Trayvon Martin Case

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of selfdefense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d
at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he
acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation

^^ after 2 seconds on google i found a 2012 florida appellate opinion (appears to be unreported) ... falwell v state, 5D10-2011

Hey, OTM. Enjoyed reading your posts, as well as JoeR and RR's in this thread, even though you and I apparently disagree.

One thing surprised me about your posts was how you seem to take the above statement. That self defense must be supported by reasonable evidence by the defense (prima facie - at first glance, plausible, reasonable on the face of it), and that it's then the prosecution's burden to disprove it.

Reading your posts, I thought initially that you were agreeing with RR about Zimmerman's defense have established prima facie self defense, that it was now up to the prosecution to provide a case more than a reasonable doubt. But I get the impression that you don't think Z's defense has met that burden.

Why isn't Martin being on top of Zimmerman pummeling him, with Zimmerman sustaining the only injuries in the fisticuff part of the fight (broken nose, black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury) enough to establish "prima facie" self defense?

I mean, it's important in this trial to try figuring out the details, like who started the fight, was it reasonable for Zimmerman to fear for his life, etc. But just to establish a reasonable first glance self defense... Geez does someone have to have their skull already split open before they can make a possible claim of self defense, in your opinion?

While I don't know how the known details should be weighed, I hope the jury is taught how to in this case, in the final verdict. (I personally think so far the murder count is a joke, manslaughter in this or a civil trial might be right though I doubt it, and the burden of proof is very much on the prosecution in this case.)

Maybe some people are confusing ordinary self-defense claims with stand-your-ground. Stand-your-ground appears to me, to offer protection to people AFTER it's proven they were justified in using lethal force, to prevent revenge minded people from suing the person into bankruptcy after they were found innocent by self defense. That's why SYG is an affirmative defense, the defendant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt self defense was justified, to get the protection against lawsuits SYG offers.

The traditional "self defense" claim is not the same as SYG. As long as it's plausible the defendant could have used self-defense, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Like practically ALL crimes, the defendant is presumed innocent until guilty, as they should be. (At least one exception, if the IRS comes after you) Zimmerman isn't claiming SYG, he's claiming traditional self defense.

So, OTM, I really don't understand why you quote the standards for self defense, and then appear to think that the burden of proof rests with the defense in this case.