Sex crimes can leave the defendant’s reputation. Worse, being accused of fake sex crimes can lead to various consequences, including your future employment opportunities and reputation. Adopting the appropriate defense strategy could mean reviving the tarnished image from a legal standpoint as the title of a sex offender.

Defending sex crimes can be a tricky and sticky situation. Having the appropriate defense with the help of a Rochester, MN attorney can help steer the case in a positive direction.

Some of the popular defending strategies for sex crimes that your attorney include:

Invoke right against self-incrimination:

The fifth amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination or the right to remain silent does not mean an admission of guilt under any circumstance. The prosecution often twists words noted in police testimonials, leading to the defendant admitting to crimes they have not been a part of. By incriminating oneself, the trial seems to have leverage over the defendant, influencing the jury members.

Cross-examine forensic evidence:

Forensic samples and evidence collected from the defendant, the alleged victim, and the crime scene are cross-examined to help establish any match. During the collection process analysis, if any defect is spotted, you can dismiss the whole basis of the case, or forensic evidence can be made inadmissible in court. Forensic evidence collected by the police and stored and tested can be examined if it seems questionable.

Accusers reliability:

Given the alleged claim or accusation, the defense should consider the defendant’s reliability concerning any past allegations or charges made against the defendant. The motive for the crime on the part of the defendant also needs to be established. Additionally, the relationship between the two parties needs to be questioned as the case may examine any prior past between them.

Unethically obtained evidence: 

The defense should be vigilant while cross-examining the evidence put forward by the prosecution. Since both parties examine the evidence brought into court, the defense should consider how the prosecution gained the evidence. Evidence gained without proper warrants, contaminated evidence, etc., can be tossed as the ground for getting the evidence unethically.

Incriminating polygraph tests:

The prosecution often uses a lie detector test or a polygraph test to help plant seeds of deficiency in the statements made by the defendant. Although the results of such tests are rarely admissible, it is highly recommended to carry out an independent polygraph test in the presence of the prosecution.