But as far as the Self Defense claim, the state has no burden. The burden is solely Zimmerman's. He must prove that he was REASONABLY in fear in death or great bodily harm.
Wrong.
There is no comparable, significant burden of proof on Zimmerman's claim of self defense.
Zimmerman's burden really just comes down to plausibility; whether his claims
MIGHT be true . . .
Zimmerman has offered his account and that has been shown to the jury. The re-enactment / walk-though video is the most significant.
Since Zimmerman claims that he acted in self-defense the jury must consider that affirmative defense against the prosecution's evidence and witnesses.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida has said:
"[D]id [the defendant] also incur a burden of proof identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense."
Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006)
In light of
Murry (and
Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424 (Fla. 5th Dist, 2011)*) standard jury instructions now include:
"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."
So, just not believing Zimmerman isn't enough; the state must still make its burden proving all the elements of the charges.
*In
Montijo the trial judge had instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense "beyond a reasonable doubt." Montijo's attorney did not object to the jury instruction, but the appellate court found that the trial judge had committed a "fundamental error" by giving that instruction and ordered a new trial for the defendant. The Fifth District Court of Appeal stated, "
The inclusion of the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the jury instruction placed the burden upon Montijo to prove self-defense, depriving him of a fair trial and rising to the level of fundamental error. Accordingly, we reverse."
