FWIO self defense is an assertion that the defendant must make [like insanity] and he is making it in this case, which means that the state must disprove it as part of their case.
Agreed. If the Defense presents a plausable case for self-defense, the State either has to demolish it, or “reasonable doubt” remains. That of course requires logic and basic fairness — might not be seen here.
I am heartened by BdlR’s use of his junior associate when the going gets really pathetic. He knows there is no case and wants to let a subordinate take the fall (and why not? his own boss set the example).
For Nelson to drag out the Frye ruling to jam the Defense is so transparent. How hard can this be? It’s not as if she bothers to explain her rulings. If she rules “send in the clowns” (which perversely is to GZ’s advantage), one would expect an emergency appeal and stay from the DCA, then another unanimous reversal, during which time Crump, the Medical Examiner, et al., can be deposed. Is that what she actually wants? Then they could start the jury selection all over and get more diversity. If she rules “no clowns” (as the law clearly requires), then the case just got shorter.