As the pendulum swings, we see a glimpse of sanity on the horizon

[iverglas]

196. another one who needs to go to law school

If a homicide (or, let's remember, any assault) is committed in self-defence, it is still a homicide (or assault). However, laws pretty universally allow for the act to be justified if it was necessary (generally, as reasonably believed by the person involved) in order to avoid serious injury or death.

NO court every finds anyone "innocent". Courts find people guilty or not guilty under the law, NOT in fact.. The prosecution must prove guilt, and either succeeds or fails.

"Innocent until proved guilty" does NOT mean what so many people would like it to mean. It means that for legal purposes, a person is treated as if they are innocent until they are proved guilty: no one may be punished for a crime unless their crime is proved. An acquittal on a criminal charge IS NOT proof of innocence.

An acquittal based on self-defence means that the mens rea, the intent to commit a wrongful act (in olde English, "malice&quot , was not proved. That is one of the two things the prosecution must prove, the other being the actus rea, the act in question itself.

Where it is proved that a person killed someone, the requirement that the actus rea be proved has been met.

Where the person presents evidence to show that they acted in self-defence, and the prosecution cannot prove otherwise to the requisite standard, the requirement that the mens rea be proved has not been met. This process, and the burden of proof, may vary from one jurisdiction to another; once again, here is how my esteemed cousin, oft quoted by Rumpole at the Bailey, put it in a case where accident was alleged (accident being another case where the requisite intent is not present):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to ... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner ... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.

If, in this case, Zimmerman presents some credible evidence to support the claim of self-defence that meets the standard for self-defence, and the prosecution cannot refute it, then yup, he will have created a reasonable doubt as to the mens rea element of the crime, and established that he is entitled to an acquittal.

Unfortunately, if there are no witnesses to a homicide, and the surviving party is able to present an account that may or may not be true but that is credible, someone may in fact get away with murder.