- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 88,714
- Reaction score
- 65,724
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
No defendent should have to prove that they are innocent.
And again; It doesn't actually have to be proven at all.That's not the case here. He's not having to prove his innocence. When you declare innocence you are declaring that you didn't do something. He did in fact shoot and kill someone. From that point on, he has to prove that he did so in self defense.
And again; It doesn't actually have to be proven at all.
If Martin didn't attack Zimmerman how is it that Zimmerman had a bloody nose and 2 gashes on the back of his head? Which the proof of that is in the enhanced video's of Zimmerman at the police station.
That's not the case here. He's not having to prove his innocence. When you declare innocence you are declaring that you didn't do something. He did in fact shoot and kill someone. From that point on, he has to prove that he did so in self defense.
Disagree.
Everybody is saying that it is an affirmative defense and he has to do this or that.
bs
He doesn't [highlight]have[/highlight] to do anything.
The defense can simply argue to the jury that the prosecution did not prove all the elements of the crime charged.
Because, no matter what, the prosecution still has that obligation.
Would that be a wise move? Hell no! I only state it to show that the defense doesn't have to do jack.
[SIZE=1][B]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/B]
David Beneman
Maine CJA Resource Counsel
Levenson, Vickerson & Beneman
P.O. Box 465
Portland, ME 04112
...
[B]I. Legal Groundwork For Affirmative Defenses
A. What is an Affirmative Defense?[/B]
An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential
element of the crime charge. To establish an affirmative defense the defendant [highlight]must place
before the jury sufficient proof[/highlight] to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory
sought. Normally, an affirmative defense is expressly designated as affirmative by statute,
or is a defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the
accused.
[B]B. How is an Affirmative Defense different from a “Regular” Defense?[/B]
An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be
it testimonial or physical. [highlight]The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
Government witnesses[/highlight] or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.
Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction.
[B]C. Types of Defenses[/B]
There are two categories of defense.
1. I did not do it defenses, and
2. I did it but defenses.
Affirmative defenses are available in both categories.
[...]
[INDENT][B]ii. I Did It But[/B]
Many more affirmative defenses fall into the “I did it but” category. Insanity,
entrapment, self defense, necessity, duress, are many of the statutory affirmative
defenses. In these situations, there is a major strategic aspect to deciding on the
defense. Assertion of the specific affirmative defense essentially concedes that the
defendant was involved in the conduct alleged. While the government must still
prove each element assertion of many affirmative defenses tells the jury the
government is in fact correct as too much of the charge, BUT, there is a fact or facts
which serve to exonerate the conduct. Self defense is an affirmative defense to
assault, but by asserting self defense the defendant admits to the assault then gives
a legal reason why guilt does not attach to the conduct. If the jury rejects the self
defense argument, they are supposed to still find proof BRD of all the elements.
Once you have put on your self defense claim, do you think a jury will spend much
time on deciding if assaultive conduct actually occurred? I don’t think so. In an I
did it but case, the defense is generally hanging the whole case on the jury accepting
the affirmative defense presented. Sure there are exceptions to every rule but
realistically how may jurors will accept arguments in the alternative. I did not assault
her, but if I did it was in self defense. I don’t think that works with a jury. Maybe
in a bench trial but even federal judges are human. In deciding to present an I did it
but affirmative defense review these issues with the client. I suggest you have a letter
explaining the issues to them.[/INDENT]
[B]Google Doc[/B]
[url]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:06-_HilumfEJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf+affirmative+defense&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQQ9DDIG6I9rtWnkdrvG4XMpf-h2KGVxjIf2cgCnXgnZ6rKrFrnVZwDO3Pw-YkvR4VQt6w8d4k7Jd6u3XiNVni3HwMVJaz2xJgZswMP-HkNfqJhwe5jZwla03YrbDJEf3LwZ9D&sig=AHIEtbQjGQcnos5_jKrclWonXfetxH8Zuw[/url]
[B]Straight Pdf[/B]
[url=www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/url][/SIZE]
More on Affirmative Defense
Specifically as it relates to Florida
An “affirmative defense” is any defense that assumes the complaint or charges to be correct but raises other facts that, if true, would establish a valid excuse or justification or a right to engage in the conduct in question. An affirmative defense does not concern itself with the elements of the offense at all; it concedes them. In effect, an affirmative defense says, “Yes, I did it, but I had a good reason.” State v. Cohen, 568 So.2d 49, 51-52 (Fla. 1990). Stated differently, an affirmative defense is any matter that avoids the action and that, under applicable law, the plaintiff is not bound to prove initially but the defendant must affirmatively establish. Langford v. McCormick, 552 So.2d 964, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Affirmative Defense - Florida Legal Wiki
Is that actually what needs to be proven at trial?
I thought that was just to make an arrest.
I thought at trial that self-defense is an affirmative defense where the defendant has to show that he was acting in self-defense.
I will let the following explain it better.
UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Code:[SIZE=1][B]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/B] David Beneman Maine CJA Resource Counsel Levenson, Vickerson & Beneman P.O. Box 465 Portland, ME 04112 ... [B]I. Legal Groundwork For Affirmative Defenses A. What is an Affirmative Defense?[/B] An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential element of the crime charge. To establish an affirmative defense the defendant [highlight]must place before the jury sufficient proof[/highlight] to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory sought. Normally, an affirmative defense is expressly designated as affirmative by statute, or is a defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. [B]B. How is an Affirmative Defense different from a “Regular” Defense?[/B] An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be it testimonial or physical. [highlight]The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of Government witnesses[/highlight] or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief. Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction. [B]C. Types of Defenses[/B] There are two categories of defense. 1. I did not do it defenses, and 2. I did it but defenses. Affirmative defenses are available in both categories. [...] [INDENT][B]ii. I Did It But[/B] Many more affirmative defenses fall into the “I did it but” category. Insanity, entrapment, self defense, necessity, duress, are many of the statutory affirmative defenses. In these situations, there is a major strategic aspect to deciding on the defense. Assertion of the specific affirmative defense essentially concedes that the defendant was involved in the conduct alleged. While the government must still prove each element assertion of many affirmative defenses tells the jury the government is in fact correct as too much of the charge, BUT, there is a fact or facts which serve to exonerate the conduct. Self defense is an affirmative defense to assault, but by asserting self defense the defendant admits to the assault then gives a legal reason why guilt does not attach to the conduct. If the jury rejects the self defense argument, they are supposed to still find proof BRD of all the elements. Once you have put on your self defense claim, do you think a jury will spend much time on deciding if assaultive conduct actually occurred? I don’t think so. In an I did it but case, the defense is generally hanging the whole case on the jury accepting the affirmative defense presented. Sure there are exceptions to every rule but realistically how may jurors will accept arguments in the alternative. I did not assault her, but if I did it was in self defense. I don’t think that works with a jury. Maybe in a bench trial but even federal judges are human. In deciding to present an I did it but affirmative defense review these issues with the client. I suggest you have a letter explaining the issues to them.[/INDENT] [B]Google Doc[/B] [url]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:06-_HilumfEJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf+affirmative+defense&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQQ9DDIG6I9rtWnkdrvG4XMpf-h2KGVxjIf2cgCnXgnZ6rKrFrnVZwDO3Pw-YkvR4VQt6w8d4k7Jd6u3XiNVni3HwMVJaz2xJgZswMP-HkNfqJhwe5jZwla03YrbDJEf3LwZ9D&sig=AHIEtbQjGQcnos5_jKrclWonXfetxH8Zuw[/url] [B]Straight Pdf[/B] [url=www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/url][/SIZE]
Can you provide a link to the video that shows a bloody nose? I haven't seen it. Also, have you had a bloody nose? Blood goes everywhere unless you stop the bleeding right away. The video I saw showed no blood on his shirt or jacket, front or back. Seems kinda odd to me...
LOLYour cut and past of Affirmative Defense proves I'm right.
And again; It doesn't actually have to be proven at all.
That's more a statement of your feelings than an assessment of how the self-defense defense works.No defendent should have to prove that they are innocent.
Affirmative defense | LII / Legal Information InstituteHe has already provided his affirmative defense.
All his lawyer has to do is introduce it at trial, which can be achieved in a few ways. One of which can be accomplished without Zimmerman even testifying.
But as I said previously, I seriously doubt that he wont testify.
And it doesn't actually have to be proven at all.
Based on those facts that we know Zimmerman I dont think it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. At best it is controversial and that works to the defendants benefit.
Go back and read what I provided.That's more a statement of your feelings than an assessment of how the self-defense defense works.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense generally.
Affirmative defense | LII / Legal Information Institute
A defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts. Self-defense, entrapment, insanity, and necessity are some examples of affirmative defenses. See, e.g. Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998).
So it seems he does have to show that he was acting in self-defense. If he can't show that then the jury is to find him guilty, afaict.
This is different than how muciti characterized it:
Muciti seems to say that if the state can't show beyond a reasonable doubt then Z is acquitted.
But what I reading elsewhere seems to say that if Z can't show that he acted in self-defense, he is convicted.
I am not sure that the ambiguity works to Z benefit in the trial stage though it seems it did in the investigation phase because of the sygl.
I adjusted your highlights to make it more clear as to who has the obligation to do whatI will let the following explain it better.
UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Code:[SIZE=1][B]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/B] [B]I. Legal Groundwork For Affirmative Defenses A. What is an Affirmative Defense?[/B] An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential element of the crime charge. To establish an affirmative defense [/SIZE][highlight][b][u][SIZE=1]the defendant[/u][/b] must place before the jury sufficient [B][I][U][FONT=Georgia]proof[/FONT][/U][/I][/B][/highlight] to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory sought. Normally, an affirmative defense is expressly designated as affirmative by statute, or is a defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. [B]B. How is an Affirmative Defense different from a “Regular” Defense?[/B] An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be it testimonial or physical. The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of Government witnesses or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief. Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the charge. [/SIZE][highlight][b][SIZE=1]A [u]defendant[/u] must generate an affirmative defense instruction.[/b][/SIZE][/highlight][SIZE=1] [B]Google Doc[/B] [URL]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:06-_HilumfEJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf+affirmative+defense&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQQ9DDIG6I9rtWnkdrvG4XMpf-h2KGVxjIf2cgCnXgnZ6rKrFrnVZwDO3Pw-YkvR4VQt6w8d4k7Jd6u3XiNVni3HwMVJaz2xJgZswMP-HkNfqJhwe5jZwla03YrbDJEf3LwZ9D&sig=AHIEtbQjGQcnos5_jKrclWonXfetxH8Zuw[/URL] [B]Straight Pdf[/B] [URL="http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf"]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/URL][/SIZE]
If Martin didn't attack Zimmerman how is it that Zimmerman had a bloody nose and 2 gashes on the back of his head? Which the proof of that is in the enhanced video's of Zimmerman at the police station.
What you posted uses the language "the defendant must".Go back and read what I provided.
He does not have to do jack.
In any assault type offence, you can raise self defence as an issue in your case. Once the question of self-defence is put in issue, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fail to disprove self defence the accused will be entitled to an acquittal.
The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he [or she] did (Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (1987) 162 CLR 645 at 661 per Wilson, Dawson and Toohey JJ).
There are two elements to this test:
The accused must have believed at the time that s/he committed the relevant act that what s/he was doing was necessary (known as the “subjective element”); and
That belief must have been based on reasonable grounds (known as the “objective element”).
Raising Self defence & who has to prove what
Once the question of self-defence is put in issue, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove at least one of these elements beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fail to disprove at least one of these elements the accused will be entitled to an acquittal.
Based on what I and econ have posted, I think that you are in error on this count. ymmvThe burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. Zimmerman has claimed self defense. He does not have to prove it. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act with self defense. Zimmerman's defense only has to make 1 out of 12 people believe that he might have acted in self defense. The prosecution has to prove to all 12 that there is no way that he acted in self defense.
You know better than this.What posted use the language "the defendant must".
Maybe those words mean something different to you than they do to me. w/e
:shrug:
Based on what I and econ have posted, I think that you are in error on this count. ymmv
Go back and read what I provided.
He does not have to do jack.
You know better than this.
The defense can simply argue that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof.
They can do this in a motion to dismiss to the court, and they can argue it to a jury, all without having introduced anything.
Do you understand that?
The parts I reposted and highlighted, boldfaced and underlined, etc.Which part?
yourWhat is ymmv?
The parts I reposted and highlighted, boldfaced and underlined, etc.
QUOTE]
I must be missing something. You reposted my entire post, but i dont see anything highlighted bold faced or underlined.
You know better than this.
The defense can simply argue that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof.
They can do this in a motion to dismiss to the court, and they can argue it to a jury, all without having introduced anything.
Do you understand that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?