Federal Criminal Lawyer FAQFederal Criminal Lawyer FAQ

What is the defense of duress?

admin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:42:24 +0000

In order to establish a defense of duress, an accused individual must show that he acted under an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, that he had a well-grounded fear that the threat would be carried out, and that he had no reasonable opportunity to escape or inform the police. This defense is also available when the threat of immediate serious harm is directed at a third person and the accused acted unlawfully in order to protect that person.

What is the defense of insanity?

admin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:42:01 +0000

It is a defense to a prosecution under any federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a
result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. The accused has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

What is the good-faith defense to a charge of intent to defraud?

admin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:41:22 +0000

One who expresses an honestly-held opinion or an honestly-formed belief cannot be charged with fraudulent intent even though the opinion turns out to be erroneous or the belief is mistaken. Similarly, evidence which establishes only that a person made a mistake in judgment or an error in management or was careless does not establish fraudulent intent.

However, an honest belief by an accused individual that a particular business venture was sound and would ultimately succeed would not, by itself, constitute good faith if, in carrying out that venture, the accused knowingly made false or fraudulent representations to others with the specific intent to deceive them.

What is the defense of good-faith reliance on the advice of counsel?

admin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:40:57 +0000

In order to assert this defense, an accused individual must prove that he relied in good faith on the (mistaken) advice of his lawyer after first making a full disclosure of all facts relevant to the advice for which he consulted the attorney.

Is ignorance of the law ever a defense?

admin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:40:25 +0000

Yes. Although it is frequently said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of the law is a defense to the crime of unauthorized acquisition of food stamps because food stamps are not physically dangerous.

To cite another example, the accused was Yugoslavian and spoke no English. He was prosecuted for attempting to export firearms illegally. He was a seaman who was at port in the United States and was given a form which warned–in English—about the Arms Export Control Act. Because he could not read the form, his conviction for knowingly and voluntarily violating the law was not upheld on appeal.

As a final example, an individual convicted of knowingly and willfully making a false statement was found to be error because the form filled out by the accused (which was the basis of the prosecution) was inherently ambiguous.

What is the defense of mistake of law?

admin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:39:59 +0000

Examples of this defense include the following:

a. It is a complete defense to the crime of filing a false tax return that the accused had a good faith belief that the tax laws had been satisfied even if that belief was not reasonable.

b. In another tax case, the accused—an attorney—relied on the “case-closed” accounting method for reporting his income. Although this was not a valid accounting procedure, the appellate court deciding the case determined that the jury should have been instructed on the attorney’s “uncertainty of the law” defense.

What is the defense of mistake of fact?

admin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:39:30 +0000

An accused person may claim that she was mistaken about an essential fact and therefore did not have the criminal intent necessary to commit the crime.

For example, a person who really believes she was carrying baby powder does not have the criminal intent necessary to be guilty of the offense of possessing cocaine. Or, to cite another example, an individual who is conspiring to accomplish one goal is not guilty if the conspiracy she was charged with alleges that she was conspiring to accomplish a different goal.

What is the defense of entrapment by estoppel?

admin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:39:02 +0000

This defense focuses on the actions of government officials and not on the predisposition of the accused. In order to successfully assert this defense, one must actually rely on a point of law misrepresented by a government official and such reliance must be objectively reasonable given the identity of the official, the point of law misrepresented, and the substance of the misrepresentation. The misrepresentation must be made directly to the accused rather than to others.

This defense exists where a government official tells the accused that certain conduct is legal, the accused relies on that representation in engaging in that conduct, and the accused is then later prosecuted for engaging in that conduct.

What is the defense of entrapment?

admin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:38:36 +0000

An entrapment defense requires two elements:

Governmental inducement of the crime; and
A lack of predisposition on the part of the accused.

Once the accused presents evidence showing inducement, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was predisposed to commit the crime.

What is a criminal defense?

admin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:37:50 +0000

This is a variety of conditions tending to show that a person accused of committing a federal crime is not guilty of that crime. Although the prosecutor has the entire burden of proving an individual guilty, an accused individual still has a right to present any available legal defense.