Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
|
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.
Quote:
|
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)
Quote:
|
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.