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 The law does not exist in the isolation of one case–especially one that is no longer applicable to the current law.
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:
You go from that directly to this:
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?
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:
Which led to:
To which I replied:
Then:
And I said:
Steophan again:
(???:rolleyes:)
Steophan evidently thinks that "distinction means “repeat yourself”
Then you said:
Gee, seems to me that if they’ve proved murder beyond a reasonable doubt, then self-defense can’t be possible.
Like I said:
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!
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:
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?
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:
. 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
You were equating law with brain surgery, it’s not.
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.
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.)
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, directlydisprove 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:
Which are all different ways of describing “inference from the case in chief” is wrong?
I think the standard instruction you’re searching for is 3.6(f), which reads, in relevant part:
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.”
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.
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
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.
