Zimmerman only has to make
a showing.
The Prosecutors burden is to prove he did not act in self-defense.
Even O'Mara has said as much in his interviews.
The
burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.
Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they
must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense
generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense
generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,
569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).
Pay attention this time as you obviously didn't before.
From what I previously provided, specifically speaking about the burdens.
(I formatted it differently so maybe you could understand it this time.)
UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Code:
[B][COLOR="#000000"]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/COLOR][/B][SIZE=1]
[...]
[/SIZE][B][COLOR="#000000"]D. Burdens[/COLOR][/B]
The term “affirmative defense” seems inextricably tied to arguments about burden shifting.
Three different burdens exist;
[INDENT][COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"][B]burden of proof[/B] (always on the government),[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR]
[B][COLOR="#000000"]burden of production[/COLOR][/B] (normally on the defense),and
[B][COLOR="#000000"]burden of persuasion[/COLOR][/B] (normally back on the government).[/INDENT]
The burden of proof to prove the essential elements of the crime charged BRD starts with
and[highlight] [COLOR="#000000"]ALWAYS stays with the Government[/COLOR][/highlight].
The burden of production to generate an affirmative defense is on the defense.
This is constitutional because the defense is not negating an essential element of the crime charged.
The standard, meaning the quantum of evidence needed, varies with the particular affirmative defense.
Generally it is either by a preponderance, or by clear and convincing. Once the defense has met this burden
of producing an affirmative defense,[COLOR="#0000ff"][U] [COLOR="#000000"]the Government has the additional [B]burden[/B][/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] of persuading the jury
not just as to each element of the crime BRD, but also to persuade the jury to reject the affirmative defense BRD as well.
[INDENT]I[COLOR="#000000"][B]. Burden of Proof[/B][/COLOR]
Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they
must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense
generates an affirmative defense, [COLOR="#ff0000"][U][highlight][COLOR="#000000"]the government must then disprove the defense
generally beyond a reasonable doubt[/COLOR][/highlight][/U][/COLOR]. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,
569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).[/INDENT][SIZE=1]
[...]
[B]Google Doc[/B]
[url]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:06-_HilumfEJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf+affirmative+defense&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQQ9DDIG6I9rtWnkdrvG4XMpf-h2KGVxjIf2cgCnXgnZ6rKrFrnVZwDO3Pw-YkvR4VQt6w8d4k7Jd6u3XiNVni3HwMVJaz2xJgZswMP-HkNfqJhwe5jZwla03YrbDJEf3LwZ9D&sig=AHIEtbQjGQcnos5_jKrclWonXfetxH8Zuw[/url]
[B]Straight Pdf[/B]
[url=http://avenue-s.us/resources/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/url][/SIZE]
Let's remember to keep things civil alright. 
