General Discussion

onenote

(45,963 posts)

157. And I will clarify for you.

Fri Jul 12, 2013, 05:27 AM

Jul 2013

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 08:03 AM - Edit history (1)

The defense does not bear any burden of proof. It bears a burden of going forward, meaning it has to put forward evidence that, if true, would support its claim of self-defense. It is under no obligation to prove the truth of that evidence; rather the state has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self defense.

Not every state follows this approach. For example, in Ohio, the law expressly states that "the burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused." But as the Murray case, which I've quoted in several posts, makes clear, in Florida, the defendant only has the burden of going forward and does not have the burden of proof, even by the preponderance of the evidence standard.

The concepts of burden of going forward (aka burden of production) and the burden of proof (aka burden of persuasion) are distinct and the distinction is significant.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

170 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman. [View all] redgreenandblue Jul 2013 OP

Has to be reasonably perceived as a threat.... Pelican Jul 2013 #1

I think ultimately the jury will decide based on what they perceive as just. redgreenandblue Jul 2013 #3

that would be unfortunate. nt galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #66

Zimmies perceptions of threat are flawed and not as that of a reasonable person. Sheepshank Jul 2013 #167

a very important difference Crepuscular Jul 2013 #170

Martin was the only one on trial so far. Warpy Jul 2013 #2

yes, yesterday in the demonstration with the mannikin... grasswire Jul 2013 #31

Consider this please brush Jul 2013 #57

yes! thanks. eom LittleGirl Jul 2013 #69

BRUSH, that's what I said.. How in the bumbling hell could zimmy have reached his gun Ecumenist Jul 2013 #109

Hee Hee! Mr. Fantastic . . . I like. nt brush Jul 2013 #114

So lets clear, John2 Jul 2013 #78

in the walkthrough, he demonstrated that he reached... grasswire Jul 2013 #84

He was being straddled and pounded Warpy Jul 2013 #142

That's Right. brush Jul 2013 #116

It doesn't matter customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #128

I don't see why you say it was a mistake. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #137

Very, very little of that interview was questioned customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #144

The mannequin demonstration today was better -- prosecution showed anneboleyn Jul 2013 #130

oh good grasswire Jul 2013 #131

+++ Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #136

I call it a Travonesty of justice. Zimmerman should hang for his crime. InAbLuEsTaTe Jul 2013 #152

I couldn't agree more. In closing arguments today zeeland Jul 2013 #153

You nailed it Cal Carpenter Jul 2013 #163

Agree. People seem to think the issue is "who mounted who," etc. It is not. Hoyt Jul 2013 #4

This is one where I'm glad the jury is sequestered Aerows Jul 2013 #37

It's up to the jury not up to logic upaloopa Jul 2013 #5

The jury will be instructed to use their own Just Saying Jul 2013 #80

Hence the kerfluffle this morning about the possible charge of child abuse - hedgehog Jul 2013 #6

+1 Dawson Leery Jul 2013 #7

Exactly. The jury needs to see him as a threat. Otherwise they will convict Zimmerman. redgreenandblue Jul 2013 #8

+1 uponit7771 Jul 2013 #30

I Think, Sir, There Is A Better Than Even Chance Of Conviction The Magistrate Jul 2013 #9

Thanks. redgreenandblue Jul 2013 #11

ah, I'd forgotten that particular lie, about self-defense law magical thyme Jul 2013 #16

The injury issue doesn't actually matter in a legal sense. anomiep Jul 2013 #22

Well, the standard is also "a reasonable person," not some murderer trying to cover his crime. Hoyt Jul 2013 #28

It has to be "reasonable". It's NOT reasonable to believe the 150-ish lb 10th grader was MORE of a.. uponit7771 Jul 2013 #34

I disagree. anomiep Jul 2013 #45

Cool Story, Bro! The Magistrate Jul 2013 #51

Nothing more than an ad-hominem anomiep Jul 2013 #79

Still A Cool Story, Bro, And Nothing More The Magistrate Jul 2013 #83

you certainly have the right to be credulous anomiep Jul 2013 #93

Cool Story, Bro, Seriously.... The Magistrate Jul 2013 #101

So set aside what you think is a 'Cool Story' anomiep Jul 2013 #120

I have to laugh... zeeland Jul 2013 #154

I did anomiep Jul 2013 #162

I am afraid the Magistrate has raised reasonable doubt of your tale. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #139

I know anomiep Jul 2013 #147

OK it's not the first time I don't know what I'm talking about. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #148

No Worries anomiep Jul 2013 #149

holy SHIT! did The Magistrate just drop an internet meme on some fool?! frylock Jul 2013 #98

Sometimes, Sir, It Just Has To Be Done.... The Magistrate Jul 2013 #102

i'm just glad i was here to see it! frylock Jul 2013 #103

never heard you call anybody Bro before, LOL Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #138

I've seen such strong skinny guys too! Cronus Protagonist Jul 2013 #158

You must have missed pipi_k Jul 2013 #46

But does an MMA instructor have a different definition of "physically fit" SwissTony Jul 2013 #64

SwissTony....Allow me to applaud someone who has what my mom used to say wasn't so common Ecumenist Jul 2013 #106

That MMA trainer who said that zimpy the murderous chimp wasn't worth spit as a fighter Ecumenist Jul 2013 #67

Actually, that is not entirely accurate. anomiep Jul 2013 #85

If zimmy was so awful WHY IN HELL would it make sense for him to used in an advertisement Ecumenist Jul 2013 #90

i think you missed the point a little anomiep Jul 2013 #129

Listen, I have about 6 websites and I'm probably the WRONG one you want to mix it up with as to Ecumenist Jul 2013 #133

So explain to me why, then. anomiep Jul 2013 #150

Okay, you're either deliberately obtuse or simple so let me help you Ecumenist Jul 2013 #151

Yes. anomiep Jul 2013 #159

Yeah right. MAKING then is NOT the same as depending them to generate money. As I said, Ecumenist Jul 2013 #160

Umm anomiep Jul 2013 #161

Well, that must explains why he had to resort to using his gun to subdue his quarry. lumpy Jul 2013 #70

The law doesn't care who was "more" of a threat. It cares whether the defendant reasonably onenote Jul 2013 #71

I don't think the state has actually done so anomiep Jul 2013 #99

Apples And Oranges, Sir The Magistrate Jul 2013 #49

Thanks for the imput. lumpy Jul 2013 #72

The Magistrate, I wish to point out that by your rationale, any murderer, any robber, any rapist, Ecumenist Jul 2013 #74

Actually, "great bodily harm" is not *just* harm that could result in death. anomiep Jul 2013 #105

our biases and preconceptions constrain us galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #122

True that self-defense is or is not what happened but the evidence for self-defense is not so clear. cheyanne Jul 2013 #10

the Defense has to provide an affirmative Defense... magical thyme Jul 2013 #17

Wrong. The Defense doesn't have to "prove" anything. onenote Jul 2013 #24

There is no question he killed Martin. here is findlaw on affirmative defense... magical thyme Jul 2013 #32

He still doesn't have to pipi_k Jul 2013 #48

Not true. stranger81 Jul 2013 #52

I hope you're not a practicing criminal attorney. onenote Jul 2013 #56

He's right. ThoughtCriminal Jul 2013 #89

If you are saying I'm right, thank you. If you're saying that I'm wrong onenote Jul 2013 #96

I am, and I have no qualms about this statement of simple hornbook law. stranger81 Jul 2013 #145

I have over three decades of practice. onenote Jul 2013 #156

The rest of the story... pipi_k Jul 2013 #73

That is not an accurate statement of Florida law. onenote Jul 2013 #94

Instead of "findlaw" let's go to the actual Florida jury instructions and caselaw: onenote Jul 2013 #55

He has not proved John2 Jul 2013 #95

For the umpteeth time, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense onenote Jul 2013 #97

That is John2 Jul 2013 #100

But how does that fit anomiep Jul 2013 #117

Let me try again to clarify for you: stranger81 Jul 2013 #146

And I will clarify for you. onenote Jul 2013 #157

I hope you're right. Just Saying Jul 2013 #12

Why? pipi_k Jul 2013 #53

Yeah but this is a self defense case and it's more complicated than that. Just Saying Jul 2013 #58

The jury will be instructed that the state has to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt onenote Jul 2013 #118

I don't know what the jurors are thinking Just Saying Jul 2013 #121

Where did I say that if Trayvon hit Z it means Z is not guilty? onenote Jul 2013 #123

What bothers me is why people give Zimmerman the ok using self defense yet they southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #13

Exactly, TM had every right to defend himself against some lunatic with a gun. DCBob Jul 2013 #19

I agree. Zimmerman was the aggressor from the beginning. southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #108

And Martin took efforts to avoid a confrontation, which is when Zimmerman pursued him on foot killbotfactory Jul 2013 #26

+1 uponit7771 Jul 2013 #36

Zimmerman was the adult and should have known better. He shouldn't have followed him southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #112

You know why. It has to do with the skin color of the dead--excuse, me--MURDERED boy!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #65

Yes agree. Where am I not agreeing? It's called profiling. southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #110

I'm agreeing with you. Building on what you wrote. :) Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #115

Trayvon isn't on trial Azathoth Jul 2013 #68

If that idiot would have stayed in his car like he was told none of us would be talking. Yes southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #107

If TM had killed GZ customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #132

The prosecutor was terrible. For me it is simple. Zimmerman was the aggressor. southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #135

It doesn't work that way Bonduel Jul 2013 #14

I agree with your subject line pintobean Jul 2013 #15

+1,000 malaise Jul 2013 #18

I predict manslaughter now that it is on the table. hamsterjill Jul 2013 #20

I also think its going to be manslaughter. DCBob Jul 2013 #21

I'm not making any predictions one way or the other MrScorpio Jul 2013 #23

He was still holding the bag of candy when he died. BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #25

Good point and image. I'm glad the judge didn't allow the animation that showed Martin as a Hoyt Jul 2013 #33

If you include the 51% of the population (women) BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #39

REALLY?! I am REALLY upset that the PA hasn't pounded that home so far uponit7771 Jul 2013 #41

Yes, that was found during the ME exam BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #43

That's why Z felt so threatened: someone told him that Skittles will kick your ass. winter is coming Jul 2013 #60

His drink was in his hoodie? BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #75

My understanding, from following some of the daily threads, is that the defense winter is coming Jul 2013 #77

i think you are mistaken, NM_Birder Jul 2013 #87

Martin wasn't holding the bag of candy. It was in his pocket. Captain Stern Jul 2013 #119

That makes sense. But I believe that the Florida laws are written in a way that allows geckosfeet Jul 2013 #27

I hope you're right but (flame away) 4 white women from an affluent community ... Myrina Jul 2013 #29

...I agree but...but, a LOT of the affluent neighborhoods in the south are mixed race uponit7771 Jul 2013 #42

I agree. NOLALady Jul 2013 #44

But they may also be mothers Lisa D Jul 2013 #82

I'm just thankful the jury is sequestered Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #35

3rd option: imperfect self defense = manslaughter... Deep13 Jul 2013 #38

Wrong. Self-defense = reasonable fear of death or great harm Azathoth Jul 2013 #40

Yup Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #50

That's patently ridiculous. Zoeisright Jul 2013 #59

Florida Jury Instruction onenote Jul 2013 #61

Wrong, the jury is not supposed to view it through the eyes of the defendent Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #126

You're right. onenote Jul 2013 #140

It's not only the injuries he has, but injuries he might have had if he had not used the gun. dkf Jul 2013 #62

That's crazy, a 5 year old hits me & I can kill the 5yr old because the danger the 5yr COULD pose!? uponit7771 Jul 2013 #86

Well, of course, that *isn't* the law. anomiep Jul 2013 #104

Hmmm....I guess pipi_k Jul 2013 #76

His fear was unreasonable because he approached Travon knowing R B Garr Jul 2013 #143

My guess Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #47

Hard to say without knowing the folks on the jury. ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #54

If the forensics don't fit, they CAN'T acquit!! :) Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #63

+1 uponit7771 Jul 2013 #88

Best. Comment. Ever! displacedtexan Jul 2013 #111

I don't think he's going to walk either, but he might get off fairly easily in spite of the fact Cleita Jul 2013 #81

I hope the jury sends a message that walking while black in the white zone is not a death sentence. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #91

No sense in trying to anticipate matt819 Jul 2013 #92

manslaughter is the best case scenario BainsBane Jul 2013 #113

My god, your opening statement is quadruple negative. Marr Jul 2013 #124

Over the past week I have been worried he would not be found guilty of 2nd degree murder... DrewFlorida Jul 2013 #125

If the members of the jury customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #127

I agree, have been thinking about this a lot. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #134

I never understood why anyone believed he'd walk TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #141

For me, the elephant in the room Mr.Bill Jul 2013 #155

But there was anomiep Jul 2013 #165

I missed that. Thanks for the info. Mr.Bill Jul 2013 #168

Yeah anomiep Jul 2013 #169

I hope you're correct but I think otherwise. nt Raine Jul 2013 #164

I agree. No need to find him "racist," or any other inflammatory adjective. I don't think Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #166