This is correct. Once a defendant invokes a claim of self-defense, the prosecution must disprove it.
it's still the same concept of burden of proof, yes? I mean, it's sort of backwards, but the burden is still on the prosecution.
right, the burden of proof on the ultimate issue of guilt of a crime always rests with the prosecution.
...but self defense is (ordinarily) an affirmative defense.
So... the way a defendant can usually win a criminal (or civil, for that matter) case is twofold: to pick apart the prosecution's ability to prove an element of the crime OR to prove the elements of an affirmative defense.
Defendants are ordinarily required to prove the elements of affirmative defenses.
I honestly don't know how one can disprove a self defense CLAIM in a situation like this. The only witness to the incident, other than the defendant, is dead.
The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the case beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond ALL doubt, just reasonable ones). The defense then... what... whispers the words "but... but... it was in self-defense" and that's enough? What's the standard of proof, if the prosecution has to dis-prove something, doesn't the defendant have to prove it up first? What was Zimmerman's proof in this situation.
...God, this law is fucked up. But, after the complete lack of legislative response to Sandy Hook, I have absolutely no belief that it will change.
Yes! Affirmative defense is the phrase I was looking for.
I know the burden of proof is always on the state, but I thought with affirmative defenses, the defendant had to prove the elements of that vs. just claiming it was self defense. Did GZ do that or did he just say it was self defense?
So in Florida, is self defense not an affirmative defense? Or is it affected by that Stand Your Ground law?
Excuse me if I sound stupid, I just got out of bed.
Maybe lawyers can comment, but my BIL just commented (lawyer) that FL is one of the few states where the state must disprove a claim of self-defense.Â
This is correct. Once a defendant invokes a claim of self-defense, the prosecution must disprove it.
I read in some articles that GZ's defense never invoked the stand your ground law because they contended GZ fleeing TM was not possible because TM was pinning GZ to the ground.
Wouldn't a prosecutor always have to disprove a self defense claim in any state? The burden is always on the prosecution to prove its criminal case, right?
For example, Ohio's caselaw on self-defense requires a defendant to prove the following, by a preponderance of the evidence (so 51%):
State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 74 -- Paragraph two of the syllabus sets forth the elements of self-defense in a homicide case or other case where deadly force has been used: "To establish self-defense, the following elements must be shown: (1) the slayer was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was the use of such force; and (3) the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger. (State v. Melchior 56 Ohio St. 2d 15, approved and followed.)" Also see State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 247, 249.
So, while the state always bears the burden of proof on the elements of the crime, once those elements have been established, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove-up affirmative defenses.
This is correct. Once a defendant invokes a claim of self-defense, the prosecution must disprove it.
I read in some articles that GZ's defense never invoked the stand your ground law because they contended GZ fleeing TM was not possible because TM was pinning GZ to the ground.
Wouldn't a prosecutor always have to disprove a self defense claim in any state? The burden is always on the prosecution to prove its criminal case, right?
No- see how Momi laid it out above. With an affirmative defense, the person using the AD has to prove the elements of it (depending on the state it could be things like reasonable fear of life, force used etc). But apparently that's not the case in FL?
I read in some articles that GZ's defense never invoked the stand your ground law because they contended GZ fleeing TM was not possible because TM was pinning GZ to the ground.
Wouldn't a prosecutor always have to disprove a self defense claim in any state? The burden is always on the prosecution to prove its criminal case, right?
No- see how Momi laid it out above. With an affirmative defense, the person using the AD has to prove the elements of it (depending on the state it could be things like reasonable fear of life, force used etc). But apparently that's not the case in FL?
So is the self defense burden of proof not shifted to the defense in FL? Or is it that the jury believed the defense had done its job?
That's my impression (the former). Once a D says "self defense" I gather its assumed all the elements are there, and then the state has to pick it apart and disprove it.
This is correct. Once a defendant invokes a claim of self-defense, the prosecution must disprove it.
I read in some articles that GZ's defense never invoked the stand your ground law because they contended GZ fleeing TM was not possible because TM was pinning GZ to the ground.
Wouldn't a prosecutor always have to disprove a self defense claim in any state? The burden is always on the prosecution to prove its criminal case, right?
Ordinarily what happens is this:
1. prosecutor proves elements of crime (usually, there's literally a list); defense can say prosecution fails to do this (beyond reasonable doubt) 2. defense can say EVEN IF prosecutor proves all elements, there's an affirmative defense. Defense proves elements of affirmative defense (again a list)(by preponderance of evidence / 51%) 3. prosecutor can say defendant did not prove one of the necessary elements of the affirmative defense.
so, while the ultimate burden of proving the crime is on the prosecution, there are certain kinds of defenses that the defendant is required to prove up.
Maybe lawyers can comment, but my BIL just commented (lawyer) that FL is one of the few states where the state must disprove a claim of self-defense. Is that backwards sounding to anyone else or just me?
The burden is always on the State. Not just in Florida.
To prove the elements of the crime; affirmative defenses are different.
So... you're accused of murdering somebody. You can say that the prosecution didn't prove the elements of the crime. You weren't there, you were at the movies with your husband. Or, you were there, but the gun went off accidentally, so you didn't have the requisite intent to commit murder.
Or, you can say you were there, and you pulled the trigger, but you still shouldn't go up the river for it because it was justified (self defense, defense of others, etc) or you were inSane.
If you look at insanity, you get why affirmative defenses have to be proven by the defendant, at least on some level. The prosecution has established all the elements of the crime. You were there. You did the deed. If you want to say that you were insane, you have to come forward and actually say it. Prove it. Put a doctor (or a slew of them) on the stand to show that you're insane to the point that the criminal law recognizes. You can't just whisper "I'm coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs!" and that's enough to get you out of a murder rap.
C&p "Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."
This doesn't sound like a 51% burden of proof on the defense, to me. Does this confirm FL's process is different than other states? Most states? All other states?
C&p "Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."
This doesn't sound like a 51% burden of proof on the defense, to me. Does this confirm FL's process is different than other states? Most states? All other states?
The requirements do vary by state. This might not answer the 51% question, but it does show how the requirements vary for use of deadly force (because honestly that was one of the first things that I was confused about with this case).
Post by secretlyevil on Jul 14, 2013 10:41:58 GMT -5
My friend works for the state.
"actually the burden shifts from the state to the defense to prove entitlement to any if the justifiable use of force jury instructions. then the jury weighs the credibility of the stories."
Eta: another comment.
"stand your ground is begun with a pretrial hearing where a determination of immunity is made as a matter of law. That differs from a typical self defense instruction where the jury makes a factual determination."
C&p "Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."
This doesn't sound like a 51% burden of proof on the defense, to me. Does this confirm FL's process is different than other states? Most states? All other states?
I'm not a lawyer and maybe someone will prove me wrong. But it's my understanding that the state has the burden of proof in all cases. They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is a difference between the case in chief (eg murder, rape, robbery, etc), where the prosecution always has the burden of proof and an affirmative defense (eg self defense, insanity, etc), where the burden of proof varies.
I think everyone agrees that the prosecution proved Zimmerman killed Martin. That's the case in chief. What people are saying is the affirmative defense, i.e. question of "Now that we agree that Zimmerman killed Martin, did Zimmerman do so in self defense?" would take different forms in different states.
I'm not a lawyer and maybe someone will prove me wrong. But it's my understanding that the state has the burden of proof in all cases. They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is a difference between the case in chief (eg murder, rape, robbery, etc), where the prosecution always has the burden of proof and an affirmative defense (eg self defense, insanity, etc), where the burden of proof varies.
I think everyone agrees that the prosecution proved Zimmerman killed Martin. That's the case in chief. What people are saying is the affirmative defense, i.e. question of "Now that we agree that Zimmerman killed Martin, did Zimmerman do so in self defense?" would take different forms in different states.
Maybe lawyers can comment, but my BIL just commented (lawyer) that FL is one of the few states where the state must disprove a claim of self-defense. Is that backwards sounding to anyone else or just me?
The burden is always on the State. Not just in Florida.
I get it, but since he made mention of it, I know fl has its own backwards way of kt (also, see m ok momjnatrix' posts). h
There is a difference between the case in chief (eg murder, rape, robbery, etc), where the prosecution always has the burden of proof and an affirmative defense (eg self defense, insanity, etc), where the burden of proof varies.
I think everyone agrees that the prosecution proved Zimmerman killed Martin. That's the case in chief. What people are saying is the affirmative defense, i.e. question of "Now that we agree that Zimmerman killed Martin, did Zimmerman do so in self defense?" would take different forms in different states.
I'm confused on a couple of things. Clearly if the defense has a certain strategy such as self defense, they should take action to prove it. But aren't people asking about the prosecution's burden?
I don't really understand your comment about the state's case in chief since there was never a question about GZ shooting TM.
Right, so the issue in this case was only about the affirmative defense because I'm assuming the parties agreed before that the prosecution didnt have to prove those elements.
In some (most I believe) states, it's the defenses burden to prove self defense. Apparently, in Florida, if a defendant raises it, it's presumed true unless the prosecution disproves it. In other words, the prosecution has the burden of proof.
This jacked up burden of proof explains so much. There's that other story going around where the woman got 20 years. In that case, the witness lived. It seems like, by requiring the prosecution to disprove it, you are making it so they can only be successful when the victim survives, because that's the only time they'd have evidence to counter the shooters story.
To paraphrase Breaking Bad: There are two kinds of criminals. Those who get away with it, and those who leave witnesses.
I'm confused on a couple of things. Clearly if the defense has a certain strategy such as self defense, they should take action to prove it. But aren't people asking about the prosecution's burden?
I don't really understand your comment about the state's case in chief since there was never a question about GZ shooting TM.
Right, so the issue in this case was only about the affirmative defense because I'm assuming the parties agreed before that the prosecution didnt have to prove those elements.
In some (most I believe) states, it's the defenses burden to prove self defense. Apparently, in Florida, if a defendant raises it, it's presumed true unless the prosecution disproves it. In other words, the prosecution has the burden of proof.
Which, if you think about it, is bullshit. You're asking the state to prove a negative - that the defendant did NOT act in self-defense.* Generally, you can't prove a negative, and the law disfavor a requiring one to do so (hey, a judge even quoted my argument to this effect during a ruling once).
So basically, Florida sucks. Tell us something we didn't know.
*This is part of why rape cases are hard to prove, as lack of consent is an element.
Right, so the issue in this case was only about the affirmative defense because I'm assuming the parties agreed before that the prosecution didnt have to prove those elements.
In some (most I believe) states, it's the defenses burden to prove self defense. Apparently, in Florida, if a defendant raises it, it's presumed true unless the prosecution disproves it. In other words, the prosecution has the burden of proof.
Can you point me to something that says the self defense claims are presumed true unless the prosecution disproves it.
The atlantic link that IIOY posted up thread.
Eta - probably the other links posted all over this thread too. I haven't read them all but people keep making this pint and citing articles on it.
I'd like to know more about how FL's burden of proof shift with an affirmative defense differs from other states. I think it's right for the defense to have the burden of proof since you are basically admitting you did the deed with that kind of defense. But I'd rather some criminals get off than make the burden so high that real victims go to jail for lack of proof of self defense. I can think a few scenarios where a person is attacked but if fights back quickly enough that there's not a lot of evidence of the initial attack except the living person's word.