Defence Strategies in Criminal Cases: From File Preparation to the Hearing

A defence strategy in a criminal case is the working plan that determines on which legal and factual grounds the alleged act will be disputed, which evidence will be examined and what will be requested at which stage. This plan covers the entire file, from the first statement in the investigation to the hearing, from the review of detention to legal remedies. Effective defence combines command of the file, the correct legal choice and timely intervention that is understandable at the hearing. Persuasiveness arises from this integrity, which shows the basis of each claim and asks the court for a clear decision.

Two files opened under the same offence name may not call for the same defence. The form of participation in the act, intent or negligence, the method by which evidence was obtained, information on time and place, the personal situation of the client and the stage of the proceedings may lead to different results. For this reason, the roadmap below must not be used as a petition template that replaces concrete examination of the file.

How is the aim of the defence determined?

The first question is not "Which petition should we write?" but "Which element of the accusation is being asserted on which evidence?" Articles 36 and 38 of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) form the basic framework of the right to defence and the presumption of innocence. A suspect or accused cannot be regarded as obliged to prove their innocence. Nevertheless, timely presentation of favourable evidence may prevent the loss of a record that cannot be recovered, or prevent a wrong inference from settling in the file. [1, 2]

Acquittal, dismissal and a decision that no penalty is to be imposed are different

The common expression "if the evidence is insufficient the case is dismissed" is not correct in law. The failure to establish that the accused committed the charged offence during the prosecution is a ground for acquittal under CMK Article 223(2)(e). Dismissal arises, for example, where an applicable limitation period for the action or a statutory ground for extinction of the action exists. In the investigation, the absence of sufficient suspicion requiring a public prosecution, or the absence of any possibility of prosecution, may lead to a decision of no prosecution under CMK Article 172. [2]

A decision that no penalty is to be imposed is also not synonymous with acquittal. A decision not to impose a penalty for reasons affecting culpability or for other reasons set out in the law requires a separate legal assessment. The defence must not confuse, in the same sentence, the claim that the event never occurred with the claim that the event that did occur was lawful. If an alternative assessment is to be made, the assumption on which it is put forward must be explained.

This table is a preliminary classification. Each row is not an independent "route to acquittal". For example, the exclusion of one piece of evidence does not automatically produce an acquittal in a file where the offence is proved by other lawfully obtained evidence.

How is the main thesis of the defence and its alternatives built?

The main thesis of the defence must be explainable in one or two sentences stating the decisive dispute in the file. "The client is innocent" is a statement of outcome; it does not show by which facts that outcome is reached. "The image is not suitable for identifying the person and the record determining their location at the alleged time has not been examined" raises two matters that can be investigated. The main thesis is a working hypothesis tested as the file progresses; it is not an unchanging slogan.

Objection to the act and objection to the legal classification

The defence counsel first separates the point on which the disagreement lies. Defences that the act did not occur, that the client did not take part in it, or that the act, although it occurred, does not constitute the offence charged, raise different questions of proof. For example, accepting that a money transfer existed is not accepting that the transfer was made with fraudulent intent. On the other hand, invoking a justification for a conduct which is claimed never to have occurred, without any explanation, makes the account unclear.

The handbook Savunma Stratejisinin Belirlenmesi ve Dilekçe Yazma (Determining the Defence Strategy and Writing Petitions), made accessible by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations and the Ministry of Justice, systematically separates the denial of the event, its admission and the legal defence options. The practical value of this distinction lies in not confusing the client's factual account with the lawyer's legal assessment. [10]

If an alternative claim is to be framed, the assumption must be visible: "First, we request acquittal since it has not been established that the accused committed the act. If the court makes a different assessment, we ask that our legal objection, that the following element is not present, be examined separately." This is an example of how such a statement may be arranged; it does not in itself determine the accuracy of the factual statements in the file or the appropriate request.

Confronting the strongest evidence against the accused

The durability of a defence is not measured only by the number of documents in favour. It must also be explained why the strongest data of the prosecution should not be regarded as sufficient. Is the objection directed at the authenticity of the document, its attribution to the person, its interpretation or the manner in which it was obtained? Declaring the whole document "unfounded" without first clarifying the point challenged leaves open the question that must be answered.

In preparing the defence, a counter-examination may be carried out: "If we assumed this document to be correct, what would change in our main thesis?" If a significant part changes, further research is needed. If it does not change, the reason it does not must be explained. For example, a record showing that a meeting took place may not show the content of the meeting or the purpose of committing an offence. This distinction allows the limit of the inference to be discussed without denying the existing data.

The working plan is tied to the possible decisions

Next to each request, the step to be taken next if it is accepted or rejected must be written down. If an expert examination is carried out, which question will it answer? If it is not carried out, how will the missing point be recorded? If an expected record does not exist, which claim does that absence affect? In this way, strategy ceases to be a one-sided account built only around the desired result; it can be adapted to new information that may emerge at the hearing.

First meeting and file preparation

At the meeting with the client, chronology and interpretation must be separated

At the first meeting, the dates of the event, the persons involved, communications, movements of money or goods, and what the client directly knows are recorded separately. The statements "I saw this", "I was told this" and "I think it was like this" must be kept apart. Information learned later must not be described as personal knowledge from the moment of the event.

The lawyer's task is not to have the client memorise a story of events. A detail that is not remembered and is filled in by guesswork may later contradict objective records. The meeting is held to identify the open points of the present account, to examine honestly the contradictions that need explanation, and to ensure that the client's rights are used deliberately. The client's fear or anger is listened to, but these are not accepted as evidence of the legal outcome.

The pattern of communication must also be set up from the start. It is clarified who may receive information about the file, with which relatives communication may take place and to what extent, and by which secure route documents will be transmitted. It is assessed whether there is any conflict of interest between persons in the same file. Payment of fees by family members does not require that all the defence information be disclosed to them. Professional secrecy and the duty of care are the basis of this relationship. [8]

The examination of the file must not be limited to the indictment

The indictment is the formal statement of the accusation; it does not replace every document in the file. Statements minutes, search and seizure orders, expert reports, annexes to reports, images, notifications and earlier interlocutory decisions must be assessed together. The defence must not be content merely to read the concluding sentence of a report. The data, method and assumption that produce the conclusion must be visible.

The right to inspect the file under CMK Article 153 and the legal conditions of restriction must also be observed. Where there is a restriction in the investigation file, the scope of the restriction and the documents legally exempted are separated. Where information is missing because access to the whole file is not available, it is risky to construct a detailed and definite defence at a stage in which the uncertainty has not been resolved. [2]

A working folder can only function if the source and the place in the file of each document can be found. The core structure that may be used is as follows:

• Chronology of events: date, time, place, persons and the source of the information.
• Table of the accusation: element of the offence, the basis of the prosecution, favourable information and open question.
• Index of documents: file or folder number, page, annex and information on access to the original document.
• List of requests: record to be requested, fact to be proved, authority to which the request is directed and reason for urgency.
• Timetable: date of the decision, date of learning or notification, route of remedy and person responsible for the step.
• Record of contradictions: two conflicting accounts or records, the consequence of the difference and the possibility of explanation.

Evidence at risk of being lost is identified first

CCTV recordings, electronic access records or certain workplace records are not always kept indefinitely. For this reason, the defence should request from the competent authority, as far as possible in concrete terms, which record is kept where and what time interval is needed. A broad request that "all records be collected" may be less effective than a limited request that explains the interest and urgency.

The document held by the client must be preserved without altering its content; messages must not be taken out of context; and no unauthorised access to another person's account may be made. The right to defence does not authorise a new unlawful act. The original form of the document, the date it was obtained and its source must be recorded; no arbitrary operation may be performed on a device that requires technical examination.

Exercising rights at the stage of the statement

Preparation begins with the arrest

Procedures before a statement are also part of the defence preparation. The time and grounds of arrest, the decisions relating to detention, the state of health, access to the defence counsel and the relevant minutes are examined together. A chart showing the dates and times of the procedures makes it easier to explain, at a later review, when each event took place. Where an irregularity is alleged, the relevant procedure, document and its effect on the defence must be concretely shown. [2]

Abdullah Teltik's examination of the arrest, detention and statement process also draws attention to the defence counsel's early-stage work. This approach can be turned into a practical control routine: what information was accessed, what right was explained, what meeting or inspection was requested and how it was answered? Where physical or mental condition makes it difficult to give a sound account, this problem must be assessed before the content of the statement. [15]

The right to remain silent and the assistance of a defence counsel

Under CMK Article 147, safeguards such as being informed of the accusation, benefiting from the assistance of a defence counsel, remaining silent and requesting the collection of concrete favourable evidence are central to the statement procedure. The obligation to give correct identity details must be distinguished from the right to remain silent regarding the accusation. Remaining silent does not in itself amount to an admission of guilt. Whether to give a statement or not, and the scope of any explanation, must be decided by evaluating the information available and the stage the file has reached. [2]

It is not correct to give the advice "remain completely silent" or "tell everything immediately" in every file automatically. First, the following are assessed: what the accusation is, what concrete information has been accessed, the client's health and communication conditions, the need for an interpreter, and whether there is adequate opportunity to meet the defence counsel. The mandatory defence provisions for children and for persons who are unable to defend themselves must be examined separately.

The statement minutes must be read; the differences between what was said and what was written, and any omissions, must be identified. Minutes that summarise a person's explanation must not turn it into a sentence of certainty that the person did not state. A request for correction and any procedural objection raised during the process must be recorded. Neither refusal to sign nor signing should be adopted in the abstract without seeing the content of the minutes.

Unlawful methods of statement-taking and the Salduz judgment

CMK Article 148 regulates the methods that impair free will and the prohibition on using statements obtained by such means. The rule that a statement taken by the police without a defence counsel present cannot be the basis of a judgment unless confirmed before a judge or court is also a special safeguard in the same article. This rule shows that not every kind of statement can be substituted for another. [2]

In the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in Salduz v. Türkiye, the statement of the applicant given at the police stage without access to a lawyer, and its use in conviction, was examined together with the circumstances of the proceedings. The Court emphasised that, as a rule, effective legal assistance must be provided from the first police interview, and found a violation in the concrete case. The judgment is important in showing that the presence of a lawyer at a later hearing does not in every case remedy an earlier deficiency. However, no automatic result should be drawn from the absence of a lawyer in every file independently of the conditions of the file. [5]

The practical reflection of this case law is concrete: when access was requested, how it was restricted, which statement was taken, how that statement was used in the later decision and at what stage the objections were raised, must all be documented. Simply writing the name of the judgment does not explain the connection with the event.

Confidential meeting with the defence counsel is part of defence preparation

The confidentiality of the meeting is important so that the client can describe to the lawyer even those details of the file that appear unfavourable. The safeguard under CMK Article 154 and the special restriction provisions must be examined separately for the relevant procedure and period. When a restriction is objected to, not only its existence but its concrete effect on the preparation is explained: which document could not be examined together, which account could not be shared securely, and what meeting arrangement was requested? [2]

The Constitutional Court's decision in O.P. (Plenary), No. 2019/42695, 20.05.2021 deals with measures restricting the confidentiality of meetings with lawyers. In the concrete application, the Court, having regard to the exceptional period and the proceedings as a whole, held that the right to obtain assistance from a defence counsel had not been violated. This decision cannot be read as a general permission that treats confidentiality as unimportant or that justifies every restriction in an ordinary period. [11]

How is evidence assessed?

For any piece of evidence, at least three separate questions are asked: Was it obtained lawfully? Is it reliable? What fact alleged does it show, and to what extent? Each of these is a distinct examination. A lawfully obtained record may be misinterpreted; a record whose content appears correct may have been obtained by an unlawful method. CMK Articles 206 and 217 together with Article 38 of the Constitution determine the framework of assessment. [1, 2]

The link between a physical finding and the identity of the perpetrator

A trace found on an object does not always explain all the elements of the offence. The time of contact, the common use of the object, the manner of carrying it and the connection of the finding with the event must be investigated. Likewise, the existence of an injury does not by itself resolve the identity of the perpetrator, the degree of intent or the conditions of self-defence. Medical findings and legal assessment have different functions.

This approach does not mean producing an imaginary possibility for every finding. The connection between the alternative explanation put forward by the defence and the facts in the file must be shown. The fact that an explanation can be investigated distinguishes it from mere assumption. If the opposing claim is strong, it is not ignored; instead, the reason it is not decisive, or the further examination by which it can be tested, is explained.

Digital records, HTS and location data

HTS records may contain data on the time of communications and their connections; these records are not the same as the content of a conversation. Base-station information must also not be treated as the exact coordinates of the telephone or person. A technical assessment of the type of record, the coverage conditions, the user of the device and line, and the time of the event is required.

The fact that a user account is registered to a person does not, by itself, establish that the person carried out the relevant operation. Shared use, transfer of authority, the capture of identity details, session records and other supporting data may be investigated. On the other hand, an abstract possibility such as "the account may have been used by everyone" does not automatically neutralise the personalised data in the file.

A screenshot and the source data must also be distinguished. The period before and after the image, the time zone, the clock setting, the method of export and the integrity of the records may be assessed. A technical summary remaining the same value is a finding concerning the preservation of the copy examined; it does not prove by itself the truth of the content in the real world or that the accusation is legally established. Rather than being satisfied with general descriptions on these matters, a suitable expert or technical examination of the file should be requested.

The objection to an expert report must be made concrete

Instead of saying "the report is wrong", it must be shown which data the report did not use, which assumption it did not explain, or which technical contradiction it did not resolve. Obtaining a scientific opinion from one's own expert under CMK Article 67(6) may also be considered. A scientific opinion does not automatically make the expert report void; it allows the differences of method and result between the two assessments to be discussed within the proceedings. [2]

For example, if the claim is that "the recording time is wrong", the source of the time difference, whether the difference is fixed, and its effect on the time of the alleged event must be asked. The signature on the report or its length does not show that these questions have been answered. On the other hand, a special report is not required in every file; whether the technical dispute really affects the outcome is assessed.

In the case of Sencer Başat and others, the Constitutional Court discussed the reasoned judgment, equality of arms and guarantees of adversarial proceedings, as they relate to the assessment of defences that affect the outcome and objections to evidence. This decision, concerning the Balyoz proceedings, is an example of how it may be concretely shown why the technical views and witness hearing requests of the defence were important. The Court's review must not be presented as a general finding of forgery or a direct acquittal decision concerning all digital evidence. [6]

Witness questioning and preparation for the hearing

The purpose of questioning a witness

The purpose of witness questioning is not to humiliate the person but to test the source and reliability of the information. CMK Article 201 allows the defence counsel to put questions directly, in accordance with the discipline of the hearing. This provision does not mean that the cross-examination rules of foreign legal systems are transferred to Türkiye in their entirety. Where a dispute arises as to whether a question is appropriate, the court's power of management is important. [2]

For preparation, four groups of questions may be used: What did the witness directly perceive? From where and in what conditions did they perceive it? What has changed between the first account and today's account? By what other record can the account be tested? Distance, angle of view, light, the duration of the event and information acquired later may be assessed within this framework.

Every difference does not show that the witness is lying. A minor difference of detail must be distinguished from a contradiction that changes the basis of the event. Tension, failure to make eye contact or the tone of voice is not a reliable "lie test" either. A calm question that shows what the contradiction affects may be more effective than an accusation directed at the person's character.

Where the account is based on hearsay or where a witness whose identity is kept confidential is involved, categorical statements must be avoided. The source of the statement, the defence's opportunity to test it, supporting evidence and any applicable special safeguards are examined together. Such a file cannot be regarded as complete merely by applying the general criteria for witness assessment.

A short and traceable plan for the hearing

Instead of re-reading all the texts in the hearing file, the matters to be resolved at that session should be brought to the fore. It is determined which witness will be asked about what, which document will be shown, which interlocutory decision will be requested and which earlier request has remained without result. Easy access to the supporting pages also makes the oral defence easier to check.

A good oral defence explains the question under discussion, shows the relevant fact, makes the legal assessment and states the request. Rhetoric is used to make this structure understandable. Since there is no jury in Turkish criminal proceedings, foreign templates built around "influencing the jury" are not suitable. Nor does building a defence on predictions about the judge's personality replace legal preparation.

Where it is considered that the defence was not given sufficient time or that no opportunity was provided to respond to a new document, the deficiency and the need must be explained concretely and a reasonable period requested. Requesting time for preparation is different from taking steps merely to prolong the proceedings. The effect of a justified request depends on showing why it is necessary.

The opinion on the merits, supplementary defence and the final word

When preparing the defence in response to the prosecutor's opinion on the merits, the elements of the offence, the interpretation of the evidence and the sanction sought are examined under separate headings. Rather than being content with petitions submitted earlier, the new or different points of the opinion must be expressly addressed. The fact that related interlocutory requests were rejected does not prevent discussion of their legal effect in the final defence.

Under CMK Article 225, the subject of the judgment is limited to the act and the perpetrator shown in the indictment; the court is not bound by the legal classification of the act. The supplementary defence guarantee in CMK Article 226 may arise where the legal classification changes or where circumstances may aggravate the penalty. It must be assessed whether the opportunity for the necessary preparation against the new classification has been provided. [2]

The discussion sequence under CMK Article 216 and the giving of the final word to the accused present at the hearing before judgment must not be confused. The defence counsel's submissions do not replace the accused's right to the final word. Reducing the final word to an emotional closing speech is also wrong; within this right, the accused states what they wish to say about the accusation and the proceedings. [2]

The minutes recorded also gain importance on review by an appellate court. Where an essential request or objection is noticed not to have been recorded, its correction should be requested. What is more valuable than long and repetitive statements is a record that clearly sets out the dispute and the request.

Presentation in an oral defence that facilitates a decision

At the beginning of the speech, the matters to be resolved at a session must be stated. A direction such as "today we request a decision on three issues" is useful only if those three issues really need to be dealt with at that hearing. Then, for each issue, the fact, its place in the file, its legal importance and the order of the request are followed. This order retains access to the details without requiring the long petition to be read line by line.

For example, if a witness has stated at the hearing that they did not see the moment of the event, the defence may immediately indicate which acceptance in the file it affects. The opportunity to make statements under CMK Article 215 and the joint discussion of evidence under Article 216 serve different functions. Fahrettin Kayhan's study of CMK Article 215 also emphasises the shortcoming of an approach by which the defence counsel speaks only at the end of the proceedings. [2, 12]

Effective speech also requires presenting the opposing view accurately. The strongest form of the accusation is stated, and then the reason it is not accepted is explained. Refuting a weak claim the other side has not made does not resolve the real dispute. Giving a short and direct answer first to the court's question, and then elaborating where necessary by opening the relevant document, increases the traceability of the defence.

How is the defence against detention separated from the defence on the merits?

Detention is not a penalty. Within the conditions set out in CMK Article 100 et seq., concrete evidence showing a strong suspicion of guilt, the ground for detention and proportionality are assessed separately. Why judicial control would be insufficient is also part of the discussion. The fact that an offence appears in the catalogue of offences does not, in every file, automatically produce a detention order. [2]

In an objection to detention, it is not sufficient merely to say "my client is innocent". The evidence already collected, the facts relating to the danger of flight, the risk of influencing witnesses, health conditions and the available options of judicial control must be made concrete. A fixed residence or a record of employment may help, but these documents alone do not guarantee release.

Whether there is a likelihood of conviction on the merits and whether the measure is necessary at the present moment are different questions. As evidence is gathered or conditions change, the assessment of the continuation of the measure must also be renewed. Instead of changing the date of an earlier petition and resubmitting it, the effect of the new facts on the measure must be explained.

How do the type of offence and the personal situation change the defence?

In economic offences, the commercial appearance of the transactions is separated from the deceit, intent or interest relationship that the offence requires. The mere non-payment of a debt is not in every case fraud; on the other hand, the existence of a contract does not automatically remove the possibility of an offence. The beginning of the relationship, statements, payment movements and the totality of conduct are assessed.

In files with multiple accused or with alleged organisational involvement, the conduct attributed to each person must be shown individually. Being present in an environment or communicating with a person may not on its own explain all the elements of the offence alleged. Nevertheless, the joint assessment of many concrete data is also possible. The defence must make visible the difference between a general narrative that is not personalised and facts specific to the individual.

The explanation "I was following an order" is also not a general ground for irresponsibility. The nature of the order and the conditions in Article 24 of the TCK are examined; a different assessment applies to an order whose subject constitutes an offence. Likewise, for self-defence, the mere statement of fear or anger is not sufficient; the conditions of attack, necessity and proportionality are investigated in connection with the concrete event. [3]

Files concerning children, persons with communication difficulties or persons requiring psychiatric assessment cannot be dealt with merely by adding a paragraph to the file of an adult accused. Age, procedural safeguards, expert assessment and the sanction system are examined separately. Personal circumstances, even if they do not change the proof of the event, may be effective in determining the procedure and the legal consequence.

Alternative legal outcomes and the 2026 HAGB regulation

Together with the defence of acquittal, favourable provisions that may apply if the court reaches a different view may be discussed conditionally. Such an assessment, when clearly framed, is not an automatic admission of the offence. However, a set of unexplained and cumulative requests for mitigation that contradict the account of the event may make the defence unclear.

Active remorse, mediation, voluntary payment, deferral of the penalty, alternative sanctions and the postponement of the announcement of the judgment (HAGB) are different institutions. They do not apply in every offence; time, the type of offence, the sanction and personal circumstances may vary. Making a payment or apologising alone does not end all criminal investigations.

Relying only on old statements on HAGB is especially risky. Article 15 of Law No. 7589 of 16 July 2026 has re-regulated paragraphs 5 to 14 of CMK Article 231. The regulation includes, together, the distinctions relating to the penalty threshold, personal circumstances, compensation of the damage, supervision and remedies. There is a special prohibition on applying the regulation to torture and ill-treatment and to offences of ill-treatment by public officials specified in the provision. Earlier HAGB decisions, new decisions and judgments announced after supervision must not be treated on the assumption of the same legal remedy. [4]

HAGB is not an acquittal. Whether it can be applied, and its consequences, must be assessed together with the client's choices and with the explanation given. In particular, an unlimited guarantee that there will be "no effect anywhere and no consequence" in professional or administrative matters is not correct.

Legal remedies and time management

After the judgment, the centre of the defence shifts to the relationship between the reasoned judgment and the evidence on the file. It must be explained which defence was not assessed, which procedural safeguard was violated and how this affected the outcome. Because the scope of review of an appeal (istinaf) and of cassation (temyiz) differs, merely changing the heading of the same petition is not sufficient.

For the changes to time limits made by Law No. 7499, the transitional regime between judgments given on or after 1 June 2024 and earlier judgments must be distinguished. The table below shows the general framework; special provisions, the right of application, the limits of finality and the concrete notification must be separately checked. [2, 7]

Calculating the time limit is not finished by writing the date of the decision in the diary. The person to whom and the procedure by which notification was made, the legal date of electronic notification, the last day and the rules on holidays must be examined. Applying the phrase "two weeks" automatically as "fourteen working days in every case" is wrong. The last day must not be announced without verifying the calculation specific to the file.

Individual application to the Constitutional Court and application to the ECtHR are not stages that carry out an unlimited review of facts as a continuation of ordinary remedies. Exhaustion of domestic remedies, the timely raising of the alleged violation, and the time limit and admissibility conditions are assessed separately. The general table of remedies in this guide cannot be used as a substitute for calculating the time limits for these applications.

Hypothetical file: why the same evidence leads to different defences

Assume a person accused of theft in a workplace whose telephone connected, at the time of the event, to a nearby base station, and in whose CCTV footage a person wearing similar clothing was seen. This is not a real bureau file or a concluded case.

The first approach is to say "if there is a base-station record, the person was definitely there"; this inference ignores the technical limits. The second approach is to say "the base-station record shows nothing at all"; this neglects to assess the record together with the other evidence. A functional defence examines together the coverage conditions of the base station, whether the image is suitable for identification, who used the device and the exact time of the event.

Suppose there is a payment record showing that the client was elsewhere. This record may not show that the payment was made by the client personally, or their exact location at the time of the event. The mode of use of the card, the time of the transaction and additional records are examined. The defence applies the same questioning criterion to a record that is favourable to it.

If it becomes technically apparent that the camera clock was behind, the chronology may change. However, establishing the difference does not mean that the whole accusation has automatically fallen away. The request must be framed as: examination of the relevant recording, determination of the time difference, and re-assessment of all the evidence with the corrected chronology. The result varies according to the assumptions and the existence of other evidence.

Professional ethics, the media and the limits of defence

The independence of the defence does not mean carrying out every unlawful request of the client. Creating a document contrary to the truth, suggesting a false account to a witness or altering evidence cannot be presented as a method of defence. The duty to protect the client's secrets and the duty not to take part in such acts must be considered together. [8, 9]

Public interest may increase pressure on the file. The legal purpose, scope, confidentiality limits and the client's interest of any statement to be made must be assessed in advance. A social media reaction does not replace evidence. Putting pressure on the court or disseminating the personal data of the other party must not be presented as a successful defence.

A lawyer's calmness, preparation and clear language are valuable, but they do not guarantee any particular outcome. Professional resilience also does not mean that the whole burden is concentrated in one person. Sharing tasks within a team, checking time limits a second time and ensuring that file information can be transferred securely provide a more sustainable working basis than personal oratory.

How is a new legal argument developed?

Innovative defence does not mean detaching the text of the statute from its context. The purpose of the applicable provision, its relationship with higher norms, its differences from similar events and opposing views are examined together. A single favourable sentence from a decision must not be selected; the facts and the conditions limiting its result must also be explained.

If it is considered that the applicable statutory provision is contrary to the Constitution, a reasoned objection may be prepared for submission to the court's assessment under Article 152 of the Constitution. The lawyer's request does not in itself remove the provision; the constitutional conditions for referring a concrete norm review application and the court's assessment are important. This route is different from an individual application. [1]

Conclusion

In criminal defence, strategy is built by investigating the evidence, correctly choosing the legal outcome and making the request visible at the right time. The main thesis must be tested against the information in the file; the strongest evidence against must be expressly answered; and a record of each important defence must be kept. Persuasiveness at the hearing is also the transformation of this preparation into an understandable presentation.

In every file the same style or the same order of requests is not appropriate. Nevertheless, fidelity to the facts, secure communication with the client, concrete reasoning and the timely use of procedural rights are the lasting foundations of defence. A well-prepared defence puts before the court both questions that can be investigated and requests that must be answered in law.

Frequently Asked Questions

Must the lawyer gather all the evidence personally?

No. The duties of the investigating and prosecuting authorities continue. The defence counsel may point to favourable evidence, request that it be collected and discuss the evidence available. However, in this process, specifying why each record is needed increases the effect of the defence.

Does finding unlawful evidence necessarily lead to acquittal?

No. First, the unlawfulness and its effect on the relevant evidence are determined; then it is assessed whether the remaining lawfully obtained evidence proves the accusation. It is not correct to treat the exclusion of evidence as if it were the same as the outcome of the case.

Can the defence be changed later?

New evidence or a different legal assessment may require the defence to be reviewed. If a contradiction with an earlier account arises, its source must be explained. Updating the strategy is different from creating an account contrary to the truth.

If there is no witness, can a conviction not be reached?

The absence of a witness does not in itself produce that result. Proof may also be possible by other lawfully obtained evidence. Similarly, the existence of only one witness is not regarded in every case as sufficient or insufficient for conviction; the statement and the file as a whole are assessed.

When requesting acquittal, can favourable provisions also be requested?

A clear legal ordering may be set up that depends on the possibility that the court reaches a different view. The assumption on which each request is based must be stated; different institutions must not be made unclear within a single formulaic sentence.

What is the minimum work product of an effective defence?

An accusation and evidence table, a verified chronology, reasoned requests for investigation, a hearing plan and a timetable. The value of these documents comes not from their length but from their concrete answers to the questions in the file. The authority that decides the outcome is the court; the method of preparation is not a guarantee of success.

Sources and legal bases

[1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Arts. 36 and 38. Constitutional Court: https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/mevzuat/anayasa/

[2] Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure; in particular Arts. 67, 90–109, 147–154, 172, 201, 206, 215–217, 223, 225–226, 231, 268, 273, 286, 291 and 294. Access to the current text: https://mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/mevzuat/102946

[3] Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code, in particular Arts. 24–25 and the elements of the specific offence. Official text: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf

[4] Law No. 7589, 16.07.2026; Official Gazette 31.07.2026, No. 33326; in particular Art. 15. Text as adopted by the TBMM: https://cdn.tbmm.gov.tr/KKBSPublicFile/D28/Y4/KanunMetni/b074aa2a-c1eb-4bd5-b5d9-4b61a9ac3924.htm

[5] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Salduz v. Türkiye, Application No. 36391/02, 27.11.2008; in particular §§ 50–62. Full judgment: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-89893

[6] Constitutional Court Plenary, Sencer Başat and others, Application No. 2013/7800, 18.06.2014. Official record: https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2013/7800 — Accessible text of the decision: https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/anayasa-mahkemesi/genel-kurul-k-2013-7800-t-18-6-2014

[7] Law No. 7499; Official Gazette 12.03.2024, No. 32487; time limits and transitional provisions of the CMK. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2024/03/20240312-1.htm

[8] Law No. 1136 on Attorneyship, in particular Arts. 34, 36 and 38; Professional Rules of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations. https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Avukatlik-Kanunu — https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Meslek-Kurallari

[9] Hamide Zafer, "The Right of Defence and its Limits", Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Festschrift for Prof. Dr. Nur Centel, 2013, 19(2), pp. 507–540. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/811211

[10] Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Turkish Criminal Justice System, Joint European Union–Council of Europe Programme, Handbook for Lawyers II: Determining the Defence Strategy and Writing Petitions, Part 1.4, pp. 40–50. Access through the Union of Turkish Bar Associations and the Ministry of Justice: https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/dosyalar/duyurular/elkitabi2.pdf — https://rayp.adalet.gov.tr/resimler/552/dosya/12-avukatlar-icin-el-kitabi-ii-savunma-stratejisinin-belirlenmesi-ve-dilekce-hazirlama25-08-20204-38-pm.pdf

[11] Constitutional Court Plenary, O.P., Application No. 2019/42695, 20.05.2021, in particular §§ 75–88 and the operative part. Official record: https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2019/42695 — Text of the decision: https://www.hukukihaber.net/aymnin-201942695-basvuru-numarali-karari

[12] Fahrettin Kayhan, "CMK 215 from the Perspective of Hybrid Break Defence: The Right of Micro-Intervention of the Defence", 19.03.2026. https://www.hukukihaber.net/hibrit-kopus-savunmasi-perspektifinden-cmk-215-savunmanin-mikro-mudahale-hakki

[13] Baran Doğan, "What is the Right of Defence in a Criminal Court?"; Cengiz Apaydın, "Right of Defence". Complementary reading on defence safeguards. https://barandogan.av.tr/blog/ceza-hukuku/ceza-mahkemesinde-savunma-hakki-nedir — https://www.cezahukukubilinci.org/savunma-hakki/

[14] Demirbaş Law Office, "Defence Approaches in Heavy Penal Court Cases". Complementary reading on file examination and oral presentation. https://demirbas.av.tr/agir-ceza-davalarinda-savunma-stratejileri/

[15] Abdullah Teltik Law Office, "Effective Defence in the Process of Apprehension, Detention and Taking a Statement", 25.02.2026. https://www.abdullahteltik.av.tr/haberdetay/yakalama-gozaltina-alma-ve-ifade-alma-surecinde-etkin-savunma.html