Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
You're muddling the water and you god damn well know it. The Sipple case is all about whether the defendant raised a self-defense claim not that there isn't a greater burden on him once he raised self-defense than a normal defendant. What the court said in the Snipple case is that the defendant raised the a self-defense argument through his police testimony and that his attorney should have done a better job in representing,
If Zimmerman's defense does not actively provide sufficient evidence to the court to support his self-defense claim the prosecutor can petition the court to force the defense to provide material to support a self-defense claim. If the defense does not then the affirmative defense claim can be thrown out all together. In the Snipple case the court said the defendants statement constitute supporting material.
If Zimmerman doesn't call EMT or any other witnesses and simply used his statements to the police he will most certainly be found guilty. "The word 'affirmative' in 'affirmative defense' refers to the requirement that the defendant prove the defense, as opposed to negating the prosecution’s evidence of an element of the crime.
As a lawyer you should know all of this! A lowly software engineer should have to fcking explain this shit to you. |
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Shephardize
Sipple and see what the cases say. I am tired of quoting it for you.
In the matter at hand, a
prima facia claim of self-defense has been made and, as such, Zimmerman does not need to prove the existence of a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense because it is presumed such as a matter of law. It is now up the State to disprove one or more of the elements of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt to invalidate the defense. If they fail to do so, the jury must acquit. In arguing the State failed to meet its burden, Zimmerman can rely on any admitted evidence regardless of who elicited or submitted it.
It is just that simple.