[FrankWSweet]

Question for our lawyers, regarding judge's instructions to the jury. A hypothetical. I am on trial for homicide (murder or manslaughter) and I stipulate that I did intentionally shoot the person. My defense is that it was justified by 776.012 (1). Who has the burden of proof?

a - Must the prosecution show beyond reasonable doubt that it was not justified?

b - Must I show beyond reasonable doubt that it was justified?

c - Is it a "preponderance of the evidence" thing?

 

[Steve48]

Interesting question. I'm not a lawyer, but I have to believe that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. One of the elements of murder/manslaughter is that the killing is unlawful, and killing in self defense is not unlawful. The prosecution has to prove all the elements.

Now that I've committed myself, let's hear from the guys who know!

 

[Buckley]

Question for our lawyers, regarding judge's instructions to the jury. A hypothetical. I am on trial for homicide (murder or manslaughter) and I stipulate that I did intentionally shoot the person. My defense is that it was justified by 776.012 (1). Who has the burden of proof?

a - Must the prosecution show beyond reasonable doubt that it was not justified?


b - Must I show beyond reasonable doubt that it was justified?


c - Is it a "preponderance of the evidence" thing?

The state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasable doubt.
Burden is on the state, but you must show some evidence on each of the elements.
These are very tough cases, and generally require a parade of experts to testify. Disparity and reasonableness play major roles. A third party defense is even more problematic. My last case was handicapped due to the number of modifications made to the 1911. Hope this helps.

 

[FrankWSweet]

The state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasable doubt.
Burden is on the state, but you must show some evidence on each of the elements.
These are very tough cases, and generally require a parade of experts to testify. Disparity and reasonableness play major roles. A third party defense is even more problematic. My last case was handicapped due to the number of modifications made to the 1911. Hope this helps.

Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Marty Hayes, on the "Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network" DVD, says that this may vary from state to state, so I figured I should check for FL.

 

[Buckley]

Marty is correct. Cool videos, huh? It took me an hour to get the third one going, though.

BTW: Patrick is fine. No need for formalities here, I think

 

[FrankWSweet]

To be honest, I did not think much of the third DVD. The first was great, and the second featured Ayoob, who is always awesome, but the third came across as too many vague generalizations for my taste. The most memorable lesson that I came away with from the entire set was the contrast between what you do when it hits the fan, and how you justify your actions in court afterwards.

On the one hand, self-defense DVDs and books stress that you must follow your gut instincts in order to stay out of trouble. As they say in the military, "train like you fight and fight like you train," because in a real conflict there is seldom time for reasoned consideration.

On the other hand, the same sources make clear that once you are under legal scrutiny, you must be able to articulate every element of the incident as if you had carefully reasoned it out while it was happening.

 

[Buckley]

To be honest, I did not think much of the third DVD.

It needs more banjo!

 

[FrankWSweet]

It needs more banjo!

:rolf

 

[TwistedMinded_1911]

I would plan on B,Not that its righ