Trayvon Martin Case

JR where does the burden stand on this type of issue. Does Z have to prove he was reasonably in fear or does the prosecution have to prove he wasn't?

Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is initially on Z to assert but, once asserted and a prima facia case made, it is up to the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.

Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A More Detailed Statement:
The burden of initially producing "some evidence" on the issue of mitigation or self-defense (or of relying upon evidence produced by the State) sufficient to give rise to a jury issue with respect to these defenses, is properly cast upon the defendant. Once the issue has been generated by the evidence, however, the State must carry the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on that issue. ... [T]he Court recognized that many states do require the defendant to make a threshold showing that there is "some evidence" indicating that the defendant acted in the heat of passion before the prosecution is required to negate this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution need not in the first instance introduce evidence of facts which negate the existence of mitigating circumstances or of self-defense; and if the defendant adduces no evidence of these matters, no issue of their existence is raised in the case and no jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances or self-defense need be given. [emphasis mine]

Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;1014343]Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown.

He fired the shot that killed Martin, and that my friend is Z's contribution to the physical confrontation. He shot an unarmed person, after confronting them. Martin had a right to be where he was, he was visiting a resident. Joe acts as if Trayvon was a scary unusual person. He saw someone walking through a condo complex. so what? They get into a wrestling match, so what? He shot the guy, highly unusual event.

Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is initially on Z to assert but, once asserted and a prima facia case made, it is up to the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.

Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A More Detailed Statement:
The burden of initially producing "some evidence" on the issue of mitigation or self-defense (or of relying upon evidence produced by the State) sufficient to give rise to a jury issue with respect to these defenses, is properly cast upon the defendant. Once the issue has been generated by the evidence, however, the State must carry the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on that issue. ... [T]he Court recognized that many states do require the defendant to make a threshold showing that there is "some evidence" indicating that the defendant acted in the heat of passion before the prosecution is required to negate this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution need not in the first instance introduce evidence of facts which negate the existence of mitigating circumstances or of self-defense; and if the defendant adduces no evidence of these matters, no issue of their existence is raised in the case and no jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances or self-defense need be given. [emphasis mine]

Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.

Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. Joe comes out but Rat never reemerges on the video feed. Rat's body is found later in the room. Joe says it self defense. No one can prove it was not self defense. Joe goes free?

Joe, do you mind commenting on The Stand Your Ground defense and the likelihood of Zimmerman requesting it once closing statements are made?

Its seems that the defense only waived their right to a Stand Your Ground pretrial because they didn't want to show the prosecution (or the media) what their defense was. Perhaps they were also concerned of losing the pretrial and having that ruling potentially influence would be jurors.

The following article notes:

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:

Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.

No 'Stand Your Ground' for Zimmerman... yet | HLNtv.com (http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/29/live-blog-zimmerman-back-court-critical-hearing)

In your unbiased legal opinion and with regards only the specific and exact facts know to us thus far, do you think Zimmerman has a reasonable chance to prove all of the above factors? Would it be right to assume that his legal team will likely try to prove these factors in conjunction with their defense?

Wow. Just wow. You're either a hypocrite or a f***'ing barbarian.

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

BUT ... accepting your premise arguendo -- following and verbally confronting TM legitimately put TM in fear for his life but TM having Z pinned to the ground and inflicting the injuries evidenced by TM did not put Z in reasonable fear of his own.

Don't look now, you're double standard is showing.



Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:
Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.



These same statements apply to Martin. Making his murder an unlawful act.

Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown.

He fired the shot that killed Martin, and that my friend is Z's contribution to the physical confrontation. He shot an unarmed person, after confronting them. Martin had a right to be where he was, he was visiting a resident. Joe acts as if Trayvon was a scary unusual person. He saw someone walking through a condo complex. so what? They get into a wrestling match, so what? He shot the guy, highly unusual event.

Firing the shot was the conclusion of the physical confrontation - not it's initiation. Sorry, since "who initiated the physical confrontation" has been my central theme, I thought you smart enough to pick up on the nuance. Going forward, I shall not make any assumptions as to your ability for basic contextual analysis or, for that matter, any semblance of intelligence on your part.

Martin had a right to be where he was. Z had a right to be where he was. What neither had the right to do was initiate a physical confrontation or put the other in fear of imminent physical danger. Has the State shown beyond a a reasonable doubt that Z initiated a physical confrontation or put the TM in fear of imminent physical danger? Does not appear that way to me.

Was TM a "scary unusual person"? Don't know, don't care and have never asserted anything one way or the other on the topic.

The assertion "they get into a wrestling match" glosses over most of the key factual elements the State needs to prove and completely eliminates others.

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:
Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.



These same statements apply to Martin. Making his murder an unlawful act.

See, now you're just being obtuse and stupid. Confess, you're really Goat.

Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.

Fine, but Z is charged with the crime and the State has to prove all the requisite elements of the crime they allege he committed. It's not enough to say TM was not guilty the State has to demonstrate, with evidence, that Z is guilty.

In your outline above, because the evidence generated to date indicates a claim for self-defence, the allegation that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that all TM did was "punch someone".

Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. Joe comes out but Rat never reemerges on the video feed. Rat's body is found later in the room. Joe says it self defense. No one can prove it was not self defense. Joe goes free?

If those are the facts, all the facts, and, at the trial, the prosecution introduces my statements to them where I claim self-defense and they have nothing to contradict it. I go free. I don't even have to testify under oath.

It's the State's burden to prove my guilt, not mine to prove my innocence. Hopefully, it will remain that way as long as I live and beyond.

Besides, I have a feeling the only Rat and I would kill is a bottle of Jack while we called each other names and argued about the existence of the dragon in the garage.