10-21-2015, 04:21 PM
(10-21-2015, 04:05 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Okay. Is the standard of proof the same though between the prosecution and defense? Since the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, wouldn't the defense just have to raise enough doubt that it was self-defense to get one juror to say not guilty? I thought the only defense where the burden of proof is 100% on the defense is insanity. Other than that, the defense is only required prove something enough to create doubt.
What's your feedback on my perceptions?
Varies from state to state.
Self defense is what is called an "affirmative defense". An affirmative defense does not attack the truth of the facts the state has submitted. An "affirmative defense" raises new claims by the defense that excuse or justify the defendants behavior (insanity, emergency situation, self-defense, etc). So the defendant is usually required to prove these new claims by at least a "preponderance of the evidence" before the State is required to disprove them. So I don't really know how this new law works in Florida. There has to be some proof of self defense presented before the state can be required to disprove self-defense. I could see if they were talking about shootings taking place in a persons home, but in Florida the stand-your-ground law applies everywhere. Can't imagine how the defense could argue that the state failed to disprove self defense when no evidence of self defense was presented.
