to shift the burden to the Defendant.

said, initially as well.

IMO; keep the burden of proof (the way it is) for proving the actual killing; and put the burden of proof for claiming self-defense on the one doing the killing. You could still implement a relativey low threshold for proving self-defense and thereby guarantee that this would not be done at the expense of the innocent legitimately defending themselves.

-Laelth

Thanks for letting me know!

Added on edit.

-Laelth

§ 304. Defendant's affirmative defenses; prove by preponderance of evidence.

(a) When a defense declared by this Criminal Code or by another statute to be an affirmative defense is raised at trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing it by a preponderance of the evidence.

(b) Unless the court determines that no reasonable juror could find an affirmative defense established by a preponderance of the evidence presented by the defendant, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must acquit the defendant if they find the affirmative defense established by a preponderance of the evidence.

(c) An affirmative defense is established by a preponderance of the evidence when the jury is persuaded that the evidence makes it more likely than not that each element of the affirmative defense existed at the required time.

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c003/index.shtml

I read that there are 2 so I guess the other is Delaware.

I'm just happy for the rare opportunity to hold up my state as a good example for a change.

after seeing the results in Florida where it is nearly impossible to disprove self-defense under those laws.

If you claim self-defense, then prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Requiring the state to prove a negative is bullshit.

With the prosecutor riding the dummy representing the defendant and no real counter to the fact that the Zimmerman did have some wounds, not so sure there was still not a self defense claim. The issue of how they encountered each other may not matter as much as the fact there is a defendant with injuries and evidence the plaintiff was on top of and hitting him. Was the amount of force used as a defense wrong - of course, that is another question never fleshed out at trial.