View Single Post
Old November 23, 2011, 11:59 AM   #14
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Edited to add: I'll have to go look at WI statutes, but in many states, SD is an affirmative defense. That puts the burden of proving it on the defendant, which makes it all the more puzzling that Gonzales did not testify.
I know the prosecutor objected to the jury instruction for self-defense on the grounds that Gonzalez hadn't met the burden of proof for such an instruction based on the scant testimony. The judge overruled him and granted Gonzalez the self-defense instruction anyway saying the jury had enough to choose to disbelieve the shootee's version of events.

So, any appeal won't be based on the lack of that jury instruction anyway.

I'm kind of puzzled myself. I don't know why you would admit all the elements of a homicide and then clam up on the self-defense claim. Obviously with the 911 call, you have already admitted the elements of the homicide, so that horse had left the barn; but I don't understand not testifying or even making a statement afterwards - especially with an affirmative defense.

Part of me wonders if Gonzalez had a defense attorney who was more accustomed to criminals and didn't know how to approach a self-defense case?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02814 seconds with 8 queries