How a Lawyer Sees a Self-defense Case

[Ironbear]

An overview of the proceedings of a self-defense case, as written up by a lawyer. Interesting reading.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/02/po ... y-hearing/

At trial, once a defendant has sufficiently raised the issue of self-defense and gotten it into court in the first place (a very low threshold), it becomes the prosecutor’s responsibility to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the trial’s finder-of-fact (usually a jury, but the judge in the case of a bench trial).

The prosecution accomplishes this by disproving, beyond a reasonable doubt, any one of the four remaining elements of the self-defense claim (innocence, imminence, proportionality, reasonableness). If the prosecution is successful, self-defense collapses. If prosecution fails to do so the jury will be instructed to acquit the defendant.

At the self-defense immunity hearing, conducted pre-trial, the legal standards are quite different. In addition, here there is only a judge acting as the finder of fact, there is no jury.

More specifically, at the self-defense immunity hearing it is the responsibility of the defense to convince the judge of each and every required element of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the responsibility of the State to disprove even one element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some interesting debate in the comments too.

[Jon]

I thought that was pretty common knowledge?

If one claims SD the burden of proof falls on the defense. Even if there is substantial evidence to support ones claim, the burden lies on the defendant.

It may seem counterintuitive to think of one who has rightfully defended themselves as "the defense", but technically if one shoots someone else in SD they still have committed a crime. If the courts decide it was justified then it's "excused".

[Reverenddel]

The courts have been backwards for decades.