Thread: Is the account given by eyewitness "John" in Zimmerman's case reliable?

Originally Posted by whysoserious

Where is that a precedent?

Untitled Document


This is what watching Fox News does to a person. They genuinely believe that a dead person has the burden of proof.

BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has the burden of proving his or her affirmative defenses.
Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2001)
Gilreath v. General Elec. Co., 751 So.2d 705 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2000)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So.2d 246 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Holmes, 646 So.2d 266 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1994)

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Did the prosecution team get killed recently?

Since no one has mentioned it in this thread, I would just like to point out that the witness, "John", has since recanted his original story.

Originally Posted by apdst

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Did the prosecution team get killed recently?

The burden of proof on a Criminal Charge is on the Prosecution.

The burden of proof on an Affirmative Defense is on the Defendant.

Two different things.

Originally Posted by Stardog

Since no one has mentioned it in this thread, I would just like to point out that the witness, "John", has since recanted his original story.

Not exactly.
He only recanted a potion of his story.
The portion that he knew it was Zimmerman yelling for help. That is all.

He still places Zimmerman on the bottom and Trayvon on top.

In addition, his earlier recollections will still be considered to be more accurate.

Experts in the field, however, have noted that later recollections — which could be impacted by external factors such as publicity, for example — are thought to be less reliable than earlier memories. And the addition of post-event information into the memory reconstruction process, normally unbeknownst to the person, is one reason why psychologists believe that eyewitness testimony can often be unreliable.
Experts Weigh in After Four Witnesses in Trayvon Martin Case Change Story

Originally Posted by Stardog

The burden of proof on a Criminal Charge is on the Prosecution.

The burden of proof on an Affirmative Defense is on the Defendant.

Two different things.

The information you have is inaccurate.

The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor.

The defense only has to make a "showing" to generate the self-defense jury instruction.

Originally Posted by Stardog

The burden of proof on a Criminal Charge is on the Prosecution.

The burden of proof on an Affirmative Defense is on the Defendant.

Two different things.

Burden on the prosecution.....

On the defendant....Zimmerman only has to reasonably BELIEVE it is necessary.

The LAW provides him with LEGAL justification to use deadly force against *death/serious physical injury*

Originally Posted by Goshin

Bass-ackward. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show evidence that it DIDN'T happen the way all existing evidence says it happened: an assault by Martin on Zim.

Which is exactly what is wrong with the law - if that is the correct interpretation. It takes the victim - the ****ing dead guy - and puts him on trial instead of the shooter.

Originally Posted by Excon

Not exactly.
He only recanted a potion of his story.
The portion that he knew it was Zimmerman yelling for help. That is all.

He still places Zimmerman on the bottom and Trayvon on top.

In addition, his earlier recollections will still be considered to be more accurate.

Experts in the field, however, have noted that later recollections — which could be impacted by external factors such as publicity, for example — are thought to be less reliable than earlier memories. And the addition of post-event information into the memory reconstruction process, normally unbeknownst to the person, is one reason why psychologists believe that eyewitness testimony can often be unreliable.
Experts Weigh in After Four Witnesses in Trayvon Martin Case Change Story

The information you have is inaccurate.

The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor.

The defense only has to make a "showing" to generate the self-defense jury instruction.

BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has the burden of proving his or her affirmative defenses.
Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2001)
Gilreath v. General Elec. Co., 751 So.2d 705 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2000)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So.2d 246 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Holmes, 646 So.2d 266 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1994)


It was a fist fight...........

Originally Posted by whysoserious

Which is exactly what is wrong with the law - if that is the correct interpretation. It takes the victim - the ****ing dead guy - and puts him on trial instead of the shooter.

Yeah, whatever the law, my sense of justice tells me the burden should be on the defendant in a self-defense case. We know Zimmerman shot Martin. Now Zimmerman should have to prove the shooting was justified, as Martin is indisputably dead at his hand.

Originally Posted by whysoserious

Which is exactly what is wrong with the law - if that is the correct interpretation. It takes the victim - the ****ing dead guy - and puts him on trial instead of the shooter.

Nothing wrong with law...

The issue is with people who fail to check their state law on some of these issues. AFTER the fact is too late.

Originally Posted by ric27

Nothing wrong with law...

The issue is with people who fail to check their state law on some of these issues. AFTER the fact is too late.

How many can actually READ the law?

For goodness sake.. look at the birthers.