One last thread before I bow out of World War Z

[grantcart]

29. It is still an affirmative defense.

The defense has to establish that Zimmerman's actions were in self defense. Since Zimmerman did not take the stand the only evidence directly related to it were his various statements not taken under oath that were both self serving and in some cases strained credulity.

As to burden of proof I googled a single state IL and found this reference:

Thus, the state has the burden of showing beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) that (i) the elements of first degree murder are present, and (ii) that defendant's use of deadly force was not supportable by an objectively reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. If the state fails to do (ii), the defendant cannot be convicted of either first or second degree murder.

If the state succeeds in showing (ii) when self-defense has been raised, the defendant may then negate first degree murder (but not second-degree murder) by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he a subjectively genuine (but not objectively reasonable) fear of serious bodily harm (this is also known as "imperfect self-defense&quot .

The defendant has the burden of production as to self-defense. That is, the prosecution does not need to negate it if it is not raised and supported by an appropriate quantum of evidence. What is that quantum? Well, it must be enough that, standing alone and before any rebuttal, raises at least a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not lawfully permitted to use deadly force in self-defense.

This evidentiary basis could be the defendant's testimony or other evidence. If the prosecution enters into evidence the video recording of the claimant's Mirandized police interrogation, and that video shows the defendant alleging self-defense, that could raise reasonable doubt without requiring the defendant to take the stand. If the prosecution only enters part of the recording, omitting the parts about self-defense, the defense may have it entered under F.R.E. 106 (or its state court analogue) ("If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other writing or recorded statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time&quot , without requiring the defendant to take the stand.

But even in a state with a low bar for self defense the defense still needs to assert that it was self defense and in this case there is a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Martin was the one acting in self defense and Zimmerman was the aggressor and made a fatal shot when he lost his advantage.

In any case I am not saying that the jury was in error but taking exception to the absolutist tone of the OP which is based on a misperception of the prosecutions' burden and comes to a conclusion that

Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting in anything other than self defense? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Was Zimmerman acting in self defense when he got out of the car?

And in each step he took towards Zimmerman was he acting in self defense?

The OP presents the case like it was an open and shut case for not guilty, which of course it was not.