home
the jury did find self-defense beyond a reasonable (none / 0) (#58)
by BGinCA on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:14:41 PM EST
I think you have this backwards. The jury found that the prosecution  did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KR was not exercising his right of self defense. If the burden of proof were on KR there may have been a different outcome.

Parent
Thank you! (none / 0) (#61)
by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:27:09 PM EST
Yes, I had that wrong. Obviously I am not a lawyer and appreciate all the lawyers' takes on this case!

Parent
So (none / 0) (#65)
by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:15:40 PM EST
in essence the prosecution would have to "prove a negative" to win a conviction.

Parent
That's interesting (none / 0) (#66)
by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:24:51 PM EST
And yet I believe that self-defense is called an affirmative defense?

Parent
There are affirmative defenses, and then (none / 0) (#77)
by Peter G on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 06:18:16 PM EST
there are affirmative defenses. Self-defense appears to be an "affirmative defense" in Wisconsin only in the sense that the prosecution need not disprove it until and unless the defense adduces at least "some" evidence to put the issue in contention. This is called "the burden of going forward." The burden of proof then shifts back to the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. A full-scale, old-fashioned affirmative defense (prior to the "reformed" version introduced in the 1960s) would require the defendant to prove all the requirements of a valid self-defense claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that that formula is not unconstitutional. So it is up to each state to decide how to formulate the terms of the defense in their own law.

Parent

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft