Economic crime in the courtroom: A case study of defense lawyers’ arguments against prosecution evidence

Abstract

A defendant in criminal court should only be convicted if guilt is proven by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. That is the burden of proof. Any doubt emerging should benefit the defendant. In this perspective, evidence from police investigations is challenged by defense lawyers to create sufficient doubt so that the defendant can be acquitted. In the current case study regarding prosecution of the former president at the International Biathlon Union, this article reviews defense lawyers’ attempts to create sufficient doubt regarding corruption to cause acquittal of the defendant. Evidence from police investigation in Austria and Norway ended up in competing narratives of the prosecution and the defense with the metaphor of the courtroom as a theater scene. In a policing and criminology perspective, this research is important as it documents the space of knowledge rivalry between prosecution and defense depending on the extent of convincing power found in the evidence that is resulting from police investigations.