Burden of proof in Zimmerman case.

[Vattel]

In Florida law, although self-defense is an affirmative defense, that does not mean the prosecution doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Consider the following from two recent Florida court opinions:

From Mosansky v State (2010):
“The defendant has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to a jury instruction on the issue. But the presentation of such evidence does not change the elements of the offense at issue; rather, it merely requires the state to present evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.”

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1520091.html

From Montijo v. State (2011)
“The answer is this. No, he [the defendant] did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.”

http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/montijo-v-state-61-so-3d-424-fl-ct-app-2011/

[cheyanne]

1. Thanks for bringing up the issue of exactly what has to be proved.

Its just not a case of "I believe". Zimmerman is charged with a specific crime, murder 2, under specific rules of evidence. And the court starts with the assumption that Zimmerman is innocent,, that is, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

We will never know for sure what happened that night, hhowever, we should not expect this trial to address social/political issues.

Also, read an interesting post on Daily K: the police profiled Zimmerman. Since he was white we let him walk. I think that this is definitely an issue in the case, as also the sloppy police work.

[Vattel]

21. your welcome

[dkf]

2. So the judge decides if Zimmerman has met the affirmative defense threshold?

Then the jury is instructed that the prosecution must prove it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. But a defendant can't just throw out a claim of self-defense without having some evidentiary support

To do so would place the state in an odd spot. Let me demonstrate:

Technically, in a normal criminal case, a defendant need to even put forward his own case, testimony, or evidence. Once the state rests, they too can rest, if they are so confident that the state has not met its own burden.

However, in cases of self defense being raised as an affirmative defense, and if a defendant were to raise an affirmative defense of self-defense but offer no evidence in support of it, the state would be placed in the odd position of proving its prima facia case, then essentially having to create its own strawman of what they think the defendant's self-defense theory might be, and then having to disprove their own self-created theory.

So yes, while the state still bears the ultimate burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in self-defense cases, the defendant must put forward to what I believe is a preponderance of the evidence standard a colorable self-defense theory.

[hack89]

4. Z merely has to provide a prima facia case of self defense

Z has to provide a prima facia case of self defense - which means he does not have to prove self defense, merely provide facts from which a reasonable case for self defense can be made. The bar is deliberately a low one. The burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense never shifts from the state to the defendant.

The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z did not act in self defense.

[dkf]

5. Who determines if Z has made that prima facie case? Is it the judge? Or is that up to each juror?

[Vattel]

7. the judge

[dkf]

8. Thanks

[hack89]

9. I suspect there is no formal ruling

the defense makes its case. The prosecution tries to refute it. The jury decides who wins.

But the prosecution cannot say "Mr Zimmerman has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he feared for his life and therefore his actions were legitimate self defense."

They can say "Here are the reasons why Mr Zimmerman's actions were not self defense."

The burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

[Vattel]

11. Actually the judge must decide whether the jury is given the standard self-defense instruction.

It is not automatic.

[Lex]

6. It will be a hard pill for the jury to swallow that the pursuer of the confrontation acted

in self-defense.

[hack89]

10. Except Florida law specifically allows for it.

the jury will be instructed to put aside their emotions and decide in accordance with the letter of the law.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. Meaning: Give Zimmerman all the benefit of the doubt because Trayvon was a "fucking punk".

[Lex]

16. Yep, the jury is allowed to consider

Zimmerman's attitude toward Trayvon and his pursuit of Trayvon. They are allowed to consider that Trayvon was frightened for his life and tried to fight back.

[Lex]

15. Juries are allowed to use their common sense

in fact, they are supposed to. That is what will sink Zimmerman.

[hack89]

17. They have to obey the law

or hand the defense a perfect reason for appeal.

"I know the law says he is innocent but my personal opinion is more important" - would you want a juror like that if you were on trial?

[Lex]

18. They get to decide the FACTS and they can use their common sense

to do so. Juries find FACTS and decide who is credible. That is Zimmerman's biggest problem. They do not find LAW.

[hack89]

19. They have to apply the law to those fact.

Last edited Thu Jul 24, 2014, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

1. This is what actually happened.

2. Were those act legal or illegal in accordance with the law.

[Lex]

20. THEY decide "what actually happened." The jury, that is.

If they find Zimmerman has no credibility and is lying and they don't buy his story, then he goes to jail for killing Trayvon.

[Rex]

22. Spot on.

Also, some here like to pretend that this is all based on one charge, second degree murder, but there could be a compromise and he could get manslaughter instead. The jury will have wide latitude in this case.

Some yelling over and over 'they have to follow the law' is just making noise, because it is a NO DUH comment.

[Vattel]

13. Correct.

In the law, there is a distinction between the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. In Florida, the defendant has the former burden but not the latter. That is, the defendant must start things off by offering some evidence that he acted in self-defense. If that doesn't happen, the prosecution does not need to offer any proof that the defendant did not act in self-defense. But once the defendant meets that burden of production, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

[onenote]

14. Here's another Florida case that makes essentially the same point

http://www.4dca.org/Sept%202006/09-13-06/4D05-3691.op.pdf