Zimmerman apologists always run into same problem. Person minding their own business ended up dead.

[amandabeech]

118. I've seen nothing to suggest that the DA will be required to disprove the affirmative defense.

That would be nuts.

At common law, the defendant has the burden of proof on affirmative defenses.

That's why there is a special hearing before the judge on the validity of the self-defense claim. Z. will be required to prove his claim *by the preponderance of the evidence*, which is the standard of proof in civil claims like wrongful death, not *beyond a reasonable doubt* which is the criminal standard.

If Z wins that hearing and survives the inevitable appeal, then he walks free with complete immunity. That means that he does not go to trial and cannot be sued by Trayvon's family. He then will be able to sue Sanford for malicious prosecution, something that I think was on the mind of the original Sanford prosecutor who did not charge.

I suspect that the reason for this procedure is that a self-defense claim proved by a preponderance of the evidence would be sufficient to instill reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

If Z. loses the at the hearing or appeal, then he will proceed to trial, where he may again assert his defense, but if not found guilty, will be subject to civil proceedings for wrongful death. Recovering anything in a wrongful death action will probably be akin to squeezing blood from a stone after Z. pays his legal bills and expenses.