The notion of temporary insanity argues that a defendant was insane, but is now sane.

Gardner-Medwin argues that the criterion on which a verdict in a criminal trial should be based is not the probability of guilt, but rather the probability of the evidence, given that the defendant is innocent ( akin to a frequentist p-value ).

An exculpation is a defense in which a defendant argues that despite the fact they committed and are guilty of the crime, tort, or other wrong and have a liability to compensate the victim, they should be exculpated because of special circumstances that operated in favor of the defendant at the time they broke the law.

In criminal law, irresistible impulse is a defense by excuse, in this case some sort of insanity, in which the defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for their actions that broke the law, because they could not control those actions.

In jurisprudence, selective prosecution is a procedural defense in which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as the criminal justice system discriminated against them by choosing to prosecute.

In a claim of selective prosecution, a defendant essentially argues that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon

The abuse defense is a criminal law defense in which the defendant argues that a prior history of abuse justifies violent retaliation.

As a justification defense, the " urban survival syndrome " is offered to bolster self-defense claims in which a defendant argues that he or she should not be held criminally responsible for actions which broke the law, as the defendant was objectively reasonable in believing his or her lethal actions were necessary for survival.

" Best argues that the principle of extensional self-defense mirrors the penal code statues known as the " necessity defense ," which can be invoked when a defendant believes that the illegal act was necessary to avoid imminent and great harm.

Unclean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine, is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint — that is, with " unclean hands ".

He argues the defendant must be found guilty for even striking Claggart, Budd's superior, not to mention killing him.

" Best argues that the principle of extensional self-defense mirrors the penal code statues known as the " necessity defense ," which can be invoked when a defendant believes that the illegal act was necessary to avoid imminent and great harm.

These " coupon settlements " ( which usually allow the plaintiffs to receive a small benefit such as a small check or a coupon for future services or products with the defendant company ) are a way for a defendant to forestall major liability by precluding a large number of people from litigating their claims separately, to recover reasonable compensation for the damages.

In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons ( see: cause of action ) that the filing party or parties ( the plaintiff ( s )) believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought ( the defendant ( s )) that entitles the plaintiff ( s ) to a remedy ( either money damages or injunctive relief )

On a breach of contract by a defendant, a court generally awards the sum that would restore the injured party to the economic position they expected from performance of the promise or promises ( known as an " expectation measure " or " benefit-of-the-bargain " measure of damages ).

Recovery of damages is subject to the legal principle that damages must be proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant.

Generally, punitive damages, which are also termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom, are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff.

In certain areas of the law another head of damages has long been available, whereby the defendant is made to give up the profits made through the civil wrong in restitution.

If the thing could not be recovered, the plaintiff could claim damages from the defendant with the aid of the condictio furtiva ( a personal action ).

With the aid of the actio legis Aquiliae ( a personal action ), the plaintiff could claim damages from the defendant.

A successful defence absolves the defendant from full or partial liability for damages.

Comparative negligence has also been criticized, since it would allow a plaintiff who is recklessly 95 % negligent to recover 5 % of the damages from the defendant, and often more when a jury is feeling sympathetic.

Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.

Another case that could arguably be seen as an example of punitive damages was that of Attorney-General v Blake in which the defendant profited from publishing a book detailing his work for MI5.

More recently in Couch v Attorney-General the New Zealand Supreme Court barred exemplary damages for cases of negligence unless the defendant acts intentionally or with subjective recklessness.

Punitive damages are usually reserved for when the defendant has displayed actual intent to cause harm ( such as purposefully rear-ending someone else's car ), rather than in cases of mere negligence.

There is no maximum dollar amount of punitive damages that a defendant can be ordered to pay.

If the plaintiff has shown that the defendant is liable, the main remedy in a civil court is the amount of money, or " damages ", which the defendant should pay to the plaintiff.

In such a case the defendant should serve as a clear example and not have to be tied to the issue by argument.

If the defendant files an appeal arguing that he should not have to pay any money, then the plaintiff might file a cross-appeal arguing that the defendant should have to pay $ 200, 000 instead of $ 50, 000.

According to the book Gender, Crime, and Punishment published by Yale University Press, " Under the Alford doctrine, a defendant does not admit guilt but admits that the state has sufficient evidence to find him or her guilty, should the case go to trial.

The House of Lords asked the judges of the common law courts to answer five questions on insanity as a criminal defence, and the formulation that emerged from their review — that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions only if, as a result of his mental disease or defect, he ( i ) did not know that his act would be wrong ; or ( ii ) did not understand the nature and quality of his actions — became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England.

By 1997, the phrase had entered the legal lexicon as seen in an opinion by Supreme Court of the United States Justice John Paul Stevens, ' An example of " junk science " that should be excluded under the Daubert standard as too unreliable would be the testimony of a phrenologist who would purport to prove a defendant ’ s future dangerousness based on the contours of the defendant ’ s skull.

In other words, the defendant is in a worse position now than at the time the claim should have been brought.

Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction " all cases affecting … public ministers and consuls ," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a " public minister consul.

: " Prosecutors should never go ahead with more charges than are necessary just to encourage a defendant to plead guilty to a few.

In the same way, they should never go ahead with a more serious charge just to encourage a defendant to plead guilty to a less serious one.

However, although this is not conducting a plea bargain, in cases before the Crown Court, the defence can request an indication from the judge of the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed should the defendant decide to plead guilty.

" Accordingly, defendants are not routinely required to swear before testifying, which would risk casually profaning the Quran should the defendant commit perjury ; instead oaths are a solemn procedure performed as a final part of the evidence process.

" The issue of illegality of search should be adjudged in a subsequent proceeding, after the defendant has been indicted.

In jurisprudence, unconsciousness may entitle the criminal defendant to the defense of automatism, i. e a state uncontrollably of one's own actions, an excusing condition that allows a defendant to argue that they should not be held criminally liable for their actions or omissions.

If the defendant could not produce a royal licence to prove the grant of the liberty, then it was the crown's opinionbased on the writings of the influential thirteenth-century legal scholar Bractonthat the liberty should revert to the king.

If the defendant was selected from a large group merely because of the evidence under consideration, then this fact should be included in weighing how incriminating that evidence is.

* Abolition of the insanity defense: Szasz believed that testimony about the mental competence of a defendant should not be admissible in trials.