Well, you are both persistently wrong. But I wouldn’t say you are on the same page - you are wrong on the facts, the evidence and the law. Stoid is only wrong on the law. Of course, she has put a lot more effort into being wrong on the law than you have, so chin up.
Regards,
Shodan
They won’t sway the jury because they won’t happen. The defense’s in limine motions to exclude that evidence were granted. Witness 8 won’t be asked any questions that elicit any information about how Zimmerman sexually abused her and about the racist comments from his family.
Because you seem to be missing the specific implications of the general rule.
In order to prove the accused committed the crime, the prosecution must prove the truth of all the elements of the crime, proving each one beyond a reasonable doubt.
When the accused offers even a scintilla of evidence of self-defense, then the prosecution becomes obligated to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not the same thing as before, because the list of elements the prosecution must prove has changed. It’s grown longer.
When you say, “…the accused did in fact commit the crime he has been charged with, yet simultaneously have failed to disprove self-defense…” it appears (at least to me) that you’re not recognizing the way that can happen: if the prosecution proves all the original elements of second-degree murder but fails to address the claim of self-defense.
Now, I get that you’re hanging your hat on the “lawfully” aspect of the issue, and reasoning that if the jury finds he acted unlawfully, that’s the same as the jury rejecting the idea of self-defense. But that fails to take into account the requirement that the record must reflect positive evidence on which the jury can rely to establish each and every element. If the prosecution simply fails to address the claim of self-defense, the jury might indeed decide he’s guilty, but that verdict won’t withstand challenge, because the record will be legally insufficient.
Yes.
But remember: it’s not always true. It’s true for this case, because that’s Florida law.
Other states require that the accused prove self-defense by preponderance of the evidence.
you with the face seems stuck in that mode: she expects the defense to have some burden to prove their self-defense case, and if this trial were happening under the laws of, say, Michigan, she’d be precisely correct in that expectation.
Not according to the instructions here. The operative language is included in the last sentence of the document, right before the closing comment:
Notice there is nothing in there implying that if from the evidence the jury is convinced that the defendant is guilty of all the elements of the charge, they should acquit if the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense. Wanna know why that’s not in there? Because it’s retarded.
Just because a judge decides there is cause to educate the jury as to what constitutes justified use of deadly force doesn’t suddenly mean the prosecution has an added hurdle to jump.
Why the hell are you quoting jury instructions when the issue is legal sufficiency?
Answer: because you don’t understand the concept of legal sufficiency.
Notice that you are completely unable to articulate what elements the prosecution must prove.
Furthermore, the instructions say nothing about the evidence proving that justified use of deadly force did not occur. The juror only need to be convinced from the evidence that the killing was unjustified.
And under Florida law, that the accused was not acting in self-defense is one of the elements of the charge that has to be proven.
Florida law says that the prosecution has an added hurdle to jump. Namely, that if the defendant claims self-defense and has a scintilla of evidence to back him or her up, then the prosecution has to prove that additional element.
IOW, it is contradictory to say that the prosecution has proven all the elements that determine murder without proving that it was not self-defense. If the prosecution hasn’t proven that it wasn’t self-defense, then he hasn’t proven all the elements of the crime.
Regards,
Shodan
Once again, you butt your nose into a conversation I’m having with someone else to ask a stupid question that should be obvious to answer, if you’re following the conversation.
Human Action brought up the instructions. I’ve politely pointed out to him that the instructions say nothing to support his assertion.
Yeah, Bricker - how dare you talk about the law?
Regards,
Shodan
Ahem:
What do you think that means?
Accord this discussion:
The accused has NO burden for proof of self-defense once he has presented any evidence, however slight, to support it.
Here is the money quote:
You don’t understand his assertion.
The requirement is that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. (Brown v. State). The jury instructions do not address the question of legal sufficiency of the record. The jury must have positive evidence in the record to support whatever it finds. In the case of self-defense, that includes a positive requirement that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
That’s what the law of the state of Florida says.
That said, the instructions you quote accurately reflect that reality:
If there is a reasonable doubt about the justification, self-defense, then he must be found not guilty.
Thus, the state must prove the lack of justification (self-defense) beyond that reasonable doubt.
It means the same thing it would mean if we were talking about any other murder case. If there is reasonable doubt that a murder occurred (because it might have occured in self-defense, or because some other person could’ve done it), then the jury is legally required to acquit.
The prosecution’s burden of proof doesn’t change just because the defense claims self-defense. Do you disagree with this?
The list of elements the prosecution must prove DOES change when the defense claims self-defense. So, yes, I disagree. The BURDEN for each element does not change – it remains “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But the set of facts the prosecution must address (you know, the one you keep dodging when asked to provide) changes.
They are specifically instructed to acquit if they have a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused acted in self-defense, and you maintain that this means nothing?
The burden is the same, “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
you with the face:
A simple question for you.
What specific elements must the prosecution prove true in order to convict Zimmerman?
Answer that question, please.
[QUOTE=Human Action]
The burden is the same, “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
[/QUOTE]
I think she means what Bricker talks about - is the number of elements that has to be proven greater under a claim of self-defense? It is - there is an additional element that wouldn’t be there if not for the self-defense claim.
Unfortunately, now you with the face is going to pretend you are agreeing with her.
Regards,
Shodan
She lives in a little world that only occasionally, and accidentally, intersects with the real one.
Perhaps, when the two by chance meet again, she’ll deign to list the elements of the offense.
That’s not what I understand “burden of proof” to mean, but yes, with a scintilla of evidence of self-defense, there is an additional element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury instructions that have been quoted, which are only given when the scintilla exists, explicitly state this.