I think there must be deep layers of miscommunication happening here. Which, if any, of the following premises do you disagree with:
(1) The prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman lacked one or more of the factual requirements for a claim of self-defense.
(2) If Zimmerman presents evidence that causes the jury to have reasonable doubt about whether or not he acted in self-defense, even if the jury thinks that he probably did not act in self-defense, he must be acquitted.
(3) If the prosecution submitted detailed evidence about Zimmerman’s intent to kill Martin when he pulled the trigger, and nothing more, then Zimmerman must be acquitted.
I also see a couple of other misconceptions that it might help to clear:
(1) The statutory language describing a crime does not necessarily describe the elements that must be proven. Often, elements are read into the statute (such as by defining “killing” as having two separate elements, “causing” and “death,”) or by requiring implicit elements to be explicitly proven (such as requiring the causing of death to be intentional). Moreover, language such as “unlawful killing” or “unlawful dumping” does not in itself add or subtract elements. This was just old-school drafting language to make it clear that the state was contemplating that the customary defenses applied.
(2) “Elements” are logically distinct categories of fact, meaning it is possible to prove one without proving the others. But logically distinct does not mean always perfectly separate. Sometimes, the actual evidence you use to prove one element will prove the others. This doesn’t mean they aren’t separate elements, or that you can ignore their difference. It just means your evidence happened to go to both points in a particular case.
(3) For each element, one party bears the burden of proof, and that burden will determine how persuasive their evidence must be. If the prosecution bears the burden of proof that there was no self-defense, that means it must negate one or more of the elements of self-defense. If the burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then that is the standard by which it must disprove the element. Failure to understand who bears the burden might cause you to misunderstand, for example, how much evidence of self-defense Zimmerman must present (which is just enough to cast reasonable doubt as to whether he acted in self-defense, but he need not persuade the jury that self-defense is the likeliest possibility).
Jury deliberations should be interesting if this thread’s any judge. (220 pages?!)
Anyway, Bricker, back in October 2012, citedMontijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, (Fla. 5th DCA, 2011). Per the previous citation, it’s a 2011 case, in the same appellate district that the Zimmerman trial will be held in.
IANAL, but Montijo looks exactly on point for Bricker’s statement that the prosecution has the burden of proof for disproving a defendant’s validly presented claim of self-defense, and that the burden must be met beyond a reasonable doubt. See for yourself. I haven’t Shepardized it, though…
Maybe an unwarranted assumption on my part: I sometimes worry that my comments on legal matters are dismissed because readers feel I might advancing a political position of some kind. From your reaction, obviously that wasn’t the case here.
But I don’t really have the energy to continue this tangent, especially since Richard Parker is doing a better job than I of explaining the issue. (Depressingly frequent occurrence, that!)
It’s really not a huge issue for me if you go through life continuing to be unaware of how the state of Florida allocates the burden of proof for self-defense. Hopefully, most readers of the thread get it – if not from blind faith in me, then acceptance of the unanimity of response from other attorneys.
When I worked for a trial judge, we used to joke that the appellate court had it easy because while we had to dig the trenches and fight the initial battle, they just got to swoop in and shoot the injured. So it goes with jumping into online arguments sometimes. The lines have already been drawn and some of the misconceptions and miscommunications laid bare, making it easier to focus on the specific point of ignorance or misunderstanding. (Which is not to say I’ve successfully done that, as I’m sure we’ll shortly learn.)
I think everyone who wants to understand does understand, but that was true twenty pages ago.
It will be interesting to hear the instructions to the jury in Zimmerman’s trial (if it gets that far). Maybe if the judge says something like “keep in mind that the prosecution also has to prove that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, and if they don’t, he should be acquitted” or something similar, then Stoid and you with the face will see that they were mistaken, and admit it.
Many thanks for your explanations - one question - the defense must do more than just say ‘Self Defense’ right? they must spell out why it was self defense (what actions by whom led to the situation that put the defendant on the defensive) - and it is this ‘element’ (or elements of that claim) that the prosecution must then dis-prove.
Am I right so far?
What I am still unsure of - in order to get disprove this claim of ‘self defense’ - how many of the ‘elements’ of that claim must the prosecution disprove ? one/all/most? I realize that many times any single element is all it takes in the mind of the jury - but to the trial judge when the defense lays out its motion that the prosecution ‘failed to disprove’…
Essentially. The defense does have to do more than intone, “Self-defense.” But not much more than that – they have to raise a “mere scintilla” of evidence that supports self-defense.
The specific answer depends on the specific facts, but in general the prosecution must disprove any element that would support the self-defense theory. For example, self-defense generally requires that the actor have a genuine fear of death or serious bodily injury. It would be enough to give the jury evidence from which they could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was never in such fear.
Oops, missed Bricker’s answer on preview, which I think says the same thing as my post.
[spoiler]
The defendant has what’s called a “burden of production” on this issue, which is duty to set forth evidence in order to raise an issue or to survive a motion concerning the lack of evidence. In Florida, once a defendant meets the burden of production on self-defense, then the prosecution bears the burden of proof for persuading the jury on the issue.
I’m not 100% clear on what Florida’s standard is for the defendant’s burden of production on self-defense, but it is something like enough evidence that, if credited by the jury as true and ignoring any countervailing evidence, would create reasonable doubt about whether the defendant acted in self-defense. Necessarily this means the evidence suggests each of the elements of self-defense might be true, since if it fails to suggest that any one of the elements might be true then it doesn’t adequately raise the defense.
The answer is “one,” regardless of whether the issue is in the jury’s hands or being raised in a trial motion. If one required element of the defense is negated beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defense is void. On a motion by the defense that the issue shouldn’t even get to the jury, they would have to show that no reasonable jury could find that the prosecution negated any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.[/spoiler]
Am I right in saying that those elements are that the defendant was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury*, and not that the elements are the specific scenario that the defence put forward?
*That is, the elements are 1)The defendant was in fear 2)of death or serious injury and 3)that said fear was reasonable.
It really does depend on the factual predicates developed at trial. For example, in Florida, although there’s no general duty to retreat, if the prosecution proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the accused was the initial aggressor within the meaning of § 776.041, then claiming self-defense would also require that the accused had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger other than the use of deadly force, and the prosecution could disprove only that element.
I’m starting to see why this confuses people… I think I’ve got my head round it, but then there’s always an exception.
I guess that’s why you guys get paid so much.
So, in that case, would the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was the initial aggressor? That is, assuming that the defence doesn’t concede that point.
Yes, exactly correct. In that case, the elements would include being the initial aggressor, and would include ONE of:
(1) Not being in fear, or
(2) Fear wasn’t of death or serious bodily injury, or
(3) Fear wasn’t reasonable, or
(4) Failure to exhaust other reasonable means of escape
Some people here sure are playing fast and loose with the difference between “makes any assertion of self-defense whatsoever” and “presents a prima facie case of self-defense.”
From what Bricker and others have said, any piece of evidence that, if believed by the jury, would cast reasonable doubt on the claim that he acted in self defence, would suffice, whether that evidence is offered by the defence or not.
If that evidence is testimony by the defendant, which is the most obvious way it would be offered, the prosecution would presumably be able to cross examine him, to attempt to prove he was not actually in fear, for example.
And it’s not a huge issue for me if you find it impossible to admit that self-defense claims can be adequately disproved by inference from the strength of the prosecution’s case, rather than by a direct attack on the claim itself.
Now that that’s over… can someone direct me to anything legally meaningful (vs. our arguments and opinions about what actually satisfies the legal standards in the case) that eliminates any possibility of Zimmerman’s self-defense assertion being undermined by a finding that he provoked Martin into acting first by scaring the shit out of him? (Again, yes, I know we can battle for days over whether that could be proved one way or another, I’m just asking if there’s any LEGAL reason it’s not a possibility in this case? I searched and just got lost…
It’s a little ambiguous whether you’ve knocked down a straw man, or you still don’t understand how elements work, but it’s one of the two.
Straw man version:
A piece of evidence used to prove one point might also be used to prove another. If you thought people were doubting that, you are wrong. That’s pure straw man.
Misunderstanding version:
Proof of one element by overwhelming evidence can compensate for the failure to prove another required element. If you think that, you are wrong. Every element must be proved.
To recap, the requirement that each element be proven has nothing to do with the extent to which evidence can be applied to multiple elements.
