Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Guilty until proven innocent
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3007924" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>The sensationalist story is somewhat misleading. First you need to understand the very nature of the concept of an affirmative defense.</p><p></p><p>In <em>any</em> prosecution (civil <em>or</em> criminal), it's up to the accuser to put on a showing of proof of his accusation. Let's take Oklahoma's murder 1 statute, <a href="http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69297" target="_blank">21 O.S. 701.7</a>, as an example:</p><p>A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.</p><p>((B) is the felony murder rule; it's not going to be relevant in a self-defense case).</p><p></p><p>So...Joe Goblin breaks into your home, has a look at your nine-year-old daughter, and gets that gleam in his eye. You proceed to riddle Mr. Goblin with more bullets than went through the last three John Woo movies. Mr. Persecutor--having graduated from the University of the Left at Wet-bed-opolis--decides that this Simply Will Not Do, and charges you with Murder 1. You plead not guilty, saying that you shot Mr. Goblin because--</p><p><strong>STOP RIGHT THERE!</strong></p><p>Guess what: Mr. Persecutor has just put on enough evidence to prove his case, insofar as you--the accused himself--just admitted that you filled Mr. Goblin with enough lead to use him for a pencil. Case closed, and I hope you get a cell with a nice view.</p><p></p><p><em>This</em> is the nature of an affirmative defense: you admit to the prosecution's accusation, then try to justify it in light of circumstances. You're not guilty until proven innocent, you're innocent until you proved yourself guilty by admitting the accusation...which then shifts the burden of proof to you (as you've now become the accuser) to demonstrate that you meet the elements of the defense (namely, that Joe Goblin needed killin' because he was fixin' to do Very Bad Things to your little girl). If you don't want the burden of proof, don't take an affirmative defense; don't admit to emptying the mag. 'Course, the coroner's report, the ballistics report, the neighbors' testimony to hearing the gunfire, the gun with your fingerprints, the powder residue on your hands, etc. are all going to be evidence that Mr. Persecutor uses to hang you, but you can force him to put on all of that proof without ever admitting that yes, you offered Mr. Goblin a few non-OEM bodily orifices on a take-it-or-take-it basis. But you can do that.</p><p></p><p>Probably better with the jury you don't, but hey, if that's the way you want to play it, you're free to make that call. Ideally, after you've paid me a very large retainer. In cash.</p><p></p><p>Second, the story reports, but doesn't really explain well, the finding, or the meaning of the terms or of the case. A pre-trial hearing isn't a trial on the merits; it's more akin to a grand jury, insofar as it's a check on the prosecution by forcing Mr. Persecutor to put on a <em>prima facie</em> case. Basically, it's an attempt to make sure that Mr. Persecutor, if taken at face value, can pass the straight-face test. If he can't, it goes no further; if he can, you go to a trial on the merits with all of the protections of the Constitution in full effect.</p><p></p><p>Where the story falls down is explaining that. Moreover, it fails to explore the depth of the procedural-vs-substantive distinction. The judicial system protects its independence fairly jealously, and for good reason; if the judiciary were to become fully subordinate to the legislature, it would tear the system of checks and balance apart. The court in this case didn't rule that the defense was unconstitutional; it argued that <em>the legislature's exercise of power to alter the standard</em> was unconstitutional, insofar as that power was vested in the judiciary, not the legislature. In law, the reasoning is often far more important than the ruling. Had the change been instituted by the judiciary, instead of the legislature, this would have gone differently. The legislature could similarly pass a law rule requiring the parties to a case to wear a duck on their heads on Tuesdays and it would be struck down on constitutional grounds, but if the rule were instituted by the judiciary, it would pass muster (waterfowl as headwear being clearly unrelated to any substantive manner, such a rule would be procedural in nature). Yes, a clearly facetious example, but that was to prevent any confounding issues.</p><p></p><p>Does it make a little more sense now?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3007924, member: 13624"] The sensationalist story is somewhat misleading. First you need to understand the very nature of the concept of an affirmative defense. In [I]any[/I] prosecution (civil [I]or[/I] criminal), it's up to the accuser to put on a showing of proof of his accusation. Let's take Oklahoma's murder 1 statute, [URL='http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69297']21 O.S. 701.7[/URL], as an example: A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. ((B) is the felony murder rule; it's not going to be relevant in a self-defense case). So...Joe Goblin breaks into your home, has a look at your nine-year-old daughter, and gets that gleam in his eye. You proceed to riddle Mr. Goblin with more bullets than went through the last three John Woo movies. Mr. Persecutor--having graduated from the University of the Left at Wet-bed-opolis--decides that this Simply Will Not Do, and charges you with Murder 1. You plead not guilty, saying that you shot Mr. Goblin because-- [B]STOP RIGHT THERE![/B] Guess what: Mr. Persecutor has just put on enough evidence to prove his case, insofar as you--the accused himself--just admitted that you filled Mr. Goblin with enough lead to use him for a pencil. Case closed, and I hope you get a cell with a nice view. [I]This[/I] is the nature of an affirmative defense: you admit to the prosecution's accusation, then try to justify it in light of circumstances. You're not guilty until proven innocent, you're innocent until you proved yourself guilty by admitting the accusation...which then shifts the burden of proof to you (as you've now become the accuser) to demonstrate that you meet the elements of the defense (namely, that Joe Goblin needed killin' because he was fixin' to do Very Bad Things to your little girl). If you don't want the burden of proof, don't take an affirmative defense; don't admit to emptying the mag. 'Course, the coroner's report, the ballistics report, the neighbors' testimony to hearing the gunfire, the gun with your fingerprints, the powder residue on your hands, etc. are all going to be evidence that Mr. Persecutor uses to hang you, but you can force him to put on all of that proof without ever admitting that yes, you offered Mr. Goblin a few non-OEM bodily orifices on a take-it-or-take-it basis. But you can do that. Probably better with the jury you don't, but hey, if that's the way you want to play it, you're free to make that call. Ideally, after you've paid me a very large retainer. In cash. Second, the story reports, but doesn't really explain well, the finding, or the meaning of the terms or of the case. A pre-trial hearing isn't a trial on the merits; it's more akin to a grand jury, insofar as it's a check on the prosecution by forcing Mr. Persecutor to put on a [I]prima facie[/I] case. Basically, it's an attempt to make sure that Mr. Persecutor, if taken at face value, can pass the straight-face test. If he can't, it goes no further; if he can, you go to a trial on the merits with all of the protections of the Constitution in full effect. Where the story falls down is explaining that. Moreover, it fails to explore the depth of the procedural-vs-substantive distinction. The judicial system protects its independence fairly jealously, and for good reason; if the judiciary were to become fully subordinate to the legislature, it would tear the system of checks and balance apart. The court in this case didn't rule that the defense was unconstitutional; it argued that [I]the legislature's exercise of power to alter the standard[/I] was unconstitutional, insofar as that power was vested in the judiciary, not the legislature. In law, the reasoning is often far more important than the ruling. Had the change been instituted by the judiciary, instead of the legislature, this would have gone differently. The legislature could similarly pass a law rule requiring the parties to a case to wear a duck on their heads on Tuesdays and it would be struck down on constitutional grounds, but if the rule were instituted by the judiciary, it would pass muster (waterfowl as headwear being clearly unrelated to any substantive manner, such a rule would be procedural in nature). Yes, a clearly facetious example, but that was to prevent any confounding issues. Does it make a little more sense now? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Guilty until proven innocent
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom