Which defense is typically used when a defendant admits to the facts of a case but asserts they were legally justified in their actions?

The selected answer is accurate because an affirmative defense is a legal strategy where the defendant acknowledges the facts of the case but argues that their actions were justifiable under the law. This means the defendant does not dispute the underlying actions but instead provides a rationale that exonerates them, such as self-defense, necessity, or entrapment.

In situations where a defendant claims they acted in a legally justified manner, they essentially admit to the conduct but argue that it was permissible or warranted under the circumstances, which is the essence of an affirmative defense. This framework allows the court to consider not only the actions taken but also the context in which they were taken and whether those actions meet the criteria for legal justification.

Other answer choices do not fit this definition. For example, an ordinary defense may involve denying the facts altogether rather than offering justification for them, while a negotiated defense usually entails a plea deal rather than a principled justification of actions. Reasonableness is more of a standard applied in determining culpability rather than a defense in itself. Negotiated defense also focuses more on the agreement with prosecution rather than asserting a legal justification.