Finding a Quality Defense Attorney in Sherman Oaks

51 / 100
Quality Defense Attorney

Sherman Oaks, California, is a great place to live. But, like all places, it is not perfect. There is a crime. In fact, over the past year, there have been 640 counts of theft, 186 counts of assault, 110 counts of burglary, 102 counts of vandalism and 33 counts of robbery.  

What if you are the one charged with a crime? Perhaps you were charged with drunk driving, robbery, white-collar crime, or something else? This is when you need a Criminal Attorney In Sherman Oaks to assist you in defending these charges.

Below is a discussion of certain defences that often save defendants in criminal cases.  

By way of background, if a defendant goes on trial after being charged with committing a crime, the prosecutor is required to establish that the defendant is guilty of the crime. And this must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a very high standard. Whether the defendant puts on any defence is up to him. Still, it will typically be done in a manner designed to pick apart the prosecutor’s case by arguing that another person committed the crime, or even if the offence did happen, there was a legal and reasonable justification for doing so. Some examples of these defences are as follows.

Perhaps the defendant did not understand that was they were doing was wrong. Indeed, most crimes require that a person intend to commit the wrongful act, so if you did not know you were doing something wrong, you should not be found guilty. On television and in real life, you see defendants claim they were suffering from insanity or that the defendant can prove that they had a mental disorder that rendered them incapable of understanding right from wrong. Or, in the alternative, the condition prevented him from controlling his actions and resisting violent impulses. The result may lead to hospitalization for treatment instead of jail, but the latter is generally better.

Drunk driving is a serious charge with understandably serious consequences. But being in, intoxicated could serve as a defence to certain crimes because, again, if the defendant did not understand what she was doing, she cannot meet the intent requirement a prosecutor must show to obtain a conviction. And if you were not voluntarily intoxicated—let’s say someone “spiked” your drink—this can often lead to acquittal. When drunk, we do not always know right from wrong.

Also available is the defence of a mistake of law or error of fact. Here, a defendant made a specific critical mistake that negated an element of the crime. If a defendant is charged with theft and can prove that he thought the money or property was his, the lack of intent is again missing.

And what about the common defence of self-defence or the protection of others? This falls under the category of “justification.” If you are charged with murder or assault for killing or hurting someone on your property, if you can argue that this person was threatening you or your family, this could serve as a defence to the criminal charges. Likewise, the protection of duress requires a defendant to demonstrate that he only performed the wrongful act because he felt unduly pressured to do so, or there would be some dire consequence, such as someone holding a gun to his head or threatening to harm family members. The defence of “necessity” allows a defendant to argue that something worse would have happened had she not committed the crime. An example would be that a defendant stole a car to chase down another who was about to commit a mass shooting.

Less common is where a defendant may argue that no crime occurred. This is most common in sexual assault situations, where a defendant is charged with rape but will argue that the other party consented, so there could not have been a crime. Similarly, in a sexual context, perhaps the violence that took place was agreed to by the “victim” who visited the role-playing facility. Also under this category is where a person can argue that they would participate in the crime but change their mind at the last second. Let’s say the defendant was going to join in the bank heist but decided to wait in the car instead. There is also the defence of entrapment, where the government induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish him for it. If the defendant can prove that the offence only occurred because the government caused it, this may lead to acquittal.  

As you can see, there are many ways to defend against crimes in California and throughout the United States. If you are charged with a crime, it is essential to find a Criminal Attorney In Sherman Oaks with the experience, temperament, and history of success to defend you properly.