Different Types of Criminal Defense Strategies

Criminal Defense is a strategic legal argument that challenges the validity and sufficiency of the evidence presented before the Court by the Prosecution in a criminal trial. To learn more about Criminal Defense, click here. There are several types of Criminal Defense, they include:

1. SELF DEFENSE:
Self Defense is a special type of Criminal Defense that is employed by the Accused Person in a criminal trial. This defense is specific to assault and homicide cases. In this defense, the Accused Person claims to have injured or killed the victim in order to save himself. To read more about self defense, go online.

2. DEFENSE OF INSANITY:
This is another special type of Criminal Defense where the Accused Person claims to have committed the crime because he or she was not in a proper mental state to understand that the act being committed is unlawful.  For a Defense of Insanity to succeed, the Accused Person must provide a medical report to the effect that he or she was mentally unstable at the time the crime was committed.

3. DEFENSE OF DURESS:
The Defense of Duress is a type of Defense where the Accused Person argues that he was forced to commit the crime because he was coerced either by people or by circumstances beyond his control. 

4. DEFENSE OF PROVOCATION:
The Defense of Provocation is a type of Criminal Defense usually used in assault and homicide trials. To rely on this defense, the Accused Person must prove that the victim made an overwhelming effort to ensure that the Accused Person loses his temper thereby enabling the Accused Person to resort to the crime committed. To read more about the Defense of Provocation, visit this site.

5. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS:
This is a special type of Criminal Defense where the Accused Person claims that the time allowed by the law for the Prosecution to press charges has elapsed and as a result of this lapse of time, the charges has to be dropped.

6. THE ALIBI DEFENSE:
The Alibi Defense is a type of Criminal Defense where the Accused Person states that he could not have committed the crime alleged as he was in an entirely different location when the crime was committed.