Zimmerman and the misplaced burden of proof. [View all]

[Vox Moi]

It wasn't the prosecutors, It wasn't the defense. It wasn't the jury.
It was that the burden of proof is misplaced in the law and it needs to be fixed.

1) Basically, Homicide is against the law.
If someone is charged with homicide then the burden of proof that the event happened and the defendant did it is rightfully with the prosecution.

2) The law recognizes that under special circumstances the defendant, even if guilty of the act, can be absolved of responsibility.
Maybe the defendant pleads insanity. The burden of proof of insanity on on the defendant. Otherwise the defendant can put the prosecution in the almost impossible position of proving that the defendant was not insane at the time of the incident.

If the defendant pleads self-defense, the same standard should apply. The defendant should, especially when witnesses are inconclusive be required to explain his actions, under oath and subject to cross-examination. This is not testifying against against himself; he has already confessed to the act. This is making an appeal for absolution in what is otherwise a punishable offense. It is the defendant's assertion that should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Zimmerman did not testify. He stood on a misplaced burden of proof: defying the prosecution to prove the negative: that he was not afraid for his life at the time. More than that, the assumption of innocence that Zimmerman enjoyed is at the same time a presumption of guilt on Martin. Zimmerman's indictment of Martin for felony assault is presumed to be true, if Zimmerman is presumed to be telling the truth.

This is what has to change: if you want to plead special circumstances, then the burden of proof should be on you.