All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they are convicted, either in a trial or as a result of pleading guilty. This presumption means not only that the prosecutor must convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in his own defense. A defendant may simply remain silent, not present any witnesses, and argue that the prosecutor failed to prove his or her case. If the prosecutor can’t convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant goes free. 

The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This standard is very hard to meet. As a practical matter, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant’s most common defense is often to argue that there is in fact reasonable doubt. 

Sometimes a defendant can avoid punishment even if the prosecutor shows that that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the act in question. 

Self-Defense

Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a deadly weapon, or murder. The defendant admits that he or she did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was justified by the other person’s threatening actions. The core issues in most self-defense cases are: 

• Who was the aggressor?
• Was the defendant’s belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?
• If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?

Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until he or she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think that he or she is about to be physically attacked, that person has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. However, an act of self-defense cannot use more force than is reasonable – someone who uses too much force may be guilty of a crime. 

The Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is based on the principle that punishment is justified only if the defendant is capable of controlling his or her behavior and understanding that what he or she has done is wrong. Because some people suffering from a mental disorder are not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong, the insanity defense prevents them from being criminally punished.

 The insanity defense is an extremely complex topic; many scholarly works are devoted entirely to explaining its nuances. Here are some major points of interest: 

• Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” When they do, judges and jurors rarely uphold it.
• Various definitions of insanity are in use because neither the legal system nor psychiatrists can agree on a single meaning of insanity in the criminal law context. The most popular definition is the “McNaghten rule,” which defines insanity as “the inability to distinguish right from wrong.” Another common test is known as “irresistible impulse”: a person may know that an act is wrong, but because of mental illness he or she cannot control his or her actions (this person is described as acting out of an “irresistible impulse”).
• Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to a mental institution until their sanity is established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
• An insanity defense normally rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who testifies  after examining the defendant, his or her history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.
• Once a defendant raises his or her sanity as a defense, he or she must submit to psychological tests conducted at the behest of the prosecution. This can be a very painful and humiliating experience, one that many defendants choose to forgo rather than rely on the insanity defense.

The initial one-hour consultation with a proven Bothell DUI & Criminal Defense attorney is always free.  No strings attached.  Most people choose to come into the office to talik about their case and their options.  This is our chance to find out whether we are a good fit for each other and the strenghts and weaknesses of your case. 

The Bothell Law Office of Scott Lawrence, PLLC offers flat rate fees for most types of criminal cases, including DUI defense.  This means you pay a single rate for your case regardless of how much work or the time your attorney is required to work on your case.  In part this is because an experienced attorney can review the facts of the case and give a good estimation of the amount of work necessary to flesh out the leagl and faatual issues presented.  More importatnly, this fosters good attorney-client relationships by removing the stresses involved.  The client does not have to worry what her case is ultimatley going to cost her and the attorney does not have to double as a bill collector. 

In most cases the flat fee also includes the services of a licensed private investigator and legal representation throughout the life of your case.  If you get summoned into court for forgetting to file the right papers, or, worse yet, a new charge its comforting to know you have an attorney you can call.

Our flat fees are based on a number of variables including:

• The crime(s) charged
• The court you were charged in
• Whether you have priors
• Whether you need representation on collateral issues

Seattle Washington criminal Defense Lawyer