The duty of defending an accused in court falls upon the shoulders of a defence lawyer. Let's delve into the basic manoeuvres and tacks that usually find their way to the defence attorney's playbook while standing for an individual under accusation:

The attorney or lawyer begins by sitting down with the accused, piecing together all the puzzle pieces surrounding the case. This involves delving into the client's narrative, any tangible evidence at their disposal, as well as possible witnesses or alibis that could come into play.

The lawyer performs an exhaustive legal investigation which enables him to understand the law that is applicable to this case and the past judgements that have been delivered in such cases. He or she needs to be knowledgeable about the specific charges faced by the defendant.

An attorney on the defence may hire investigators or consult with expert advisors. They work on getting evidence, talking to witnesses, collecting information useful for defending their client; they can also go visit where crime happened and look at evidence physically.

After acquiring the gathered details, the lawyer crafts a defence strategy. This could mean questioning the innocence of the accused, challenging the legality of evidence (self-defence) or even an alibi or any other legal armaments.

Most times, the defence counsel is supposed to negotiate with the prosecutor and come up with a plea agreement. This can lead to lesser charges against the accused or a better ending for him. However, it is up to the client's decision whether they want to accept such offers.

The attorney can file pretrial motions to address a number of issues, including but not limited to requesting the suppression of evidence obtained illegally or filing for a change of venue because impossibility of a fair trial at the current location.

Should the case proceed to trial, the defence attorney goes through an elaborate preparation process. This involves picking out a jury, getting witnesses ready, and coming up with a strategy to use in court.

The attorney cross-examines the prosecution's witnesses during the trial to undermine their credibility and highlight any contradictions in their statements that may exist.

When presenting a defence, the lawyer lays out all aspects of the client's case - this encompasses any supporting evidence or witnesses that can be summoned on behalf of their argument. If needed, experts might be called as witnesses for additional specialized information.

In many cases, when defending an accused person, they have to counteract the expert opinions that are presented by the prosecution. Lawyers have to look at how the methodology was reached and evidence - alongside the conclusion of what was brought up as expert witnesses' opinion, in an effort to find out any loopholes or contradictions and inconsistencies.

The defence questions whether expert testimony is reliable and valid: this raises questions about doubt on what has been put forth as evidence by the prosecution, opening up alternative possibilities. It might involve sometimes even seeking other experts who can present different perspectives or evidence that contradicts what had earlier been given as an expert opinion by prosecution; challenging expert testimony effectively is very essential since it ensures that those who are accused get a fair trial where justice will be served without any bias towards either side involved in the case.

A common strategy when defending the accused is to question the credibility of the investigating officer. Defence lawyers do not take this task lightly; every action, word, or procedure by the officer is carefully analysed for any hint of inconsistency, bias, or deviation from standard practice. Moreover, they delve into the officer’s personal history seeking possible motives that might colour their testimony or affect their objectivity in conducting the investigation.

By pointing out these irregularities - be it procedural impropriety, misconduct, or lack of impartiality on the part of the officer—the defence’s intention is to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case and in turn sow scepticism on any evidence brought forward. But why go to such lengths? A fundamental principle guiding this labyrinthine process lies in ensuring that those standing trial receive nothing short of equitable treatment within court proceedings.

When the defence takes over, nullifying the prosecution witnesses becomes one of the main objectives. The attorneys do not take this lightly; they carefully study the details of the witness's testimony, trying to unearth any hidden agendas or personal reasons that might have tainted the truthfulness of what was said on that stand. They look for discrepancies in past statements and any peculiar interests at play - which might compromise the reliability of their account.

During cross-examination, any memory lapses are meant to be caught in contradiction with earlier standpoints taken; this might help unearth any hidden motives that are still left concealed within those contradictory points brought forth. Any effort by the defence team to provide a different angle from which evidence or witnesses contradicting what has already been presented only works towards delegitimizing further such testimonies brought by these witnesses - therefore making it easier for others not to believe them either.

The jury is expected to develop doubts about issues surrounding witness testimonies that have been pointed out as flawed; this then weakens the case held by prosecutors and guarantees fairness in future proceedings toward those accused: without bias based on those untrustworthy reports.

One common way to get someone off the hook is to establish that they couldn't have done it - by showing they were somewhere else when the crime occurred. Alibi defences are typically presented with witness accounts, camera footage or any kind of record-keeping evidence showing that the accused was far away from where the crime took place. The alibi defence works by connecting dots on the map that don't match up with the prosecution's story - casting doubt on their version and whether this person could even be responsible for what happened there.

And yet, all these come down to just a few factors: can your alibi be trusted? Does it make sense every time it is told? Will it stand up under any kind of scrutiny? Using an alibi is actually a way for us to affirm someone's innocence; it means that despite being accused, they deserve fair treatment, which includes having their day in court without any biases placed against them.

Defence attorneys often find challenging the investigation an essential step in their defence of the accused. The scrutiny of evidence, procedures and testimonies for inconsistencies or biases is one aspect; another is looking for procedural errors that might put doubt on the prosecution's case. Unveiling weaknesses in the investigation can expose flawed police work or unreliable witness accounts, among other factors. This could minimize prosecution's strength while strengthening defence’s position; thus, this keen review upholds the accused's rights - as enshrined in law - to a fair trial irrespective of any bias towards finding justice with blind eyes.

Judge shopping may be seen as crucial at times when an accused person is to be defended. Due to the enormous effect that a judge's decisions can have on the outcome of a case, lawyers might purposefully look for a fair or understanding judge who can favour their client. This is done so that there is a greater chance of receiving a favourable judgment or sentence. Nonetheless, ethical concerns and laws governing the choice of judges must be observed: while it seeks to uphold justice in the selection process, it also keeps ethical considerations and legalities in mind. The objective is always - and must always be - that the accused receives a fair trial with proper representation within the confines of the law, irrespective of these efforts.

In some cases, pleading not guilty by reason of insanity can be a defence strategy for the defendant. This plea contends that when the crime was committed, the accused did not possess mental capacity to know either what they were doing or that it was wrong. By showing evidence of mental illness or incapacity, lawyers hope to prove that the person accused is not entirely responsible for his actions; however, these pleas involve sophisticated legal and psychological evaluations and may be affected by different jurisdictional laws and what evidence would turn out to be. The main objective still stays at obtaining equitable treatment and justice for all those involved parties.

Producing defence witnesses to support the accused is all about getting people who can speak positively about the defendant's innocence. These individuals provide evidence that can back up what the defendant says, or further strengthen alibis that are made in defence, and paint the prosecution case in bad light. This approach seeks to make the defendant look more believable and also deny what the prosecution puts forward.

Challenging the legitimacy of the FIR involves defending the accused by questioning its legality. Lawyers present procedural anomalies, charges based on malice, or absence of proof during a hearing to convince the court about nullifying FIR. This tactic is intended to ensure that rights of the accused are protected and that there is no injustice in prosecution.

To defend the person accused by quashing the charge sheet means to invalidate and challenge them from a legal standpoint. Lawyers will contest procedural mistakes, absence of proof or materials, violation of rights in an attempt to convince the court that the charges made in the charge sheet should be dropped. The purpose of this approach is to uphold the rights of the accused and guarantee fairness in judicial proceedings.

In the final analysis of the case, the lawyer presents a closing argument. It is an opportunity to encapsulate what has been done on behalf of their client and point out any weaknesses in the opposition’s case.

Appeals are an option for the accused if found guilty and they believe legal mistakes occurred during the trial; the defence attorney can file an appeal challenging the verdict or sentence. Throughout this process, a defence attorney has several responsibilities: they need to act in the best interests of their client, uphold confidentiality, provide competent legal representation, and follow ethical standards while upholding principles of justice as well.

It should be kept in mind that every case has its own peculiarities. The defence tactics are therefore chosen in the light of particular situation and evidence available. Moreover, it is up to the accused person to decide on all issues related to the defence - this includes whether they would want to plead guilty as per any plea deal or face trial.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565