Can defense request findings of fact before resting? Hypothetical scenario: A victim is identified with documented injuries consistent with having been struck with a weapon. The police find and charge a person (now "Defendant") that they claim perpetrated the act of striking the victim with a weapon. This Defendant stands trial for the crime of "Assault." Common Law provides a number of Criminal Defenses that could be raised in this scenario (e.g., Self Defense, Duress). However, in order to raise such a defense the Defendant would have to effectively confess to the Assault (or at least some critical elements of it). E.g., a Defendant can't argue, "I feared for my life" without, in effect, admitting that he was present and capable of striking the victim. Can the Defense require that the fact-finder in a trial (typically a jury) rule on prefatory facts, before it finishes the defense? In this hypothetical, it seems prejudicial (and something like a violation of a Defendant's fifth-amendment right to not witness against himself) to require that the Defendant admit that he was present at the scene of the crime in order to invoke a defense. It seems more consistent with the principles of our legal system to allow the Defense to require the Prosecution to first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was at the scene of the crime. Because if the Prosecution can't meet that hurdle, then that's the end of the trial. In practice is it possible for the Defense to avoid presenting affirmative defenses (like Self Defense) before the Court has found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime? If so: How? If not: Is there some theory or principle that illuminates why this is not considered a violation of the Defendant's fifth-amendment rights?
Can defense request findings of fact before resting? Is it possible for the Defense to avoid presenting affirmative defenses (like Self Defense) before the Court has found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime? If so: How? No, no and not applicable. A verdict is a singular declaration by the jury (or judge) that the state has or has not proved their case. Affirmative Defence These are all affirmative defenses which defeat or mitigate the consequences of the unlawful conduct and the onus of proof lies with the Defence, not the Prosecution. An affirmative defence must be pleaded in a timely manner. If the Prosecution fails in their burden to prove the unlawful conduct the affirmative defence does not get engaged. This is a threshold decision point for the trier of fact and the judge should so instruct the jury. Of necessity, affirmative defences require some admission of fact, however, these facts may not be in contention anyway. Where they are in contention, it requires a strategic choice by the defendant as to whether to use the affirmative defence or not. Is there some theory or principle that illuminates why this is not considered a violation of the Defendant's fifth-amendment rights? Because the defendant is not compelled to make these defences.
I suspect that you would not be convicted in the present case, because the jury would be sympathetic to the plight of the person being dragged out and unsympathetic to the behavior of the draggers. However, we should set aside the emotional elements of a jury trial and focus on legal principles. The basic question is whether a person has the right to use force to defend against an unlawful battery: "a person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another". This right to defense also extends to defense of others. But it has to appear to be to unlawful, which is to say, you have to reasonably believe that the force used against the victim is unlawful. If a couple of thugs try to drag a person away, then an observer probably has a reasonable belief that this is an unlawful battery. But if a couple of police officers are observed dragging a person away (arresting him), apparently acting officially, the force used (up to a point) is apparently lawful and would not constitute battery of the victim. For defensive force against police to be lawful, the forced used by the police must be excessive. The outcome then depends on what a reasonable person would conclude (this is where the jury or judge makes a rather subjective decision). If a reasonable person would conclude that the assailants are acting lawfully in arresting the person, then a higher bar must be clear to justifiably use force in defense of others. Wearing a jacket that says "Police" favors the "appears lawful" side (though if you happened to know for a fact that the person wearing the jacket is not a police officer, then the "police exception" would not be applicable). In the relevant case, the facts point to the appearance of a lawful arrest (even if were to turn out to be judged unlawful). In the case that this is an apparent arrest, it would have to be the case that a reasonable person would find the force used to be excessive. Generally speaking, force used by officers is held to be reasonable, except in some cases where it is not. See for example the matter of Eric Garner, where the officers involved were not indicted. On the third hand, in this case, it might matter what the actual legal status of the "officers" is (they are not Chicago police).
There is no requirement to interview the victim and/or the suspect prior to filing charges. Often statements are taken from the parties involved/witnesses by police and presented to the District Attorney's office as evidence. However charges can be filed without either party being interviewed, especially by the DA. This can often be the case in things like domestic violence cases, where the victim refuses to cooperate and the perpetrator refuses to talk (&quot;lawyer up&quot; or invoke 5th amendment rights). Charges can be filed based on circumstantial evidence of the crime (in the example, marks on the fist of the perpetrator and injuries to the victim, along with proximity). The police will try to interview the suspect and/or victim, but usually the prosecutor does not get involved at this point until charges are filed and the defendant has retained a lawyer (or declined one).
Must/may the court give that instruction? No. It would be error for the court to give that instruction. The only privilege for which an adverse inference instruction is generally authorized in civil litigation is the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This is because when you invoke it, you are implicitly asserting that your testimony could be used against you, if you gave it, to show that you were guilty of a crime, and because a relevant question will be about events pertinent to the lawsuit. An adverse inference is also not allowed for invoking the 5th Amendment when you are a defendant in a criminal case because that would undermine its purpose in the the criminal justice system. An invocation of a marital privilege, in contrast, merely implies that you are married, which is not something that would normally and naturally suggest that you did something for which there is civil liability. One could probably imagine a fact pattern in which being married was a disputed issue that could give rise to liability (e.g. under the &quot;family car doctrine&quot;), of course, in which the invocation of the privilege would estop A from asserting a defense on the ground that he isn't married to A's wife (either at the time of the communication if the confidential communication privilege is raised, or at the time of the testimony, if the right to not testify against a spouse privilege is raised, as the case might be). Tricky cases would involve people who were unmarried at the time of the accident but subsequently married. But, outside very unusual facts, people generally don't deny that they are married in a lawsuit and then try to assert the marital privilege in a lawsuit. Does the answer change depending on whether it is the litigant or the spouse who invokes the privilege? No.
Chain of custody and testimony in this regard. Say there is a murder victim, with DNA of the suspect under the fingernails and a knife with the suspect's bloody fingerprints stuck in the chest. There would be testimony what happened to the knife. If a paramedic removed it to attempt first aid, the paramedic would testify. So would the officer who bagged it, and the forensic analyst who took the fingerprints. A pathologist would testify if the knife was consistent with the stab wound (a careful pathologist could never swear that the knife was the cause of death, just that it matches). The pathologist would also testify how DNA was collected under the fingernails, and how it was sent to the lab. The defense may claim that the suspect also tried first aid, or that a corrupt cop forced the suspect to hold the knife. The court or jury then draw their conclusions from this and other testimony. Same here. A lifelike picture found on the web proves nothing. A witness who takes the stand to testify that he or she took a certain picture would be more credible. So would a forensic officer who testifies how she or he removed the data from a surveillance camera, checked for common signs of tampering, and then signed a copy of the data with a private key. (The signing shows no third-party tampering after collection, it is not evidence of integrity before that.) Years ago, in germany, there was the case of a bank robber who claimed that a fleeing suspect had handed him a bag of money in the forest and then vanished. &quot;Prove it wasn't so,&quot; he demanded. &quot;You can't. So there is reasonable doubt.&quot; Well, the court found that the statement merely created unreasonable doubt, and the sentence was upheld on appeal.
Generally an affirmative defense raises some ground other than an element of the offense or civil claim, such as justification (e.g. self-defense), privilege (I'm a soldier acting under lawful orders so I'm immune from liability), the invalidity of a law, statute of limitations, insanity, a pardon, bankruptcy, a settlement agreement, or payment of the amount owed in full. In a civil case, an affirmative defense has to be raised in the answer to the complaint failed by the plaintiff or a timely amendment to that answer. The prosecution/plaintiff has to overcome an affirmative defense only if the defendant raises it, and in a civil case, at least, the burden of proof for an affirmative defense is on the defendant. The requirement that a defendant raise the defense going to something beyond the elements of the crime or civil claim is what makes it an &quot;affirmative&quot; defense. Affirmative defenses are conclusively presumed to be unavailable to the defendant if not raised. Usually, it is possible to prevail in a civil or criminal case by establishing a complete affirmative defense, even if the defendant admits all of the elements of the crime or civil claim against the defendant have been proven. Also, many affirmative defenses (e.g. failure to mitigate damages, or heat of passion) are incomplete affirmative defenses that reduce the consequences that a defendant will face if the prosecution/plaintiff establishes a prima facie case (i.e. proves all the elements of the crime or civil claim), but will not completely eliminate all consequences of the prosecution/plaintiffs' proof of all elements of the crime or civil claim for the defendant. But the prosecution/plaintiff must always prove each and every element of a crime or civil claim (beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and by preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence in most non-criminal claims) even if the defendant fails to present any evidence or make any arguments related to the element of the crime or civil claim to prevail on the merits. Something that undermines an element of the crime or civil claim is a mere regular defense, because it doesn't have to be raised affirmatively, although in civil cases, facts that are alleged in a plaintiff's complaint are deemed admitted if they are not affirmatively denied, making the distinction between affirmative defenses and ordinary defenses in civil cases rather subtle. Of course, the term &quot;defense&quot; can be used to encompass both affirmative defenses, and other defenses which are not affirmative defenses (such as defenses that disprove an element of the crime or civil claim). Just to complicate matters further, there are a small number of ordinary defenses that still have to be raised affirmatively in advance in a criminal case despite the fact that it disproves an element of the crime, rather than advancing some other matter. The main example of this is an alibi defense (i.e. I wasn't at the scene of the crime when it happened).
There is pretty much never a right to retaliate against harm to oneself, even blatantly unlawful harm. There is a right to defend oneself and others. One can use force to stop someone from inflicting unlawful or unjustified harm, or to prevent someone from inflicting such harm when the harm is imminent. One is not permitted to use more force than is "reasonably required" under the actual circumstances. This is true in pretty much every jurisdiction that i know of. The details on how much force will be considered "reasonable" will vary. In some jurisdictions there is, under some circumstances, a s"duty to retreat". This generally means that if a person attacked can avoid the harm by fleeing with reasonable safety, that person must do so rather than using force in self-defense. In some jurisdictions this "duty to retreat" applies id the victim is attacked in public, but not in the victim's own home. The right to self defense does not apply when the "attacker" is an agent of the state acting lawfully. For example, a prison guard taking a condemned prisoner to a death sentence cannot be attacked on the grounds that the prisoner is engaging in self defense. In theory a police officer engaging an excessive force, particularly unjustified deadly force, may be resisted in self-defense. But courts are quite reluctant to find such resistance justified in practice. There generally must be very clear evidence of egregious misconduct for the court to rule for the non-police person in such a case. Note that "self" defense can equally be defense of another person. Pretty much all the same rules apply. Self defense applies no matter who the attacker is, but that force is reasonable may vary depending on the attacker. Only such force as is reasonably required to stop or prevent the harm may be used with a justification of self-defense.
Acquittals in criminal jury trials cannot be appealed (at least in a way that affects the outcome, Colorado and a few other states allow criminal appeals by the prosecution solely for the purposes of clarifying the law prospectively). Interlocutory appeals (i.e. appeals before the case is over) by the prosecution are allowed for pre-trial rulings (e.g. suppression of evidence rulings in a pre-trial hearing), in criminal cases, but not for evidentiary rulings made in the midst of a jury trial (which is when jeopardy attaches for the purposes of the double jeopardy rule, which is what prevents acquittals from being retried). An error in a ruling on an admission or rejection of evidence at trial may be appealed by a convicted defendant if the alleged misapplication of the evidence rule was an abuse of discretion by the judge, and was not &quot;harmless error&quot; (i.e. if as part of all errors made in the case there is a reasonable probability that it changed the outcome that the jury reached).