# Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125 "2012-04-18T04:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 549
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10963 "2013-06-17T18:54:19Z")
**Stoid** , your reliance on that _Bolin_ case is misplaced. It’s a 1974 case–stand your ground was enacted in 2005 or so, plus I am certain there have been changes to the Florida standard instructions based on statutes and case law in over 30 years. You expressed that the cases and instructions are “unusually easy” regarding access. Just because you can Google a case or statute doesn’t meant you understand its effect. You have to look at dates, shepardize and read cases where the law is questioned or overruled, and possibly look at legislative history. The law does not exist in the isolation of one case–especially one that is no longer applicable to the current law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10964 "2013-06-17T19:06:29Z")
Stoid: did you Shepardize Bolin? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10965 "2013-06-17T21:01:15Z")
Bricker. Back up this assertion with something other than “Hey, special instructions are asked for and made all the time!”(a fact I am 100% clear on, especially since so much of this case law is about that exact fact) since that doesn’t really square with what you’re saying here: > [@Bricker](#): > > The jury has a set of instructions from the judge. They don’t simply vote “guilty” or “not guilty” without referring to these instructions. (I suppose they might, but that’s the kind of thing that causes verdicts to be tossed out as a matter of law.) You go from that directly to this: > [@](#): > > The record must affirmatively reflect evidence for each and every element that the prosecution must prove. > > When the defense’s case put self-defense on the table, at that moment, the list of elements that the prosecution had to prove changed. It grew. Added to the existing elements of murder, the state now also had to disprove the presence of self-defense. The first does not lead directly to the second, especially if your argument is that it does so by requests for “special instructions”. The jury gets instructions that start from the basics as we’ve seen them, which do NOT include ANY reference to self-defense being a separate and distinct new element that they jury must determine if the prosecution disproved, apart from proving guilt beyond doubt. You wrote the above to make it seem otherwise. If some lawyers sometimes get such an instruction, bully for them. But where in Florida law does it say that this is the way it must be? > [@](#): > > Here’s (possibly) the mistake you make: you think because they don’t believe a thing the defense said, that’s enough to allow them to affirmatively believe the converse. _ **No.** _ And not even _close_ to what I have been saying all along, in multiple ways: The prosecutions burden is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime, and succeeding in doing so precludes the need to “disprove” the self-defense claim by its nature. Which is another way of saying “broadly includes”! This started thusly: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\*Originally Posted by Steophan \*\* > > I have to say, I am intrigued to see what that narrative is, how they explain the injuries, and how they will prove that Zimmerman was not in fear of death or serious injury > > They don’t have to prove that he was not in said fear, how silly. That makes the bizarre assumption that the prosecution is accepting as true a whole bunch of things for which there is no evidence whatsoever outside of Zimmerman’s testimony, and why in the world would they do that? In order to focus on convincing the jury that Zimmerman was not afraid, they would be explicitly or implicity telling the jury that Martin did attack Zimmerman, to start with. Not bloody likely. > > **What they DO have to prove to the satisfaction of the jury is that the facts, as supported by evidence, are sufficient to convict Zimmerman of second degree murder, beyond a reasonable doubt**. And as I said before, if they fail there and the jury has no other lesser offenses they can fall back on, they will likely acquit and then the prosecution (or Florida law? What are the rules?) is the fuckup. Which led to: > [@](#): > > In order to do that, they have to **disprove** Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense, which means the claim of reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. To which I replied: > [@](#): > > . By continuing to insist that that a defendant’s claim of self-defense must be “disproved”, you appear to believe that a defendant’s claim of self-defense must be accepted by the jury as true automatically, making it the job of the prosecution to “disprove” the claim. (I’m not even sure what you mean by that…_ **if the state succeeds in proving to the jury that Zimmerman’s actions were 2nd degree murder, they have “disproved” the defendant’s claim of self-defense…what is the distinction between those two things you mean to draw?** _) But that’s not the case, of course. > [@](#): > > There is no special burden on the prosecution to “disprove” anything, other than the usual way they “disprove” whatever the defense counters with, which is by successfully proving their case beyond reasonable doubts, no matter how any such reasonable doubts might be created in the juries’ minds. > [@](#): > > Note the last bolded part carefully: “if he wanted his self-defense to be considered” - Just considered. It has no special power. There is no suggestion of any kind that a defendant’s assertion of self-defense _ **must be believed or that whatever evidence he offers must be accepted as proof of his claim.** _ It’s just one more thing for the jury to consider in deciding whether the defendant is guilty of a crime, that’s all. Then: > [@](#): > > Steophan: > Once again, the state have to prove he was not acting in self defence, if there is any evidence that he was. Zimmerman’s witness statement that he was acting in self defence is enough evidence for that. > > … > > No, it’s not a special burden, it’s the standard burden of proving every element of the case beyond reasonable doubt. That includes it not being a justified killing in self defence, if the defendant claims it was. And I said: > [@](#): > > You will see that the only thing it says about The prosecution’s burden of proof is that the prosecution must prove what it always must prove: That the defendant is guilty of the crime they have been charged with, Beyond any reasonable doubt. > > It does not say that the prosecution must prove that the self-defense claim is false. However, as I have already said several times: by successfully meeting the burden of proof that they always have to meet, they will, in effect, “prove” to the jury that the self-defense claim is false. As I said earlier: what is the distinction you believe you are drawing here, that it keeps being dragged up with a sort of AHA! attached? Steophan again: > [@](#): > > Yes. And part of that proof is that he was not acting in self defence. As that is an element of the crime, if the defence introduce it. (???:rolleyes:) Steophan evidently thinks that "distinction means “repeat yourself” > [@](#): > > The distinction is, as has been made extremely clear, that if the defence claim it was self defence, an additional element is added to the crime of murder that has to be proved by the state, and that element is that the defendant was not acting in self defence. Then you said: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Stoid > They don’t have to prove that he was not in said fear, how silly. > Yes, they do. The prosecution must disprove self-defense, and they must do it beyond a reasonable doubt. So they either have to prove he wasn’t in fear, or that whatever fear he was in was not reasonable, and they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Gee, seems to me that if they’ve proved murder beyond a reasonable doubt, then self-defense can’t be possible. Like I said: > [@](#): > > If the prosecution proves to the jury (beyond doubt) that _ **a crime was committedby the accused,** _ then they have also,\*\*\* by definition!\*\*\* have proved to the jury that the accused did not act in self-defense. One _ **cannot** _ be true without the other _ **also** _ being true, because if the jury has any meaningful questions in their minds about the possibility that the accused acted in self-defense, it means exactly the same thing as having meaningful questions about whether a crime was committed and that means doubt and that means acquittal because acting in self defense means there was no crime. > [@](#): > > Prosecution’s job is to prove to the jury’s satisfaction (within the various rules, obviously) that it is virtually certain that the accused committed the crime. If they succeed, then the jury has been convinced beyond doubt that a crime was committed, something which cannot be the case if they have any reasonable question or belief that the accused was defending himself, because if he was defending himself, then there was no crime. So the prosecution’s job is to prove a particular thing is true, and if they do, anything contrary to that truth that they have succeeded in proving is therefore a lie. By proving one thing, they inherently disprove the other. Six of one, half dozen of the other. > > So…“disproving” self-defense is a given. “Proving self-defense is false” is built in to the whole system. Self-defense is just one way to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury: claim you were defending yourself and present what you want to try and make the jury doubt. Then the jury considers your evidence and determines whether it causes them to doubt their finding. If it doesn’t, they convict. > > It is no different than any other argument which would raise doubts in the jury’s minds about whether you committed the crime or not. Make your case, present your evidence for what-the-fuck-ever. If the jury believes the prosecution wholeheartedly and thinks the defense is totally full of shit, game over, be it self-defense or that you were insane or that you were forced at gunpoint or that you have a twin who really did it, whatever, if the jury still doesn’t doubt their belief in the prosecutions case and convicts you, then who cares whether you call it “the prosecution disproving self-defense” or “the prosecution proving that a crime was committed”? > [@](#): > > Please, if you would,\*\*\* explain precisely the meaningful distinction between these two jurors’ conclusions:\*\*\* > > "It has been explained to me that the prosecution must convince me beyond any reasonable doubt that their version of the facts is true, and that if they are, then this crime has been committed by this person. > > Having considered all the evidence and arguments on both sides, the prosecution has proved to me that this person committed this crime. > > The defense presented evidence that the accused acted in self-defense.\*\*I found none of it credible, and therefore it does not cause me to doubt, reasonably or not, the correctness of my finding that the accused committed the crime. > > I therefore vote to convict\*\*." > > And all the same stuff as above except for the second to last paragraph: > > “\*\*\*The defense presented their evidence that accused acted in self-defense, but the prosecutions proof, which convinced me absolutely that the accused committed this crime, means that the defendant’s claims are absolutely false. Therefore I do not doubt, reasonably or not, the correctness of my finding that the accused committed the crime.” \*\*\* > > However you want to word it, t\*\*he prosecution’s job is to convince the jury that the accused committed the crime, which automatically means that they must overcome anything that the defense tosses in to the mix to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. \*\*If the jury finds that they have had it proven to them that the accused committed the crime, and they don’t have any doubts about it, then the prosecution has done a masterful job of proving to their satisfaction what the truth is, and in doing so has automatically proved that any alternate claims or theories or possibilities that are incompatible with the prosecution’s proven truth must be false. > > So what the hell are all these people on about?\*\*\* What is the scenario in which the prosecution proves to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did in fact commit the crime he has been charged with, yet simultaneously have failed to disprove self-defense? The two things cannot exist in the same space, for god’s sake, if one is true the other can’t be, so why all the arguing with me about it?\*\*\* And so far no one has shown where in any case law or statutory law or jury instructions that Florida specifically requires the prosecution to specifically _ **disprove** _ the defense’s claim of self defense as a matter additional, separate, distinct and apart from the burden they _ **already** _ have and must meet, which is to prove that they committed a crime. You just keep saying it, and now appear to be trying to say that it’s all done in special instructions, which pretty much destroys the idea that it’s a legal requirement, since when are legal requirements confined to special instructions not codified anywhere?? Since never. You’ve also managed, in spite of everything I’ve said, to arrive at an idea which is entirely opposite of what I’ve said over and over again: that if the jury doesn’t believe the defense, they must believe the prosecution, which is a different way to express the idea that it is the defense’s burden to prove it’s assertion of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and it would be pretty strange for me to say that in light of all the goddamn case law, starting with Murray! good grief. So how about you either admit that you oversold the legal impact of the court saying “broadly includes” as demanding something separate and distinct, or just show me where it says so that makes it a fact? Because if it is a _ **requirement** _ of Florida law, upon which a solid conviction must rest, then there is no freakin’ way it is exclusively confined to “special instructions” individually requested in each trial! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10966 "2013-06-17T23:01:21Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Bricker. Back up this assertion with something other than “Hey, special instructions are asked for and made all the time!”(a fact I am 100% clear on, especially since so much of this case law is about that exact fact) since that doesn’t really square with what you’re saying here: > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > The jury has a set of instructions from the judge. They don’t simply vote “guilty” or “not guilty” without referring to these instructions. (I suppose they might, but that’s the kind of thing that causes verdicts to be tossed out as a matter of law.) > > You go from that directly to this: > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > The record must affirmatively reflect evidence for each and every element that the prosecution must prove. > > > > When the defense’s case put self-defense on the table, at that moment, the list of elements that the prosecution had to prove changed. It grew. Added to the existing elements of murder, the state now also had to disprove the presence of self-defense. > > The first does not lead directly to the second, especially if your argument is that it does so by requests for “special instructions”. > > The jury gets instructions that start from the basics as we’ve seen them, which do NOT include ANY reference to self-defense being a separate and distinct new element that they jury must determine if the prosecution disproved, apart from proving guilt beyond doubt. Ok, I’ll try again. But tell me something, **Stoid**. I know you reject any kind of because-I-say-so evidence for this proposition. Your skepticism won’t be answered, it seems, unless I can point you to some on-line resource that lays out, precisely on-point, the exact thing I’m saying. But tell me why you believe the law should work that way? I mean, I assume you accept that there are aspects of cardiac surgery that are not amenable to that kind of citation. I assume you would understand that experienced surgeons might all agree on a certain proposition without being able to show a lay person a simple written summary that explained it. Why do you imagine that the law is so basic that a lay person can demand this kind of a single-source answer to this kind of question? You seem to suggest that because you can’t be shown it, it ain’t so, and I’m wondering why you believe this. OK, so I’ll give it another shot. In _Fowler v. State_, 921 So. 2d 708, Fl. DCA 2006, the jury found Mark Fowler guilty of second-degree murder. He had claimed self-defense, and the state put forth enough evidence to convince the jury of Fowler’s guilt. They offered a number of witnesses who heard the shooting and saw the victim on the ground, and Fowler riding away on a bicycle. They proved each element of second degree murder. But the state did not disprove his claim of self-defense. On appeal, his conviction was overturned. The appeals court said: > [@](#): > > The State must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and when the defendant presents a prima facie case of self-defense, the State’s burden includes “`proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.'” > . > . > . > We recognize that the question of whether a defendant committed a homicide in justifiable self-defense is ordinarily one for the jury. Id. However, when the State’s evidence is legally insufficient to rebut the defendant’s testimony establishing self-defense, the court must grant a motion for judgment of acquittal. > . > . > . > As in the present case, no eyewitnesses saw the shooting or the events preceding it, and the defendant fled after the shooting. > . > . > . > We do not doubt that the evidence adduced by the state, particularly the evidence as to Fowler’s actions after the shooting, casts considerable suspicion upon him. But mere “suspicion” is not enough. When the state presents circumstantial evidence of a particular fact which is arguably consistent with the defendant’s story, then the fact is simply not probative of the defendant’s guilt. > . > . > . > Similarly, here the State has offered no understandable theory of evidence that contradicts Fowler’s explanation of self-defense. In fact, in responding to the motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case, the prosecutor acknowledged that “there’s no indication of a reason for this happening.” Fowler presented a prima facie case of self-defense, and the State simply did not carry its burden to rebut the claim of self-defense and to prove Fowler’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. **Stoid** : if your understanding of the law of self-defense in Florida is the correct one, can you explain how the court in Fowler reached the decision they did? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10967 "2013-06-17T23:06:49Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > So how about you either admit that you oversold the legal impact of the court saying “broadly includes” as demanding something separate and distinct, or just show me where it says so that makes it a fact? Because if it is a _ **requirement** _ of Florida law, upon which a solid conviction must rest, then there is no freakin’ way it is exclusively confined to “special instructions” individually requested in each trial! Here: > [@](#): > > The State must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and when the defendant presents a prima facie case of self-defense, the State’s burden includes “`proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.'” Thompson v. State, 552 So.2d 264 at 266 (Fl DCA 1989). ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10968 "2013-06-17T23:18:08Z")
> [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > **Stoid** , your reliance on that _Bolin_ case is misplaced. It’s a 1974 case–stand your ground was enacted in 2005 or so, plus I am certain there have been changes to the Florida standard instructions based on statutes and case law in over 30 years. In what way do you think SYG undermines Bolin, in the context? The case is about the burden of proof and jury instructions in self defense, not the legal standards of self-defense, which at that time happened to still include the duty to retreat if possible- that is incidental to the issues decided: > [@](#): > > . The defendant now raises two points on appeal concerning his defense of self-defense. He contends first that the trial judge erred by failing to give the jury a requested instruction that the defendant by injecting into the trial the issue of self-defense need merely establish a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, and need not prove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. > > Secondly, the defendant contends that the trial court should have awarded him a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction in that self-defense justified the killing. . I brought it up because it is the original source for Bricker’s “money quote” abouth the prosecutions burden of proof broadly including disproving self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10969 "2013-06-17T23:26:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here: > > Thompson v. State, 552 So.2d 264 at 266 (Fl DCA 1989). Which proving beyond reasonable doubt that he committed murder, all by itself as the burden the prosecution must meet, effectively accomplishes, seeing as how people who have killed in self defense haven’t murdered. Which is what i have been saying all along. Now, what is the distinction, creating this new element that the jury must find separately from the murder finding, and how does the jury learn about this separate and distinct element, since its not in the jury instructions? Is it your contention that this supposed legal distinction is both required by law and yet only seen in special,instructions outside the standard established for all trials, or something else? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10970 "2013-06-18T00:01:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I mean, I assume you accept that there are aspects of cardiac surgery that are not amenable to that kind of citation. I assume you would understand that experienced surgeons might all agree on a certain proposition without being able to show a lay person a simple written summary that explained it. > > Why do you imagine that the law is so basic that a lay person can demand this kind of a single-source answer to this kind of question? You seem to suggest that because you can’t be shown it, it ain’t so, and I’m wondering why you believe this. First, Law, particularly criminal law, is nowhere near as complex as brain surgery. The law is simply the formal rules by which all of us must function in our society, and the rules for determining who broke which rule are not, nor should they be, far outside the average person’s understanding, since they are everyone’s to follow. Second, in this specific instance, we are talking about precisely that part of the law which is given to laypeople, so it is very important that it be particularly clear to laypeople, and if there’s no jury instruction or statute requiring it, how is that supposed to happen, particularly since standard jury instructions cover everything else considered standard required…why not this? > [@](#): > > OK, so I’ll give it another shot. > > In _Fowler v. State_, 921 So. 2d 708, Fl. DCA 2006, the jury found Mark Fowler guilty of second-degree murder. He had claimed self-defense, and the state put forth enough evidence to convince the jury of Fowler’s guilt. They offered a number of witnesses who heard the shooting and saw the victim on the ground, and Fowler riding away on a bicycle. They proved each element of second degree murder. > > But the state did not disprove his claim of self-defense. > > On appeal, his conviction was overturned. > > The appeals court said: > > **Stoid** : if your understanding of the law of self-defense in Florida is the correct one, can you explain how the court in Fowler reached the decision they did? Certainly! The court says it multiple times in the decision along with describing the details leading to their decision: the prosecution made crap case to start with. Thats hardly the question i have been asking, which remains: if the prosecuon succeeds in proving That the defendant committed the crime, beyond reasonable doubt, how is that meaningfully different from effectively disproving any claims of self-defense? Its not, Hence the language “broadly includes”… What I continue to question is any assertion that there is a separate, distinct “element” added to the mix which must be separately and distinctly “disproved” directly. And nothing you have put forth says that. The Fowler case falls right in line: the prosecution failed to make anything like a case beyond reasonable doubt, far from it! In fact based on what the opinion states, it’s pretty pathetic that they went for murder in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10971 "2013-06-18T00:15:25Z")
**Stoid** , maybe it will help if you here it from another keyboard. Imagine a world in which self-defense is not a defense to murder (Example 1). The rule is just that if you intentionally cause the death of another person, you done murdered 'em. In that world, no one would care about facts concerning whether the guy was threatened. Now, imagine a world in which self-defense is a defense to murder, but the defendant has to prove it (Example 2). The prosecution must still prove that the defendant caused the death of another person, but the guy is free to try to establish that he was threatened (and the rest of the elements of self-defense). In this world, it matters not only who must prove the defense, but also how high the burden is. If you suppose that the defense must be proved by a preponderence of the evidence, then the defendant could present quite a lot of evidence–enough that there is a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense–but it wouldn’t be enough. Finally, imagine a world in which self-defense is a defense to murder and the prosecution must prove that self-defense did not occur beyond a reasonable doubt (Example 3). In that scenario, the prosecution is proving the same thing it did in Example 1, but it also has to prove at least one of the elements of self-defense to be false beyond a reasonable doubt as well (e.g., he was not threatened). Florida is that final example. And it should now be clear how self-defense is regarded as a separate element. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10972 "2013-06-18T00:20:42Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > First, Law, particularly criminal law, is nowhere near as complex as brain surgery. The law is simply the formal rules by which all of us must function in our society, and the rules for determining who broke which rule are not, nor should they be, far outside the average person’s understanding, since they are everyone’s to follow. But they are outside the average person’s understanding, **Stoid**. Can the average person explain what hearsay is? Does the average person understand the application of the concept of collateral estoppel to a criminal trial? I’m sorry, but this idea that the rules of evidence are simple and accessible for the average person might be some aspirational goal, but it absolutely is not the reality. And your approach to this issue assumes it is, and this creates a problem. There are a number of lawyers who post here. They run the gamut politically. Pick any one of them and I’ll ask them to weigh in on this issue. I am virtually certain that any lawyer with any criminal experience will endorse the point I’m making here. Why do you suppose that is? At some point, no matter how strongly you believe your interpretation of the law on this issue is correct, doesn’t the unanimous opinion of actual practicing lawyers give you pause? > [@](#): > > Second, in this specific instance, we are talking about precisely that part of the law which is given to laypeople, so it is very important that it be particularly clear to laypeople, and if there’s no jury instruction or statute requiring it, how is that supposed to happen, particularly since standard jury instructions cover everything else considered standard required…why not this? The ultimate instructions must indeed be very clear. But we’re now discussing the process by which those instructions are drafted in each trial. THAT process is the one at issue here, and there’s no particular requirement that it be reducible to simple terms. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10973 "2013-06-18T00:22:36Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Florida is that final example. And it should now be clear how self-defense is regarded as a separate element. **Richard Parker** and I are worlds apart politically. Why would you imagine he endorses this concept? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10974 "2013-06-18T01:06:41Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > **Stoid** , maybe it will help if you here it from another keyboard. > Florida is that final example. And it should now be clear how self-defense is regarded as a separate element. OK…can you tell me where this distinction is made to the jury? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10975 "2013-06-18T01:41:44Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > OK…can you tell me where this distinction is made to the jury? I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking whether the final jury instructions will explain this? If so, the answer is yes. Failure to explain this in the instructions would be appealable error. If you are asking when this instruction will be given, if at all, before the end of the trial, then I believe that is a matter left to the discretion of the judge (certainly as a matter of constitutional law, not sure about Florida law). ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10976 "2013-06-18T01:55:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But they are outside the average person’s understanding, **Stoid**. Can the average person explain what hearsay is? Does the average person understand the application of the concept of collateral estoppel to a criminal trial? You were equating law with brain surgery, it’s not. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but this idea that the rules of evidence are simple and accessible for the average person might be some aspirational goal, but it absolutely is not the reality. True enough, but you you were asking why I thought it ought to be, in a manner that suggested that it is inherently as complex as brain surgery. It’s not. > [@](#): > > And your approach to this issue assumes it is, and this creates a problem. > > There are a number of lawyers who post here. They run the gamut politically. > > Pick any one of them and I’ll ask them to weigh in on this issue. I am virtually certain that any lawyer with any criminal experience will endorse the point I’m making here. > > Why do you suppose that is? > > At some point, no matter how strongly you believe your interpretation of the law on this issue is correct, doesn’t the unanimous opinion of actual practicing lawyers give you pause? > > The ultimate instructions must indeed be very clear. But we’re now discussing the process by which those instructions are drafted in each trial. So I take all that to mean you are saying no, there is no statute spelling out the requirement of the prosecution to treat a claim of self-defense as a separate and distinct element that must be directly and specifically disproved separately and distinctly, in spite of the fact that the other elements are. And no, there are no standard jury instructions which form the basis for making sure the jury knows that they are charged with making a finding on the prosecution having met this burden, that unlike all the other requirements every case, this one requirement of what juries must understand is left to be crafted from nothing, on the fly, each time. And that because this is true, in my example of the guy who claims the fire breathing quadriplegic scared him into shooting him (offering up burned paper at his feet as additional evidence, let’s say for kicks, or if you’d rather, the knife spitting claim with some flimsy support such as the presence of a knife in the room, on the floor, with the victim’s spit on it..or any other wacky scenario with just enough evidence to qualify for the instruction) if there is nothing in the record showing that the prosecution made any specifically directed effort to disprove that claim, but the record is otherwise bursting with rock-solid evidence showing premeditated murder instead, the case would be reversed. Because the jury isn’t entitle to find prosecution’s evidence for murder devastatingly persuasive, therefore rendering any claim, much less a ludicrous one, of self defense unbelievable on its face. Just making sure. Because I think you might be just a tad wrong about this. Do what I do: “follow the cites”: in this case, Fowler’s cite of Rivera v. State 719 so.2d 335, specifically: (I’ll avoid the whole discussion of whether overturning a jury verdict on appeal in a case where no motion for judgment of acquittal was ever made is reviewed by the same standards as those used for determining the correctness of ruling on such a motion…the law is tricky and they might be different, but we’ll assume not.) > [@](#): > > The state concedes that, in order to establish its case against Rivera, it had the burden of rebutting Rivera’s claim that he shot the victim in self-defense. Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (1993), defines selfdefense as follows: “[A person] is justified in the use of deadly force only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” See also Hunter v. State, 687 So.2d 277, 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). If a defendant establishes a prima facie case of self-defense, the state must overcome the defense by rebuttal, _ **or by inference in its case in chief.** _ See Sneed v. State, 580 So.2d 169, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). If the state fails to sustain this burden of proof, the trial court is duty bound to grant a judgment of acquittal in favor of the defendant. See Brown v. State, 454 So.2d 596, 599 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 461 So.2d 116 (Fla. 1984). Wait up! What’s this? “or by inference in its case in chief” Really? But doesn’t the prosecution has a legal requirement to **specifically** , **separately** , **directly** _disprove_ this new and special element of self-defense, as a matter set apart from simply slam-dunking guilt beyond doubt? How exactly does the jury “inferring from the case in chief” satisfy that separate and distinct element requiring direct “disproof”, which I have been relentlessly informed is an absolute fact and that _ **my** _ understanding: > [@](#): > > There is no special burden on the prosecution to “disprove” anything, other than the usual way they “disprove” whatever the defense counters with, which is by successfully proving their case beyond reasonable doubts, no matter how any such reasonable doubts might be created in the juries’ minds. > [@](#): > > if the state succeeds in proving to the jury that Zimmerman’s actions were 2nd degree murder, they have “disproved” the defendant’s claim of self-defense…what is the distinction between those two things you mean to draw?) > [@](#): > > It does not say that the prosecution must prove that the self-defense claim is false. However, as I have already said several times: by successfully meeting the burden of proof that they always have to meet, they will, in effect, “prove” to the jury that the self-defense claim is false. As I said earlier: what is the distinction you believe you are drawing here, that it keeps being dragged up with a sort of AHA! attached? > [@](#): > > “The defense presented their evidence that accused acted in self-defense, but the prosecutions proof, which convinced me absolutely that the accused committed this crime, means that the defendant’s claims are absolutely false. Therefore I do not doubt, reasonably or not, the correctness of my finding that the accused committed the crime.” > [@](#): > > Prosecution’s job is to prove to the jury’s satisfaction (within the various rules, obviously) that it is virtually certain that the accused committed the crime. If they succeed, then the jury has been convinced beyond doubt that a crime was committed, something which cannot be the case if they have any reasonable question or belief that the accused was defending himself, because if he was defending himself, then there was no crime. So the prosecution’s job is to prove a particular thing is true, and if they do, anything contrary to that truth that they have succeeded in proving is therefore a lie. By proving one thing, they inherently disprove the other. Six of one, half dozen of the other. > > So…“disproving” self-defense is a given. “Proving self-defense is false” is built in to the whole system. Self-defense is just one way to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury: claim you were defending yourself and present what you want to try and make the jury doubt. Then the jury considers your evidence and determines whether it causes them to doubt their finding. If it doesn’t, they convict. Which are all different ways of describing “inference from the case in chief” is _ **wrong** _? 😕😕😕😕😕 ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10977 "2013-06-18T02:06:03Z")
Stoid: I think the standard instruction you’re searching for is 3.6(f), which reads, in relevant part: > [@](#): > > If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. > > However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. Of course, the court need not word it precisely this way, and may say much more about the issues, since standard instructions are like a template from which the parties craft the final instructions in a given case. I see that you cited this instruction earlier, but I think you missed or misunderstood the quoted portion, which makes clear that disproving self-defense is a separate element from “the elements of the charge.” ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10978 "2013-06-18T02:15:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **Richard Parker** and I are worlds apart politically. > > Why would you imagine he endorses this concept? 😕 What the hell do your politics have to do with anything? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10979 "2013-06-18T02:21:33Z")
Self-defense can absolutely be disproved by inference from the case-in-chief. For example, if the prosecution introduces evidence of a written plan to kill the victim in support of the requirement of intentionality, this would be strong (though not irrefutable) evidence that any subsequent claim of self-defense was manufactured. That has nothing to do with whether disproving self-defense is a separate element (it is) or whether the jury is instructed that it is a separate element (it is). I think what’s confused you is that, in this particular case, it does not appear that proving that Zimmerman intentionally shot Martin would, in itself, disprove that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. To prove that, the prosecution will have to address elements such as whether Zimmerman feared grave harm, etc., that ordinarily would not have to be proved in the absence of a claim of self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10980 "2013-06-18T02:42:30Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Stoid: > > I think the standard instruction you’re searching for is 3.6(f), which reads, in relevant part: > > > [@](#): > > > > If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. > > > > However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. > > I see that you cited this instruction earlier, but I think you missed or misunderstood the quoted portion, which makes clear that disproving self-defense is a separate element from “the elements of the charge.” I would respectfully disagree, given that the language is (for legalese) pretty straightforward. The first sentence directly addresses the jury’s actions if self-defense is working for them on any level. The second sentence is about finding guilt beyond doubt because the elements of the (criminal) charges have been proved, which doesn’t in any way suggest anything about the defenses against the criminal charges being disproved, so there’s no reason to think that this is what is meant. It just says: Consider the possibility of self-defense. If you aren’t sure, acquit. If the evidence convinces you it was not self-defense, and the elements of the crime are proved beyond doubt (as specified elsewhere), convict. There’s absolutely nothing there which in any way suggests that the defense to the charge has now become “an element of the (criminal) charge” that must be _proved_! That would be a mess. Especially since the effect of the evidence on their consideration of the possibility has been directly addressed twice already! You would have it that the two sentences mean: Consider the possibility of self-defense, and if you aren’t sure, acquit. If you consider the evidence related to self-defense and find you reject it, then convict, if the claim of self defense has been disproved as part of the crime elements being proved Nah. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10981 "2013-06-18T02:43:52Z")
Again, if “disproving self defense” substantively differs from “proving manslaughter/murder”, you’d think the instructions would make this unambigiously and abundantly clear to the jury. You’d also expect more murder defendants would be taking advantage of such a quirk in the system. Noticeably absence in the standard instructions (which was discussed on previous pages) is anything about the jury needing to acquit the defendant if the prosecution manages to prove the defendant killed someone unlawfully (e.g. committed murder or manslaughter) but somehow failed to disprove the defendant lawfully killed. Because as a concept this makes no sense. From what I read, to assert self-defense, all the defense has to do is put up evidence for all necessary elements for lawful use of deadly force. The defendant’s statements are sufficient evidence for this. The jury’s task is to evaluate this evidence and if they are convinced under the reasonable person standard that the defendant’s actions were unjustified, they can reject his claim of self defense. There is no requirement that the State be the ones who do all this convincing either. If Zimmerman makes an unconvincing case for himself, and the State provides evidence legally succificient for 2nd degree murder, there is nothing enshrined in law that says the jury can’t convict him. If Zimmerman were charged with manslaughter rather than 2nd degree murder, perhaps I could see why “disproving self defense” would be an issue of practical importance for the State. Because with manslaughter, the State wouldn’t necessarily have evidence at their disposal that Zimmerman killed for reasons other than fear of imminent harm, which would make it harder for them to prove Martin was killed unlawfully. But in proving murder, its a given the State has to prove that not only was deadly force unjustified, but that it was done with an _intent_ that is completely incongruent with self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10982 "2013-06-18T02:43:59Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Self-defense can absolutely be disproved by inference from the case-in-chief. Yes, I know, and that’s what I’ve said for days, which is why it’s so strange that everyone is arguing with me about it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=548) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=550)