Prosecution just said Zimmerman bears burden of proof in showing self defense.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.Burden of proof is on prosecution to show that the force was unlawful.
Precisely right.
Well... nothing else he is saying is the truth, so... ?
"The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense."
Case: MICHAEL V. MONTIJO, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee
Someone please tell me that MOM has called attention and refuted this nonsense.