Actual innocence is a common criminal defense where the accused claims they did not commit the crime. It differs from other defenses as the defendant maintains their innocence. Tactics include attacking witness credibility, accusing investigators of fabricating evidence, and providing an alibi. The success of this defense varies by region, and even if successful, the defendant cannot use the verdict for financial compensation. An acquittal does not necessarily prove actual innocence, but new evidence can lead to a claim of innocence during an appeal. This has led to an increase in institutions dedicated to the release of wrongly accused prisoners.
Actual innocence is a criminal defense through which the accused claims that he has not committed a crime. The defendant may claim to be the victim of a mistaken identity or a fabrication by another party. This dispute can also arise during an appeal process in criminal law. Regardless of the circumstances, this is usually the most common defense put forward in criminal law cases across regions.
An affirmation of factual innocence differs from other criminal defenses in that the defendant maintains innocence in the commission of the crime. Any variant defense usually requires the defendant to admit to the crime at issue, but argue for extenuating circumstances. For example, in the case of a murder charge a lawyer may plead self-defense or insanity.
Three innocence defense tactics are generally used by the defendant. The defense can attack a witness’s credibility or memory and then make a case for mistaken identity. A lawyer can also undermine the credibility of individuals investigating the crime and even accuse them of fabricating evidence. The OJ Simpson trial is a renowned representative of such a stranded defense. An accused defendant can strengthen a claim by also providing an alibi for the crime.
The success of effective innocence defense in criminal law varies by region. In some regions where the burden of proof lies with the defence, a claim of actual innocence can be significantly more difficult to prove. Other regions, such as the United States, may only require that the defendant provide reasonable doubt of guilt. In most regions, even if an effective defense of innocence is successful, the defendant cannot use the verdict for financial compensation in civil cases.
An acquittal in most cases, however, simply results in a guilty or not guilty sentence. Validation of actual true innocence often relies on the defendant after a trial, whether or not a guilty verdict is reached. During the appeal, a convicted defendant can ask the courts to reopen a case if new evidence is discovered – such as previously unknown DNA evidence – that indicates that the defendant did not commit the crime in question or if an error was implemented during the process. In such cases, the defendant can again claim actual innocence. Many of these cases resulted in the release of wrongfully convicted prisoners and thus led to a subsequent increase in the number of institutions dedicated to the release of the wrongly accused.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
