged offense"],"applies_to":["Assault (in limited circumstances)","Trespass","Property crimes","Sexual offenses (with significant limitations)"],"key_cases":"Limited application; not a defense to serious bodily harm in most jurisdictions"}, |
| 20 | + {"defense":"Withdrawal / Abandonment","category":"partial_defense","description":"Defendant voluntarily abandoned the criminal plan before completion.","elements":["Defendant voluntarily decided to abandon the criminal purpose","Abandonment was complete (not just delayed)","Defendant notified co-conspirators (for conspiracy charges)","Abandonment occurred before the crime was completed"],"applies_to":["Attempt","Conspiracy","Solicitation"],"key_cases":"United States v. Young (various circuits)"}, |
| 21 | + {"defense":"Diminished Capacity","category":"partial_defense","description":"Defendant's mental condition prevented them from forming the required specific intent.","elements":["Mental condition existed at the time of the offense","Condition prevented formation of specific intent","Expert testimony supports the claim","Not a complete defense but may reduce the charge"],"applies_to":["First-degree murder (may reduce to manslaughter)","Specific intent crimes"],"key_cases":"Clark v. Arizona (2006); not available in all jurisdictions"}, |
| 22 | + {"defense":"Diplomatic Immunity","category":"procedural","description":"Foreign diplomatic personnel are immune from criminal prosecution under international law.","elements":["Defendant is accredited diplomatic agent","Immunity has not been waived by sending state","Conduct occurred during diplomatic posting"],"applies_to":["Any crime (full immunity for diplomatic agents)"],"key_cases":"Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)"}, |
| 23 | + {"defense":"Prosecutorial Misconduct","category":"procedural","description":"Prosecutor engaged in improper conduct that deprived defendant of a fair trial.","elements":["Prosecutor acted improperly (suppressed evidence, made inflammatory statements, etc.)","Misconduct was material and prejudicial","Defendant was denied a fair trial as a result"],"applies_to":["Any crime - may result in dismissal or new trial"],"key_cases":"Brady v. Maryland (1963) - duty to disclose exculpatory evidence"}, |
| 24 | + {"defense":"Selective Prosecution","category":"constitutional","description":"Defendant was singled out for prosecution based on impermissible factors (race, religion, political beliefs).","elements":["Others similarly situated were not prosecuted","Defendant was selected for prosecution based on protected classification","Selection was deliberate and unjustified"],"applies_to":["Any crime"],"key_cases":"Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886); United States v. Armstrong (1996)"}, |
| 25 | + {"defense":"Speedy Trial Violation","category":"constitutional","description":"Defendant's right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment was violated.","elements":["Delay was excessive","Reason for delay was unjustified","Defendant asserted speedy trial right","Delay caused actual prejudice to the defense"],"applies_to":["Any crime"],"key_cases":"Barker v. Wingo (1972) - four-factor balancing test"}, |
| 26 | + {"defense":"Immunity","category":"procedural","description":"Defendant was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony or cooperation.","elements":["Government formally granted immunity","Immunity covers the conduct being charged","Defendant complied with the terms of the immunity agreement"],"applies_to":["Any crime covered by the immunity grant"],"key_cases":"Kastigar v. United States (1972) - use immunity standard"}, |
| 27 | + {"defense":"Stand Your Ground","category":"justification","description":"No duty to retreat before using force in self-defense when in a place you have a right to be.","elements":["Defendant was lawfully present at the location","Defendant reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent imminent harm","Force used was proportional to the threat","Defendant was not the initial aggressor"],"applies_to":["Assault","Battery","Homicide","Manslaughter"],"key_cases":"Florida Statute 776.012; approximately 30+ states have some form of Stand Your Ground law"}, |
| 28 | + {"defense":"Castle Doctrine","category":"justification","description":"No duty to retreat when using force against an intruder in one's own home.","elements":["Intrusion into defendant's home, vehicle, or occupied place","Defendant reasonably believed intruder intended to commit a crime","Force used was reasonable under the circumstances"],"applies_to":["Homicide","Assault","Battery"],"key_cases":"Most states recognize some version of Castle Doctrine"}, |
| 29 | + {"defense":"Infancy / Age","category":"excuse","description":"Defendant was below the age of criminal responsibility.","elements":["Defendant was under the minimum age for criminal prosecution","Under common law: under 7 = no capacity; 7-14 = rebuttable presumption of no capacity; 14+ = adult capacity","State statutes set specific age thresholds for juvenile vs. adult court"],"applies_to":["Any crime"],"key_cases":"In re Gault (1967) - due process rights for juveniles; Roper v. Simmons (2005) - no death penalty for juveniles"}, |
| 30 | + {"defense":"Automatism","category":"excuse","description":"Defendant's actions were involuntary (sleepwalking, seizure, reflex).","elements":["Defendant was not conscious or aware of their actions","Actions were truly involuntary (not just impulsive)","Condition was not self-induced"],"applies_to":["Any crime"],"key_cases":"People v. Newton (1970) - unconscious act defense"}, |
| 31 | + {"defense":"De Minimis Infraction","category":"procedural","description":"The offense was too trivial to warrant criminal prosecution.","elements":["Conduct caused minimal harm","No serious public interest in prosecution","Applying criminal sanctions would be disproportionate"],"applies_to":["Minor offenses","Regulatory violations","Petty theft"],"key_cases":"Model Penal Code Section 2.12; not recognized in all jurisdictions"}, |
| 32 | + {"defense":"Outrageous Government Conduct","category":"constitutional","description":"Government conduct was so outrageous that due process bars prosecution.","elements":["Government conduct was shocking and outrageous","Conduct violates fundamental fairness","Goes beyond standard law enforcement techniques","Not merely creative or aggressive investigation"],"applies_to":["Drug offenses","Sting operations","Undercover operations"],"key_cases":"United States v. Russell (1973) - very high bar to establish"} |
| 33 | +] |
0 commit comments