As I posed earlier, SYG is not part of a Self-Defense claim. Self-Defense is an issue raised at trial, as all “fact” defenses are. SYG is a “law” issue. Remember, juries are the “triers of facts.” Judges are “triers of law.”
On the other issue, I’m sorry, but you incorrect. It was a pre-trial hearing, as it was a hearing conduced solely before a judge, not a jury, on a motion of an indicted defendant before the trial on that indictment.
It is, because one of the elements that is needed to make a self-defense claim is the obligation to retreat. In an non-SYG state, even if you did everything else right, but you could have avoided the fight be retreating, you can be found guilty. Therefore SYG is very much a part of a self-defense claim generally. It is part of self-defense law.
"SYG is a “law” issue."
It's a pre-trial immunity hearing. By law, it is heard in front of a judge, who judges the facts as well as the law. If the defendant wins he is immune to prosecution, otherwise it can go to a normal trial. But the terminology is what's causing confusion here. It's not a "Stand Your Ground hearing", it is a "Self-defense Immunity hearing".
"On the other issue, I’m sorry, but you incorrect. It was a pre-trial hearing, as it was a hearing conduced solely before a judge, not a jury, on a motion of an indicted defendant before the trial on that indictment."
You say I'm incorrect about something, but I haven's said anything contrary to what you wrote here.