Trayvon Martin Case

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Apparently, however, you do not possess the ability to read. Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007):


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.

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 him,


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.