A man's defence is that his friend committed the offence but refuses to inform on him.Can the defence be used?

Answer 1

No, not unless he's willing to roll over on his friend. Otherwise, his defense should simply be that he didn't do it.

Fortutately for the man, the Burden of Proof is on the Prosecutor, not the Defendant.

Answer 2

Sure he can. A criminal defendant is entitled to use any legitimate defense he wants - however stupid the defendant might be.

"I didn't do it" = a perfectly legitimate (and the simplest) defense to criminal charges. But as a practical matter, the defendant needs a CREDIBLE alternate theory of the case. He has to convince the judge or jury, and refusing to offer proof of who, exactly, committed the crime will absolutely destroy the defendant's credibility. The probable result: a guilty verdict.

Further, if the defendant takes the witness stand on his own behalf (which he almost has to do in order to have any chance of succeeding) to offer his "I didn't do it, somebody else did" defense, the prosecutor is going to ask, "Well, even assuming that you didn't do it, who did?" If the defendant refuses to answer (or fails to answer completely), he could find himself in even deeper trouble - charged with contempt of court, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accessory, obstruction of justice and/or perjury, IN ADDITION TO the original charges.

Unless something changes, your defendant is going to prison.

Answer 3

On the defense's part wouldn't that be considered withholding key information of crime committed. To me that would be a very poor defense

Answer 4

No.
If the "it wasn't me" defense worked, our jails would be empty.
You either give up your friend, or take the fall for him.

Answer 5

no, he then becomes apart of the conspiracy to commit ------

Answer 6

no