I think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman.

[onenote]

94. That is not an accurate statement of Florida law.

In Florida the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. The "burden" on the defendant, such as it is, is not even a preponderance of the evidence standard or a clear and convincing evidence standard. Its less than either of those. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the Florida courts:

"the law did not require defendant to prove his justification of self-defense to any standard measuring an assurance of truth. He did not have to prove the exigency of self-defense to a near certainty (reasonable doubt) or even to a mere probability (greater weight). His only burden was to offer additional facts from which it could be true, that his resort to such force could have been reasonable."
Murray v. State, www.4dca.org/Sept%202006/09-13-06/4D05-3691.op.pdf.


Here is how the jury instruction in the state of Florida states it:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

In other words, the Jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified (not convinced that it was justified) or the Jury is supposed to acquit.