FIRST DEGREE MURDER LAWYER IN PHOENIX, AZ

In a first-degree murder case, this defense will specifically attack the quality of law enforcement’s investigation and the reliability of the evidence used against a suspect. Types of evidence an attorney can generally attack include:

• Crime scene: Did police conduct a proper investigation of the crime scene and the evidence collected at the scene? Was any evidence lost, overlooked, or destroyed?
• Forensic pathology: Did the medical examiner make the correct conclusions or fail to consider specific evidence? Additionally, did the medical examiner accurately document the victim’s time of death?
• Forensic serology: This is basically the forensic examination of blood. An attorney could utilize this defense by asking questions such as: how was the blood linked to the suspect? And how was this substance determined to be human blood?
• DNA evidence: One of the strongest defenses an attorney can use regarding DNA evidence is whether forensic detectives used STR analysis or mitochondrial DNA typing procedures. The latter doesn’t have the same discrimination power STR analysis. Additionally, an attorney can question whether detectives somehow contaminated DNA evidence.
• Fingerprints: When it comes to fingerprints as evidence, an attorney can question whether the prints were properly located, preserved, and digitally enhanced.
• Ballistics evidence: In crimes involving guns, it’s important for law enforcement to investigate the types of guns and bullets involved. Additionally, it’s important to accurately compare bullet markings and cartridges. Law enforcement must also examine all suspects and victims for gunpowder residue. If law enforcement performs poorly or inaccurately in this part of the investigation, an attorney can use it as a defense.
• Computer forensics: Lastly, an attorney can question whether police properly acquired, examined, and preserved any computer data involved in a first-degree murder charge.

An attorney can potentially convince a jury to drop the death penalty if a suspect killed someone as a result of self-defense. If there was no premeditation and the defendant acted in self-defense, this does not constitute first-degree murder.

Similarly to the self-defense claim, an attorney can potentially convince a jury to drop the death penalty if a suspect kills someone because they tried to protect another person.

Another possible defense is if a person kills someone for the sole purpose of preventing a deadly crime. According to Arizona law, the suspect must have thought deadly force was necessary to prevent:

• Arson
• Burglary
• Kidnapping
• Manslaughter
• Murder in the first or second degree
• Sexual assault
• Child molestation
• Armed robbery
• Aggravated assault

Another potential defense against the death penalty is to prove that a suspect had no motive to kill someone. Although the prosecution isn’t required to prove motive, they frequently try to use it against a suspect anyway. If an attorney proves that a suspect didn’t have a motive, they can argue that the suspect didn’t commit the crime.

Mistaken identity can be a strong defense against the death penalty. This is because many suspects are initially identified through eyewitness identification. Research proves that eyewitness identification is the most unreliable type of evidence.

Occasionally, a jury charges a suspect with first-degree murder if they happened to be present during the crime. Mere presence doesn’t mean a suspect was involved in a crime, nor does it mean they killed someone. In other words, mere presence doesn’t equal criminal intent.

In an alibi defense, an attorney will provide evidence that the suspect was somewhere else when the murder happened. Obviously, if a suspect proves that they weren’t on the scene when a murder happened, then they didn’t commit the murder.

If a suspect has evidence that connects someone else to a murder, then a jury may drop the death penalty. Depending on the facts of a particular case, a suspect could have both an alibi and a third-party culpability defense.

As stated previously, premeditation is an essential part of a first-degree murder charge. If an attorney can prove that a suspect didn’t plan or think about the murder beforehand, a jury may not charge them with first-degree murder.

When a suspect is accused of felony murder, an attorney should always challenge the evidence that proves they committed the underlying crime. The prosecution won’t be able to prove felony murder unless they can prove the underlying felony.

An attorney can use a suspect’s tendency for impulsivity to their advantage. This is because impulsivity can prove that the suspect didn’t premeditate a murder. However, an attorney can’t argue that their suspect suffered from a mental disorder that prevented them from premeditation unless the attorney is arguing for complete insanity.

An attorney can argue insanity on behalf of a mentally ill suspect in order to potentially drop the death penalty. To prove that a suspect is guilty but insane, an attorney must prove that the suspect didn’t know right from wrong during a murder because of their mental illness. This defense is generally uncommon because many people suffer from mental illness but still know right from wrong.

However, the insanity defense is still used for suspects who suffer from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder), and more. Instead of facing the death penalty or life imprisonment, a suspect who claims insanity will spend their life in a mental hospital.

For example, a famous case in the 1970s in which the suspect claimed insanity involved Billy Milligan. He suffered from dissociative identity disorder. His lawyers claimed that two of his 24 alternate personalities committed rape and armed robbery without Milligan’s host personality being aware of the crimes.

Mitigation evidence is basically any factor in a suspect’s life that should spare them from the death penalty out of mercy alone. Potential factors that an attorney can argue are a suspect’s young age, mental illness, and biosocial history.