Trayvon Martin Case

(1) Your just f'ing wrong on how you are applying the law. It is not his "burden to create doubt". Read the F'ing case law OMT googled and the jury instructions and tell me how your assertion is consistent with them.

(2) So you entireely discount the EMT's assertion that a person exhibiting GZ's injuries would probably be in fear for their medical safety and concerned about concussive or brain injuries. Doesn't cause you the tiniest bit of doubt. Good isn't credible?? The one guy who had a close up view of the altercation as it was occuring? And his testimony that GZ was screaming for help is just flluff?

Affirmative defense is a defense raised by the defending party.

In a civil matter, to gain the benefit of the affirmative defense, the defendant raising it must prove all its elements by a preponderance of the evidence. If he does so, plaintiff must then rebut the defense by disproving one or more elements by a preponderance of the evidence or his claim will fail.

In a criminal matter, whether raised by the defendant or fairly generated by the State's evidence, once a prima facie case has been made (i.e. viewing the facts in evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the defendant, they create the possibilty of a jury question), the burden is then upon the state to eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the elements of the affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, a verdict of not guilty is required.

It is not his "burden to create doubt".

So basically the state can present evidence and all Zimmerman has to do is show up to court? He is not obligated to take an active role in demonstrating why the state's claims should be doubted?

If you're going to claim self-defense you must show it was self-defense. If you're going to claim insanity you must show you are insane. All you're doing is circling the wagon and avoiding the heart of the matter. Has the state demonstrated enough evidence to convict? I believe it has. Has Zimmerman provided enough evidence to create reasonable doubt? You seem to think so without actually saying "there is a level of burden on the defense in a self-defense case to refuted the evidence presented by the prosecution and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors."

As for Good, any witness that changes their story is suspect. Which version of his story should we believe? Or should we just dismiss his testimony outright? If I am a juror, I dismiss his testimony as not credible. As for the EMT, his testimony adds little value except to say he was injured. I don't who initiated the altercation but I do know who was stalking who, and who violated reasonableness therefore I will dismiss his testimony as peripheral.

You can attack me all you want and make snide comments but I tell you what, I've put my money where my mouth is and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. We'll know who was right and was wrong wrong wrong soon enough.

So basically the state can present evidence and all Zimmerman has to do is show up to court? He is not obligated to take an active role in demonstrating why the state's claims should be doubted?

If you're going to claim self-defense you must show it was self-defense. If you're going to claim insanity you must show you are insane. All you're doing is circling the wagon and avoiding the heart of the matter. Has the state demonstrated enough evidence to convict? I believe it has. Has Zimmerman provided enough evidence to create reasonable doubt? You seem to think so without actually saying "there is a level of burden on the defense in a self-defense case to refuted the evidence presented by the prosecution and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors."

As for Good, any witness that changes their story is suspect. Which version of his story should we believe? Or should we just dismiss his testimony outright? If I am a juror, I dismiss his testimony as not credible. As for the EMT, his testimony adds little value except to say he was injured. I don't who initiated the altercation but I do know who was stalking who, and who violated reasonableness therefore I will dismiss his testimony as peripheral.

You can attack me all you want and make snide comments but I tell you what, I've put my money where my mouth is and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. We'll know who was right and was wrong wrong wrong soon enough.
He is obligated (from the way I understand it) to show a basic initial face value claim. After that yes, he does sit back and the State has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't seem as complicated as you may be making it.

So, in this case, if you take every good fact for GZ made and every favorable inference reasonably flowing from them and accept them as 100% correct, would the legal requirements ( the five elements) of GZ's self defense claim be met? If so, a prima facia case is made, the defense is properly raised, the above instructions are given and the State's duty to rebut one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt is invoked.

It is essentially saying "If we believe EVERYTHING favorable fact and inference as the god's honest truth, could a jury legally find you innocent?"

He is obligated (from the way I understand it) to show a basic initial face value claim. After that yes, he does sit back and the State has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't seem as complicated as you may be making it.

That's exactly what I am saying. It's Joe that making this more complicated than it is. All I have said all along is that self-defense places a burden on the defense, much more so than in non-affirmative defense.

So, in this case, if you take every good fact for GZ made and every favorable inference reasonably flowing from them and accept them as 100% correct, would the legal requirements ( the five elements) of GZ's self defense claim be met? If so, a prima facia case is made, the defense is properly raised, the above instructions are given and the State's duty to rebut one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt is invoked.

It is essentially saying "If we believe EVERYTHING favorable fact and inference as the god's honest truth, could a jury legally find you innocent?"

I get all of that, what I don't get is why you seem to think there is no obligation on the part of the defense to present these facts. If the presentation of these facts by the defense is not optional then there exists a burden on the defense!

Because the prosecution has submitted all the necessary facts to establish the defense during their case in chief. -- They didn't have to put GZ' s statements to the cops in, the didn't have to play the Hannity interview, they didn't have to play the reenactment, they didn't have to put Zimm's author friend on the stand. They didn't have to call Good or the EMT to testify.

But they did.

In light of all that evidence, GZ has no legal obligation to present anything more.

Because the prosecution has submitted all the necessary facts to establish the defense during their case in chief. -- They didn't have to put GZ' s statements to the cops in, the didn't have to play the Hannity interview, they didn't have to play the reenactment, they didn't have to put Zimm's author friend on the stand. They didn't have to call Good or the EMT to testify.

But they did.

In light of all that evidence, GZ has no legal obligation to present anything more.

What you describe is a defense tactic in which it piggy-backs on the prosecution. That isn't to say though that they are not legally obligated to present evidence to support his self-defense.

You want GZ on the stand testifying and he simply has no legal burden to do so.

Even if the prosecution DIDN'T put the evidence listed on, GZ could and leave it at that. In light of the evidence presented by the prosecution, what need be shown to establish a prima facia case?? Short of taking the stand himself what could he possibly present that has not been brought out by the prosecution??

It's always the defendant's option/risk of resting your case without testifying. Even when you are arguing an affirmative defense is applicable. This is true in any case. Civil or criminal (although in a civil trial you can be subpoenaed by the other side).

What you describe is a defense tactic in which it piggy-backs on the prosecution. That isn't to say though that they are not legally obligated to present evidence to support his self-defense.

Taking the points JR summarized and putting them up as the defense closing statement using facts already in evidence would seem to satisfy what you are saying the defense needs to do. Not quite sure what else you are saying they would need to do.

He is absolutely allowed to "piggy back" the prosecution case. The evidence is the evidence. It doesn't "belong" to anyone.