Prosecutor's statement and charge statement

Office of the State Attorney ^ | 11 April, 2012 | State Attorney's Office,4th Jud. Circuit

[PapaBear3625]

At this special pre-trial hearing, which will occur long before any jury trial, Zimmerman will have the opportunity to present evidence to a judge showing he acted in self-defense. If he can show that he was acting in self-defense by a "preponderance of the evidence" -- legalese for "it's more likely than not" -- then the charges against him will be dropped and he'll never face a jury.

The Statute reads:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(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.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Looking at the text of the law, it would seem that it's the job of the prosecution to convince the judge of the validity of their "probable cause", rather than the job of the defense to convince the judge of self-defense. At trial, the prosecution would have the burden of proof of showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was NOT self defense.

Then again, when has the plain text mattered to the legal system?