Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parisite
I'm not in the legal field but now days it seems most of the time a defendant has to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt
|
That's not quite right, but it helps to understand how things work with self defense.
Pleading self defense is very different from the usual defense strategy in a criminal case. The usual criminal defense is basically "I wasn't there, I didn't do it, you can't prove that I did it." This essentially involves attacking the prosecution's evidence to create a reasonable doubt.
But the defense of self defense is basically "I did it, but I was legally justified." That involves affirmatively introducing evidence to support your claim.
If you have met your burden of producing evidence supporting, prima facie, your claim of justification, it is now the prosecutor's burden of proof. The prosecutor must now convince the jury that the defendant's homicide was not justified, i. e., that the defendant's act, which he has admitted, did not meet the legal standard for self defense with lethal force. The prosecution's burden of proof in rebuttal to the defendant's prima facie case will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions the prosecutor may have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT in that may not be a great a burden as it sounds.
The defendant has admitted committing an act of extreme violence on another human being. This is something that most people, probably including most of the jurors, naturally find repugnant. The defendant stands before the jury bearing the mark of Cain. It may not necessarily be easy for the defendant to convince a jury that his act of violence was justified. It may well be easier for the prosecutor to convince the jury that it was not. So the more convincing the defendant can make his case of justification, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meets its burden of proving, and convincing a jury, that the defendant did not act in self defense.