Every criminal case is different. There are many laws regulating personal conduct and different penalties the courts can impose depending on the alleged criminal offense.
Many times, the defense tactics used at trial depend on the charges against the defendant. Those facing assault charges, for example, could develop a claim that they acted in self-defense or out of a desire to protect someone else. Those accused of theft crimes could provide an alibi to prove they were not the person who appeared on security camera footage.
There are certain strategies that can be effective in various different scenarios. Challenging the use of certain evidence can be helpful in most types of criminal cases. When can a defense attorney prevent the prosecution from presenting specific evidence?
When improper conduct occurred
Defense strategies challenging evidence often seek to question the accuracy of the state’s analysis or the procedures used to gather the evidence. However, it is sometimes possible to prevent the prosecution from using certain evidence at all.
Under the exclusionary rule, an attorney can ask the courts to set aside evidence if there is proof that the collection of that evidence involved a violation of someone’s rights or the law. The successful exclusion of evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case or lead to the dismissal of pending charges.
If police officers conducted an illegal search, any evidence found during that search may not be admissible during criminal proceedings. If a violation of an individual’s Miranda rights occurred, the courts may have to set aside their confession or contradictory statements that the prosecution wants to use as evidence.
Establishing that the process of collecting evidence violated a defendant’s rights or broke the law can play an important role in a successful strategy of an Austin criminal defense attorney. The elimination of specific evidence can make it much easier to avoid a criminal conviction.