Under the justifiable homicide heading, the judge instructs the jury:
"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty."
Followed by:
"However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all elements of the charge have been proved."
That, to me, reads like the burden was on the prosecution. I think. But my kids are screaming and chasing each other and I might need to re-read.
heyjude, I appreciate that article from The Atlantic. The author, however, kinds of discredits himself a bit by using the phrase "verdict of innocent." Maybe not a huge point, but still...
I couldn't sleep last night. I essentially woke up this morning in a tizzy and have spent hours reading through court evidence and SYG laws. Holy crap, I need to step away after I post this I think.
But, essentially, while it's not necessarily what the public wants, there was a reasonable doubt presented. As soon as Zimmerman was put into a ground and pound by Martin, he was in a defensive position. SYG, as I have read it, clearly applies here.
Was at a housewarming party yesterday afternoon/night so I didn't see that there was a verdict until now. I had no idea they were deliberating on the weekend. And shame on them for finding him not guilty. I'm sick over this, absolutely sick.
Under the justifiable homicide heading, the judge instructs the jury:
"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty."
Followed by:
"However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all elements of the charge have been proved."
That, to me, reads like the burden was on the prosecution. I think. But my kids are screaming and chasing each other and I might need to re-read.
With the bolded, they're saying that if there's only a reasonable doubt as to whether he was justified, then it's not guilty.
At common law (in other states), it would be stated as something like, "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you find by 51% of the evidence that George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty."
Basically under Fla law, if a shooter whispers "self defense," the prosecution has to then PROVE that it wasn't. Somehow. With a dead victim.
Under the law of most states, after the prosecution has proven that a defendant killed somebody, that person can then try to get out of murder charges by proving (by 51%) that it was self defense.
There's a lot of confusion in this thread. The prosecution is ALWAYS required to prove up their case.
Let's pretend it's a pot possession case. Let's say that the person's defense is that it wasn't pot, it was a bag of oregano. That's not an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. That's an attack on the prosecution's ability to fully prove up THEIR case (namely, that the substance you were caught with was an illegal substance).
Usually what happens in criminal cases is that the prosecution presents their evidence: they try to establish by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (not ALL doubt, reasonable doubt) all the elements of a crime.
After they do that, usually the defendant (as a matter of course) will ask the court to dismiss the case, claiming that the prosecution has failed to establish all elements of the case. That doesn't mean that the defendant hasn't cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses; they have. They're just saying that based on what's on the record, the prosecution hasn't crossed the (substantial) hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
IF the court decides to deny that motion, then the case heads into a second phase, where the defendant's affirmative defenses are considered. During this phase, the defendant bears the burden of proving (by a preponderance of evidence / 51%) the elements of the affirmative defense.
Juries are ordinarily instructed to not even get to the affirmative defenses if they find that the prosecution didn't fulfill it's obligations in the first phase.
so, it's not a matter of saying that, somehow, by articulating an affirmative defense the prosecution suddenly doesn't have the burden of proof... the theory is that they PROVED their case, and there are certain types of defenses we require defendants to prove up.