There really isn’t ANY evidence that a jury can rely on 100%.
Was there DNA evidence? Maybe it was planted.
Were carpet fibers used to create a match? Even if they weren’t planted, maybe it’s a coincidence.
Was there a video of the event? Maybe something happened before or after the clip, or off screen, that was relevant.
Were there witnesses? Maybe they are biased or simply mistaken.
Is a witness lying? Even if we know so, maybe there are parts of the testimony that contain truth.
That’s the whole point of the jury system. Two adversarial parties present differing viewpoints on the evidence and twelve ordinary people choose what to believe. The system is weighted in favor of innocence when those twelve people don’t agree. The jury is in charge of deciding what to throw out and what to believe.
So… what we wind up with is the standard legal convention: a preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. I don’t see any reason to throw something out through an arbitrary rule when I can see how that evidence compares to other information I have.
If Dunn had testified that he honestly thought he was acting in self-defense of humanity by shooting someone whom he believed to be the Devil, would you similarly conclude that courts must defer to his justification?
If someone shoots someone in the back in a brightly lit room, we can be sure he wasn’t in fear of that person attacking him. That’s the sort of level of proof that would be needed, something far beyond differing witness testimonies.
You are quite entitled to judge that someone is lying. What you can’t do is conclude anything factual from that judgement. That someone was lying does not in any way strengthen opposing evidence, that evidence needs to be strong enough on its own to convict.
People should not be expected to prove their innocence. Frankly, the idea that people should even be expected to speak in their own defence in court is troublesome.
Depends, would a reasonable person in Dunn’s position have believed that? If so, then yes, they should.
It’s quite clear that someone who honestly believed that would not be guilty of murder, though. Dangerously mentally ill, most likely, but not a murderer, nor acting in self defence. But convicting them would be equally wrong as convicting someone who acted in justified self defence.
But defense lawyers are not allowed to bring up how unreliable witness testimony is. Juries are given the impression that they can decide whether a witness is telling the truth, or if they’re lying. They are very much not given the impression that it’s a very common occurrence for witnesses to be telling the truth about what they think they saw, but still be wrong. Jurors for the most part don’t have the knowledge required to assess this possibility. In most areas where a juror wouldn’t be expected to know something, you’re allowed to bring in expert testimony, but you aren’t with regard to the reliability of witnesses.
I’m not saying that witness testimony should be disallowed, I just think that lawyers should have a greater ability to point out how unreliable witnesses are. I think that would tend to shift how jurors weigh witness testimony.
I mean, for other sorts of evidence (DNA, fingerprinting, etc.) you’re allowed to call expert witnesses to explain how the process works, how reliable it is, etc. I think that evidence from witnesses should be treated the same way.
I’m a bleeding heart liberal who thinks it’s better to let guilty people go free than risk jailing the innocent, and even I think that’s way too high a bar to convict.
I don’t see any other option, apart from denying either the right to self defence, or the right not to have to prove one’s innocence. I don’t accept that either of those are negotiable, and the consequence of that is that a few murderers will get away with it. Far better than people who are not just innocent but the victims of crime being falsely convicted and imprisoned or even executed for murder.
It depends on the state. In quite a few states, as long as self-defense is raised, the prosecution has to prove that it wasn’t, beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution would have to prove it’s unreasonable - specifically, that no reasonable person in that situation would have felt in fear of imminent death or serious injury.
Reasonableness tests are a fundamental part of the justice system, and it is the job if the jury to decide, as we assume they are reasonable people, and indeed take some measures to check they are.
This is a pretty well established legal principle. In law, standards can be broken into two broad classes: subjective standards and objective standards. A subjective standard relates to how the specific thoughts or beliefs of an individual in question, while an objective test relates to what a “reasonable man” would believe in a given situation. Self defense claims are (for the most part) judged with an objective test: would a reasonable man in this situation have thought that his life was in imminent danger? If so (whether or not he was actually in danger), a self defense claim is valid. If not, it is not.
Except that, if we accept as several states do that one doesn’t have to prove innocence, the test is that a reasonable man could not have been in such fear, and if so, the self defence was not justified.
Part of my argument is that this is the way it should be done, because that’s the only morally acceptable way to do it, regardless of the consequences.
To follow up: I thought there were more states where that wasn’t the standard, but according to this, in 49 states, the prosecution has to disprove the claim of self-defense beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict. Ohio is the odd one out.
I think you’re conflating the test with the standard of proof. The test is: “would a reasonable man in this situation have felt that his life was in imminent danger?” If someone in the car was pointing a shotgun at him, I think most judges would say yes, a reasonable man in that situation would have felt his life was in imminent danger. If there was no weapon being brandished in the car, and no one was exiting the car, and the car wasn’t in a position to run this guy over and… I think most judges would say that a reasonable person would not fear that his life was in imminent danger.
The burden of proof is "has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have a shotgun pointed at him (or that there were not any other reasons for a reasonable man to believe his life was in imminent danger). The jury did believe that the prosecutor had proven this to the necessary standard: Many witnesses independently testified that there was no shotgun, nor any other reason for a reasonable person to fear that his life was in imminent danger.
A) How can you prove it was a brightly lit room? The only people who could testify as to the level of light would be witnesses, and you’ve ruled them out. The shooter merely has to say it was dimly lit.
B) How can you show he was shot in the back? That takes witnesses, too–usually expert witnesses from the coroner’s office, but hey, they might be biased. The shooter merely has to say he shot at the front.
C) How can you show the victim didn’t turn suddenly, or get hit by a ricochet, or have his arm raised/twisted such that a bullet fired at the front entered his back? Again, you need witnesses, and you’ve decided to deny all witness testimony.
However, people DON’T have to speak in their own defense. They are perfectly free to remain silent, and the standard instructions to the jury usually include something to the effect that no inference can be made from the defendant’s decision not to testify.
They are expected or required to testify only when they want to give their own version of events, different from what the other witnesses say.
What you are trying to implement would not result in just a few guilty going free; essentially, virtually all of the guilty would go free. How would you ever convict anybody of anything absent witness testimony?
Last time I checked, that’s not the case. At least not here in the U.S. – that’s that whole 5th amendment thing. (You can CHOOSE to testify if you wish, but you do not have to)
How can the prosecution show unreasonableness? You seem to have established a presumption that someone claiming self defense must merely have a sincere belief that their actions were justifiable. How can that be disproven?
Juries are entitled to take the totality of evidence, as they did in the Dunn case (different testimony including Dunn’s girlfriend, physical evidence, Dunn’s admission and testimony, etc.) and make a judgment beyond a reasonable doubt if they feel the evidence is strong enough.