Although an attorney might run the risk of appearing unsure of his defense, I was under the impression that an attorney could argue multiple arguments in defense of his client. Am I wrong? For example:KD5NRH wrote:It all depends on whether his attorney pushes self-defense or protection of a third person's property. Unless there's other evidence of self-defense we don't know about, it wouldn't be my preference. See my previous post in this thread; I think he's got a much better case with 9.43, but then, IANAL.
A-Client is not guilty of murder, because he shot in defense of his own life
B-Even if those facts are disputed, he also meets the criteria for using deadly force in defense of a third persons property
From the little bit I have read it looks as though Horn's attorney is mostly pushing self-defense.
However, is an attorney in this sort of case required to only argue a single defense, or can he present multiple?