Burden of proof?

[Loosedhorse]

I am asking for help understanding the burden of proof placed on someone shooting an attacker in self-defense, but subsequently charged with a crime.

I remember one of the larger issues in the Harold Fish case in AZ was that, once he decided on an affirmative defense, he had to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the shooting was justified. He had to, in effect, prove he was innocent.

While the case proceeded, the state law was changed so that the prosecutor must prove the shooting was NOT justifed, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is there an easy place to find which proof standard applies to self-defense cases in each state? Do you which standard applies in your state?

Secondarily, are there loopholes/exceptions? I remember some discussion regarding the AZ law change that it would allow a cop-killer to go free by claiming "it was self-defense," assuming no other witnesses of video of the shooting were available. So, is there a different proof standard for shootings involving police?

 

[Birch Knoll]

Over on The Truth About Guns, they've been running a series of articles on legal defense in self-defense cases. You might want to check that out.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Thanks. Actually, we've been discussing those articles here, in Strategies, Tactics and Training--that's what brought up my question.

 

[alsaqr]

Do you which standard applies in your state?

Yes.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There has been a kind of quiet evolution in self defense law going on.

The traditional Common Law rule was that anyone asserting an affirmative defense (such as self defense) had the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This has been changing, for example as noted in Arizona.

The more current trend is for the defendant asserting self defense to have the burden of producing evidence sufficient to make a prima facie case, i e., competent evidence of each element necessary under the applicable law in the particular jurisdiction necessary to establish justification. If he does so, he is entitled to a jury instruction on self defense, and in order to overcome the defense, the prosecutor has the burden of rebutting beyond a reasonable doubt the claim of justification.

Attorney Lisa Steele put it very well here (emphasis added)

...Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents some evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, then he or she is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue, which places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to disprove self-defense, the client is acquitted. In practice, however, the defense attorney has a great deal of work to do in order to convince the jurors that the client’s conduct fell within the common law of self-defense or within applicable state statutes....

 

[Radagast]

Here in Australia in my home state of New South Wales if you use force against an assailant the prosecution must prove that you believed the amount of force you used was unreasonable at the time of the assault.
Two days ago a career criminal committing a burglary was stabbed multiple times after threatening a home owner with a stun gun. The home owner has not been charged. This is not a 'castle doctrine' type of law, in so far as there is a legal assumption that lethal force may be used against an intruder, rather it reverses the requirement to prove you have met another persons standard of 'reasonable force' after the fact.