South Carolina's Criminal Defense - Research Paper Example

Criminal Defence in South Carolina The defense attorney has many important roles to play in the criminal justice process. The United States has one of the most established and well respected criminal processes in the world and defense attorneys as well as prosecutors play an important role in a criminal process. Criminal defense in South Carolina is an important issue with a variety of ramifications for the defendant, the state as well as for the process itself. Criminal defense in South Carolina is relevant due to the fact that the state employs the death penalty as punishment for the most heinous crimes. According to the South Carolina Department of Corrections, there are presently 57 inmates on death row in the state of South Carolina. South Carolina has a strong legal tradition but equally strong sentencing requirements and the defense attorney plays an important role in ensuring that justice is appropriately meted out. Seeking to understand the different criminal defenses is the state of South Carolina, the following will provide a comparative analysis of some of the commonly used defenses available to the criminal justice attorney. These include the defense of insanity, incompetence to stand trial, entrapment, the defense of alibi, mistaken identity and justifiable homicide, amongst others. With the aim of addressing the important role that the criminal attorney plays in the judicial process as well as the viable defenses available to him or her, the following will provide an overview of criminal defense in the state of South Carolina (South Carolina Department of Corrections, 2009; Ciolino & Castle, 2000). Defense of Insanity There are many people who commit crimes and do not have the mental faculties to understand the crimes they committed or the fact that they were in the commission of an act which resulted in offense. As a result of mental disease or defect, and in the event that a person is lacking the capacity to distinguish between what is morally right and morally wrong, the South Carolina Penal Code provides for an affirmative defense of mental illness. Section 17-24-10 of the South Carolina Criminal Code allows for the defense of insanity but places the burden upon the defense in order to prove that mental illness or insanity exists. This defense represents a reverse onus in which the defendant must prove that he or she lacks the capacity to “distinguish moral or legal right from moral or legal wrong” (South Carolina Legislature, 2009) in the burden of proof rests upon this party. Importantly, the defense of insanity cannot derive from anything which is criminal; thus an individual cannot claim it an insanity defense after doing heroin or cocaine in so much as these drugs are legal. While one may technically become temporarily “insane” as a result of using these legal drugs, the commission and use of these drugs precludes this has a viable defense in the case of a criminal trial in South Carolina. Importantly, a defendant can be found guilty but mentally ill at the time the commission of an offense and in this instance a burden of proof exists for the state to prove that the defendant committed the crime, and importantly an additional burden exists upon the defendant to prove that he or she was mentally ill while this crime was committed. Accordingly, a defendant may plead guilty but mentally ill in court. In the event that a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the chief administrative judge has 15 days from within the receipt of the courts’ report to determine whether or not the individual should be hospitalized or released under certain conditions. Under the defense of insanity, the defendant may in fact be subject to hospitalization even if he or she is found not guilty by reason of this defense. Accordingly, Section 17-24-10 of the South Carolina Penal Code makes provisions for the hospitalization of the defendant under the authority of the Department of Mental Health. Furthermore, these are the ramifications for a defense attorney who wishes to utilize this defense in a criminal case(South Carolina Legislature, 2009; Thames & Bauknight, 1996). Incompetent to Stand Trial Incompetence refers to sanity and the ability to of a defendant to understand the proceedings of the trial or to participate in his or her defense. According to law, a defendant cannot be put on trial if he or she suffers from mental illness, more succinctly, from a disease which will prevent him or her from understanding the trial. Incompetence is then trial is not the same as mental insanity and the competence of the defendant is only determined after a judge holds a hearing to determine the current competence of the defendant. During this hearing, the burden of proof with respect to the competence of the client is on the defendant. If the judge finds that the defendant is incompetent and thus cannot stand trial the defendant will likely be placed in a mental institution or similar hospital until competence is renewed. If the competence is retained by the defendant, the trial can take place (Bergman & Berman, 2008). Mistaken Identity Mistaken identity is a criminal defense which asserts innocence of a defendant by undermining the eyewitness testimony against the defendant. In a criminal matter, a false identification can lead to the unlawful prosecution of an innocent person. In this instance, the defendant must question the eyewitness testimony of a prosecution witness and ensure beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in fact the person seen by the witness. False memory is also another attribute of mistaken identity and an important aspect of the criminal defense case. There are many reasons for mistaken identity and they conclude the brevity through which the alleged witness saw the perpetrator of the crime or the fact that the witness was not wearing his or her prescription glasses or it was dark outside. It is quite important for the criminal defense attorney to ensure that his or her client is not a victim of mistaken identity as mistaken eyewitness accounts are some of the most frequently cited reasons for the prosecution of innocent people. Eyewitness identification has changed quite a bit in light of the introduction of DNA and other technological events to promote justice process. Despite this, mistaken identity must be rooted out by the criminal defense attorney in effort to safeguard the rights of the defendant. This is just one of the many offenses available to the defense team (Ede & Edwards, 2008). Entrapment Entrapment is a criminal offense in which a law-enforcement officer, generally a police officer, induces a person to commit a crime. The entrapment of a defendant is seen by case law as a reasonable defense in the event that one is coerced by law-enforcement agents to commit a crime. The federal recognition of this defense began in 1915 and has made his way to the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. A criminal defense in the state of South Carolina, entrapment is a viable option in a criminal matter whereby the constitutional protections of individual appeared to have been trampled upon (Ede & Edwards, 2008). Justifiable homicide According to section 16-3-10 of the South Carolina Penal Code, murder is defined as “the killing of a person with malice afterthought, either express or implied.” South Carolina is one of many states in the union which practices the death penalty. According to the latest information provided from the South Carolina Department of Corrections, there are presently 57 inmates in the state on death row. As with other states in the United States, death penalty cases tend to revolve around important charges for crimes which are considered to be the most heinous in society. Accordingly, the crime of homicide in the nature of self-defense is an important criminal defense when an offense has been made and the death of an individual has ensued. The crime of justifiable homicide is said to occur when one commits the death of an individual in defense of him or herself. According to American penal codes as well, a homicide can be considered to be justified if this homicide takes place to prevent a serious crime. Thus, in any circumstances the decision of an individual to commit this act cannot be premeditated, cannot be preformed out of vengeance and is generally undertaken as a last resort. Justifiable homicide then is not a criminal offense if the homicide is undertaken in preemptive defense. In state which practices capital punishment such as South Carolina, the defense of justifiable homicide is an important offense which can successfully secured the release of the defendant when a death has taken place (South Carolina Legislature, 2009; Watson & McAninch, 1997). Alibi Defence The alibi defense is one of the most common defenses known to criminal defense attorneys. The alibi defense is predicated on the idea that the defendant could not have committed the crime he or she is accused of committing because the defendant was elsewhere when the commission of the crime occurred. Accordingly, the alibi defense is used when a defendant must prove that he or she was elsewhere when the crimes committed. Furthermore, defendants who choose to rely on alibis do have to offer evidence to support their claims but do not have to convince the judge or jury that they were all scripts on crimes committed. The burden is still in the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant of his yellow bike is nevertheless guilty (Bergman & Berman, 2008). An alibi is evidence that the accused could not have possibly committed the crime. It is a perfectly legal criminal defense and can be offered by someone who is accused even if he or she chooses not to testify. Alibi claims should be supported with independent evidence and can include a variety of such evidence. An alibi could be a stranger who saw the defendant in another town when the crimes being committed, a receipt for the purchase of gasoline or meal while the crimes were allegedly committed or further evidence that the defendant was elsewhere on the crimes committed (Bergman & Berman, 2008). Concluding Remarks The role of the criminal defense attorney is incredibly important in any judicial process. Criminal defense in the state of South Carolina remains an important issue with a variety of ramifications surrounding the rights of the accused as well as the rights of the victim in criminal matters. South Carolina is a death penalty state and this makes criminal defense that much more important from the perspective of the defendant. With the aim of understanding the various legal options available to criminal defense attorneys with respect to criminal defenses, the preceding has provided a thorough overview of some of the most important defenses available to the criminal defense attorney. By exploring the defenses of insanity, incompetence to stand trial, entrapment, the defense of alibi, mistaken identity and justifiable homicide, the preceding has undertaken a thorough exploration of the important criminal defenses presently practiced in South Carolina. While many more criminal defenses certainly do exist and are available options to the criminal defence attorney, this research paper has sought to provide a thorough, yet concise, introduction to some of the more readily available criminal defenses in South Carolina jurisprudence today (Black, 1999). REFERENCES Bergman, P & Berman, S.J. (2008)The Criminal Law Handbook. New York: Nolo. Ede, R. & Edwards, A. (2008). Criminal Defence. New York: Law Society, 2008. South Carolina Department of Corrections. (2009). Last Accessed November 12, 2009 http://www.doc.sc.gov/news/deathrow.jsp South Carolina Legislature. (2009). Last Accessed November 12, 2009 http://www.scstatehouse.gov/cgi-bin/query.exe Thames, J.P. & S. H. Bauknight. (1996). South Carolina Criminal Defense. Columbia: South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division, 1996. Watson, P.S. & W.S. McAninch. (1997). Guide to South Carolina criminal law and procedure. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Ciolino, P.J. & G.E. Castle. (2000). Advanced Forensic Criminal Defense Investigations. New York: Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company. Black, H.C. (1999). Black's Law Dictionary. New York: Black's Law Dictionary Series. Read More