Legal Definitions - infirmative hypothesis

The infirmative hypothesis is a strategy used in criminal law where the defense operates from the fundamental assumption that the defendant is innocent. Rather than directly challenging the validity of every piece of evidence presented by the prosecution, this approach focuses on providing alternative explanations for incriminating evidence. These explanations aim to show how the evidence, despite appearing to point towards guilt, could actually be consistent with the defendant's innocence, thereby creating reasonable doubt.

Here are a few examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: DNA Evidence

  Imagine a scenario where the prosecution presents DNA evidence from the defendant found at a burglary scene. The prosecution argues this places the defendant at the scene and implicates them in the crime. Using an infirmative hypothesis, the defense might acknowledge the presence of the DNA but offer an alternative explanation: the defendant had previously visited the house as a guest for a party weeks before the burglary, and their DNA could have been innocently transferred and remained there. This explanation does not deny the DNA's presence but reinterprets its significance in a way that aligns with innocence.

• Example 2: Financial Transactions

  Consider a case where a defendant is accused of embezzlement, and the prosecution highlights a large, unexplained cash deposit into the defendant's bank account shortly after the alleged crime. The prosecution suggests this money is the proceeds of the embezzlement. Applying the infirmative hypothesis, the defense might explain that the defendant had recently sold a valuable family heirloom or received a substantial gift from a relative, and the deposit was a legitimate, unrelated transaction. This reinterprets the financial evidence to be consistent with lawful conduct.

• Example 3: Witness Testimony

  In a robbery case, a witness testifies that they saw someone matching the defendant's description fleeing the scene. The prosecution uses this to identify the defendant as the perpetrator. The defense, employing an infirmative hypothesis, might argue that while the witness saw *someone* fitting that general description, many people share similar physical characteristics or clothing. They could suggest the witness simply saw an innocent bystander who happened to be leaving the area at the same time, or that the witness's memory of the specific details is not precise enough to definitively identify the defendant. This acknowledges the testimony but offers an innocent interpretation of the sighting.