Every criminal charge requires a different defense strategy. Sometimes, defendants can identify another suspect who is more likely to have committed the crime. Other times, they might potentially be able to prove that they weren’t present when the crime occurred.
There are also scenarios in which the state has relatively strong evidence connecting them to the offense. In such cases, it might be possible to avoid a conviction using an affirmative defense strategy. State statutes recognize certain unusual circumstances that can mitigate criminal culpability. Committing a crime under the instruction of another party because of a threat could be one such circumstance.
Duress is an affirmative defense
The law identifies numerous scenarios in which individuals may not be wholly responsible for their actions. Duress is one such circumstance. People experiencing duress believe that their own safety or possibly the safety of their family members is at imminent risk.
A home invasion could result in the criminals holding family members hostage, instructing one person to rob a bank and demanding that they bring back a certain amount of money. If the person follows those instructions, they could theoretically mount a defense based on the duress that they experienced because of the criminal actions and threats of others. Typically, claims of duress require strong evidence of credible threats against the person accused of the crime or someone else.
People hoping to mount an affirmative defense strategy usually need support as they respond to their pending criminal charges. Proving that another party compelled someone to commit illegal behavior through threats could be a key component of a successful defense.