Can defense request findings of fact before resting?
<p><strong>Hypothetical scenario:</strong> A victim is identified with documented injuries consistent with having been struck with a weapon.  The police find and charge a person (now "Defendant") that they claim perpetrated the act of striking the victim with a weapon.  This Defendant stands trial for the crime of "Assault."</p>

<p>Common Law provides a number of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_defenses" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Criminal Defenses</a> that could be raised in this scenario (e.g., Self Defense, Duress).  However, in order to raise such a defense the Defendant would have to effectively confess to the Assault (or at least some critical elements of it).  E.g., a Defendant can't argue, "I feared for my life" without, in effect, admitting that he was present and capable of striking the victim.</p>

<p>Can the Defense require that the fact-finder in a trial (typically a jury) rule on prefatory facts, before it finishes the defense?</p>

<p>In this hypothetical, it seems prejudicial (and something like a violation of a Defendant's fifth-amendment right to not witness against himself) to require that the Defendant admit that he was present at the scene of the crime in order to invoke a defense.</p>

<p>It seems more consistent with the <em>principles</em> of our legal system to allow the Defense to require the Prosecution to first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was at the scene of the crime.  Because if the Prosecution can't meet that hurdle, then that's the end of the trial.</p>

<p><em>In practice</em> is it possible for the Defense to avoid presenting affirmative defenses (like Self Defense) before the Court has found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime?  If so: How?</p>

<p><em>If not:</em> Is there some theory or principle that illuminates why this is not considered a violation of the Defendant's fifth-amendment rights?</p>

<h2>Can defense request findings of fact before resting? Is it possible for the Defense to avoid presenting affirmative defenses (like Self Defense) before the Court has found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime? If so: How?</h2>

<p>No, no and not applicable. </p>

<p>A verdict is a singular declaration by the jury (or judge) that the state has or has not proved their case.</p>

<h2>Affirmative Defence</h2>

<p>These are all <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense" rel="nofollow noreferrer">affirmative defenses</a> which defeat or mitigate the consequences of the unlawful conduct and the onus of proof lies with the Defence, not the Prosecution. An affirmative defence <em>must</em> be pleaded in a timely manner.</p>

<p>If the Prosecution fails in their burden to prove the unlawful conduct the affirmative defence does not get engaged. This is a threshold decision point for the trier of fact and the judge should so instruct the jury.</p>

<p>Of necessity, affirmative defences require some admission of fact, however, these facts may not be in contention anyway. Where they are in contention, it requires a strategic choice by the defendant as to whether to use the affirmative defence or not.</p>

<h2>Is there some theory or principle that illuminates why this is not considered a violation of the Defendant's fifth-amendment rights?</h2>

<p>Because the defendant is not compelled to make these defences.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>in order to raise such a defense the Defendant would have to effectively confess to the Assault (or at least some critical elements of it)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It may be possible to avoid this by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>arguing in the alternative</strong></a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a party in a lawsuit is not limited to one argument... if you are on trial for murder, you may argue that the case was one of mistaken identity, and that although a murder occurred, you were not present... in the alternative, you argue... your actions did not amount to murder, and were in fact only self-defense. (<a href="http://www.notguiltynj.com/my-lawyer-made-conflicting-arguments-in-my-case/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a>)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>argues his client was 100 miles from the scene of the murder and, alternatively, that the murder was in self-defense. (<a href="https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defenses-breach-of-contract-claim-33338.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

united-states criminal-law trial fifth-amendment criminal-procedure