1. Self-defense: The defendant may have acted in self-defense to protect themselves from harm. The lawyer would need to demonstrate that the defendant acted reasonably and proportionately to the perceived threat.

2. Defense of others: The defendant may have acted to defend someone else from harm. The lawyer would need to demonstrate that the defendant had a duty to protect the victim and acted reasonably and proportionately to the perceived threat.

3. Lack of intent: The defendant may not have intended to cause harm to the victim. The lawyer may argue that the defendant did not have the necessary intent to commit the crime.

4. Insanity: The defendant may have been suffering from a mental illness at the time of the assault. The lawyer may argue that the defendant was not in control of their actions and therefore not responsible for the assault.

5. Consent: The victim may have consented to the assault. The lawyer may argue that the victim knew the risks and willingly participated in the activity.

6. Justification: The defendant may have had a valid reason for the assault, such as preventing a crime or protecting property. The lawyer would need to demonstrate that the defendant acted within the bounds of the law.

It is important to note that each case is unique and will depend on the circumstances surrounding the assault. It is important to consult with a lawyer who can provide a strong defense strategy.