Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

You should stop and walk away with semblance of dignity. You know damn well or at least should know the defendants statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim. On top of that you didnt seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along?

I am not a lawyer but I do possess the ability to think critically and unlike RedskinRat I dont swallow.

Apparently, however, you do not possess the ability to read. Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007):

In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient. See Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219, 229 (Fla. 2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing."), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S. Ct. 2911, 162 L. Ed. 2d 301 (2005); Henry v. State, 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); Wright. Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.

Where oh where is there one single, on-point Florida case that says "the defendant's statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim."? Because the Sipple case says exactly the opposite [BTW - see the "cert denied" descriptive in the Peterka cite means the Supremes had a chance to reverse but didn't, just an FYI for you next Holiday Inn stay]. Bring the law b/c so far all you've brought is bullshit.

As to your claim "you didn't seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along". There isn't a "burden" as you seem to be defining it. Rather, what I have consistently said was that, in this case, GZ doesn't have to prove anything b/c a prima facia showing of the self-defense claim has been made by the prosecution. That is an absolutely correct statement of the law and you have yet to cite one relevant case or statute to dispute it. I have conceded that, if the prosecution's case had not provided the prima facia evidence for such his claim, GZ would have the "burden" of the making a minimal showing. Even then, and contrary to your continuous assertions, however, it is not his burden to prove a reasonable doubt but, rather, simply to create a question of fact as to the existence of reasonable doubt. That's the f'ing law and nothing - NOTHING - you have brought to the table contradicts that except your whiny cries of "nuh -uhhh".

I do this for a living and will beat on you all day just b/c it's fun to show your bias and intentional ignorance. Quote an on point Florida case, statute or regulation that supports you assertion and overturns Sipple, Jenkins and a host of other Florida case law. You can't. You got nothing but ignorance, bias and petulance left.