In the last Attorney Sam’s Take, we discussed the case of “Whitey” Bulger and the new issues brought in that case. Yes, again.
As we ended that blog, it became apparent that the latest issue is whether he will be allowed to present whatever defense he wishes to in front of the jury.
Many people assume that a criminal defendant has the unfettered right to choose which defense will be presented on his behalf to a jury. Those people are incorrect.
In the Bolger case, we see that the prosecution is already trying to limit Bulger’s defense options. More specifically, Bulger claims that he had been given immunity from prosecution for any crimes he might commit while he was an informant for the federal government. There are two arguments that the defense is making to counter the Government’s attempt to stop that defense in its tracks. First is that the Government’s position violates the “Separation of Powers” rrovision in the United States Constitution. That is a more complicated issue and is better discussed herein another day. The other issue, however, is ripe for our discussion.
The defendant claims that he has the right to present the defense he wishes to present at trial.
“Sam, why wouldn’t any criminal defendant be allowed to present the defense upon which he relies?”
There are many limitations to a defendant’s choice of defenses at trial. Many of the rules impacting on this are the rules of evidence. The rules of evidence were created so that both sides get a fair trial. However, these rules often prevent evidence from being heard and arguments being made. The rules can cut against either party. In the situation we are discussing, they can cut against the criminal defendant’s choice of defense.
Continue reading