# A two-second murder trial: Legally, how should the jury find?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-two-second-murder-trial-legally-how-should-the-jury-find/616943>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [March 27, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-two-second-murder-trial-legally-how-should-the-jury-find/616943 "2012-03-27T13:20:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 29

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-two-second-murder-trial-legally-how-should-the-jury-find/616943/29 "2012-03-29T13:53:24Z")

</div>

> [@md2000](#):
>
> So… assuming the OP case is a write-off, as soon as the prosecution rests the defence does not put the defendant on the stand and nothing is proven.
> 
> In a normal case - The prosecution shows - an altercation happens, someone is shot. There is no question the defendant pulled the trigger. The other fellow is unarmed.
> 
> What constitutes raising the defence of “self-defence”?
> 
> Presumably the defence lawyer arguing it is not enough. Real evidence has to be shown.
> 
> Is the statement to police when he was arrested enough? Would it be necessary for the defendant to take the stand and claim it was self-defence? Or would the defence lawyer asking the coroner, investigating officers, etc. “How does this evidence possibly eliminate the possibility of self defence”, “could this have been from defending himself”, etc. enough?
> 
> I assume the jury cannot in that case make any inference from the defendant not taking the stand to give his version, if the question is only raised against other evidence?

Raising self-defense can be done by the introduction of any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to infer that the accused met the requirements for self-defense.

Typically, the accused must prove to the jury by preponderance of the evidence that the elements of self-defense were present, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Florida’s law creates an extra wrinkle. It would seem to require a threshold determination of probable cause to believe that the force used by the accused was unlawful. This is not a determination for trial, because the law says that without that finding, the accused is immune from arrest or prosecution:

> [@FSA § 776.032](#):
>
> (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force . . . As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
> 
> (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

See the issue? Florida requires a specific probable cause finding that the force used was unlawful, as opposed to a general finding of probable cause to believe a crime was committed, and it specifically says that absent that, there is immunity from arrest or even detention in custody.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-two-second-murder-trial-legally-how-should-the-jury-find/616943)._