Trayvon Martin Case

So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-8976)

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_8976)

Game...set...match!

Go back to your holiday Inn. Take a few courses. Talk to me when you have a clue and aren't talking out your ass about shit of which you clearly are ignorant.

The Smith case relates only to Federal law and, within that body of law, only tothe RICO Act. In Smith, the Court found that, while Congress could have assigned the burden to disprove specific affirmative defenses to the prosecution, it did not do so for the RICO Act and, more specifically, was under no obligation to do so for the specific affirmative defense alleged. At the same time, the SC made clear that Congress was certainly within its authority to do so.

Of course, Congress may choose to assign the Government the burden of proving the nonexistence of withdrawal, even if that is not constitutionally required. It did not do so here. “[T]he common-law rule was that affirmative defenses . . . were matters for the defendant to prove.” Martin, supra, at 235; see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 201 (1769). Because Congress did not address in 21 U. S. C. §846 or 18 U. S. C. §1962(d) the burden of proof for withdrawal, we presume that Congress intended to preserve the common-law rule. Dixon, 548 U. S., at 13–14.

In Florida, for Florida State crimes, guess what law applies --- HINT: It's Florida's. Guess who interprets Florida law? Hint: Their courts and they are located in Florida. Apparently, Florida has modified the common law rule referenced by the Supreme Court:

Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007)
In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient. See Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219, 229 (Fla. 2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing."), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S. Ct. 2911, 162 L. Ed. 2d 301 (2005); Henry v. State, 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); Wright. Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.

Show me were Sipple has been overturned.

You want to quote cases at me, you better start bringing the A game and not some dumbass google search. Why don't you go google "heart surgery" and volunteer at Johns Hopkins tomorrow.

You are approaching G84C levels of ignorance.

LOL...I may have to file a formal complain against you with the ABA. You certainly dont seem to know the law.

Here is something I googled and found posted on a Florida law firm's website that should eat away at your credibility.

Florida Criminal Law Defenses | Criminal Affirmative Defenses (http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-criminal-law-defenses.html)

Florida Affirmative Defenses - Justification and Excuse
*
Under Florida law, an Affirmative Defense is a defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a criminal act, which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. In an affirmative defense, the defendant admits the truth of the essential act (the act forming the basis of the prosecutor’s allegations), but justifies or excuses the act so as to avoid being subjected to criminal punishment. *In effect, the defendant says: “Yes, I committed the act. However, I am not subject to criminal liability because, under the facts and circumstances of my case, the act was justifiable or excusable.”
*
For affirmative defenses raised in the course of a Florida jury trial, the defendant must present some evidence supporting an affirmative defense before the Court will grant a jury instruction on that defense. If the defendant presents evidence to support the instruction, then the jury will be instructed on the law as to that defense and will consider the defense during their deliberations. **

One, you're quoting from an attorney website not the Court itself. The website cites no cases and is saying exactly what I have said.

Your Florida lawyer's website:
The defendant must present some evidence supporting an affirmative defense before the Court will grant a jury instruction on that defense. If the defendant presents evidence to support the instruction, then the jury will be instructed on the law as to that defense and will consider the defense during their deliberations.

The Florida Court:
In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient.

If there is any conflict, guess which wins. Here, GZ's statement to the police is in evidence and it clearly establishes prima facia claim of self-defense such that the jury will be instructed as previously stated.

Admit it, you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point.

...... The website sites no cases<SNIP>

'Cites'

The only fault I can find. So far ahead on points you're a lap in front.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.

That certainly is saden1's approach.

You should stop and walk away with semblance of dignity. You know damn well or at least should know the defendants statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim. On top of that you didnt seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along?

I am not a lawyer but I do possess the ability to think critically and unlike RedskinRat I dont swallow.

This really isn't hard to understand. Knowing full well the JR has repeatedly explained this I hesitate to even take a shot at it but here goes.

1. GZ must assert self-defense. ~ he has (police statements)
2. GZ must present evidence (testimony, circumstantial, etc..) to formulate a reasonable self-defense claim ~ he has (police statements plus a boat load of evidence has been presented)....here is where the wheels seem to be falling off for a few. This doesn't mean that ALL the evidence presented (weighed for believability and relevance) must add up to self-defense. It simply means the evidence presented, seen only favorably for GZ, must add up to self-defense. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone believes Good or finds the restimony of the EMT relevant, what matters is that what they say (and other evidence) presents a reasonable scenario of self-defense. Bam...face-value case made. It can't be argued. There has been evidence, that when seen only favorably for GZ, obviously adds up to self-defense. Someone explain how it doesn't.
3. Jury instruction WILL be made to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim.

You should stop and walk away with semblance of dignity. You know damn well or at least should know the defendants statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim. On top of that you didnt seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along?

I am not a lawyer but I do possess the ability to think critically and unlike RedskinRat I dont swallow.

Apparently, however, you do not possess the ability to read. Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007):
In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient. See Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219, 229 (Fla. 2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing."), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S. Ct. 2911, 162 L. Ed. 2d 301 (2005); Henry v. State, 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); Wright. Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.

Where oh where is there one single, on-point Florida case that says "the defendant's statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim."? Because the Sipple case says exactly the opposite [BTW - see the "cert denied" descriptive in the Peterka cite means the Supremes had a chance to reverse but didn't, just an FYI for you next Holiday Inn stay]. Bring the law b/c so far all you've brought is bullshit.

As to your claim "you didn't seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along". There isn't a "burden" as you seem to be defining it. Rather, what I have consistently said was that, in this case, GZ doesn't have to prove anything b/c a prima facia showing of the self-defense claim has been made by the prosecution. That is an absolutely correct statement of the law and you have yet to cite one relevant case or statute to dispute it. I have conceded that, if the prosecution's case had not provided the prima facia evidence for such his claim, GZ would have the "burden" of the making a minimal showing. Even then, and contrary to your continuous assertions, however, it is not his burden to prove a reasonable doubt but, rather, simply to create a question of fact as to the existence of reasonable doubt. That's the f'ing law and nothing - NOTHING - you have brought to the table contradicts that except your whiny cries of "nuh -uhhh".

I do this for a living and will beat on you all day just b/c it's fun to show your bias and intentional ignorance. Quote an on point Florida case, statute or regulation that supports you assertion and overturns Sipple, Jenkins and a host of other Florida case law. You can't. You got nothing but ignorance, bias and petulance left.

This really isn't hard to understand. Knowing full well the JR has repeatedly explained this I hesitate to even take a shot at it but here goes.

1. GZ must assert self-defense. ~ he has (police statements)
2. GZ must present evidence (testimony, circumstantial, etc..) to formulate a reasonable self-defense claim ~ he has (police statements plus a boat load of evidence has been presented)....here is where the wheels seem to be falling off for a few. This doesn't mean that ALL the evidence presented (weighed for believability and relevance) must add up to self-defense. It simply means the evidence presented, seen only favorably for GZ, must add up to self-defense. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone believes Good or finds the restimony of the EMT relevant, what matters is that what they say (and other evidence) presents a reasonable scenario of self-defense. Bam...face-value case made. It can't be argued. There has been evidence, that when seen only favorably for GZ, obviously adds up to self-defense. Someone explain how it doesn't.
3. Jury instruction WILL be made to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim.

Close, but, in light of Sipple, I don't think your step 2 is necessary - GZ's statement to the police is all that's needed. Bottom line, a "prima facia" showing requires only a very, very minimal production - for all practical purposes, it's the lowest standard of evidence out there.

Also, it's not that GZ has to present certain evidence, it's that the evidence actually submitted - regardless of its origin, "when seen only favorably for GZ ... adds up to self-defense". The "regardless of origin" is apparently a huge stumbling block for saden1.

Finally, under Sipple, the cases cited therein and subsequent case law citing Sipple, the instruction to the jury requires them "to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim" such that they must find that the prosecution has eliminated all reasonable doubt on one or more of the requisite elements of self-defense. If they do not believe the State has done so, they must acquit.