View Single Post
Old September 15, 2012, 08:06 PM   #107
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2011
Posts: 2,088
a] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step b.

[b] Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

[c] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.
You're doing it again. You are assuming that after "b" the prosecutor will charge you with a crime. Don't they have a choice of looking at the evidence and determining "it was a good shoot"?
Marquezj16 is offline  
Page generated in 0.03660 seconds with 7 queries