When facing prosecution tactics, the judge must guard against the presentation of evidence that is more prejudicial than probative. It is the court's responsibility to ensure that a jury's judgement is not clouded by overly inflammatory evidence or arguments. When prosecution evidence is unconstitutionally secured, the court must often exclude the evidence, so the government will take seriously its responsibility to respect the law in the performance of its duties in criminal cases. There are a variety of acceptable defenses that can be offered in murder cases. Issues of suspect identification are often crucial, particularly when the testimony of eyewitnesses is the sole evidence. Self-defense becomes a logical defense where the deceased either seriously threatened or attacked the accused on the occasion of the murder, or where it can be shown that the victim's treatment of the accused over a period of time has been brutal and life-threatening and that all attempts of the victim to escape from the abuse have failed. The judge should not chastise a jury when he/she does not agree with its verdict, since this undermines the legally mandated authority of the jury's decision. When the judge must decide the verdict, he/she must guard against acting on personal feelings and base the verdict solely on the admissible evidence. If there is not a strong sense that the accused is guilty, then the verdict must be 'not guilty,' since the evidence has not overcome a reasonable doubt. Judicial sentencing is greatly hampered by mandatory penalties. Sentencing involves flexibility to consider mitigating circumstances and the offender's background.