reason to believe not in self-defense = indictment
preponderance of evidence was in self defense = dismiss
beyond a reasonable doubt was in self defense = acquit
The first standard is barely anything, hence, a good district attorney can indict a ham sandwich.
The second standard is what the police used in deciding, on the spot, not to arrest. If there is no evidence beyond what the police had, a motion to dismiss is in order.
The third standard is a tough one, and rightfully so. Even if a court does not dismiss, it cannot be presumed that the accused will be found guilty.
And, yes, I too am wondering where the element of depravity and disregard for human life came in. Maybe the special prosecutor has a thing about ham sandwiches.
Wrong! It is not the obligation of the defense to prove anything. It is the obligation of the prosectution to prove it was a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". The prosecution only needs to show reasonable doubt, that it might have been self defense.
But this is about justice for Trayvon as the exuberant and flashy smiling prosecutor proclaimed.
The only thing missing from her news conference was ladies tossing rose petals and a chorus of trumpets.
Weird lady.
One way to force a jury acquittal is to inflate the charge to one that has no hope of being proven.
That's an inversion. Easier to lay out the standard in the prosecution terms, all across.
beyond a reasonable doubt was NOT in self defense = guilty
The state has the burden of production and persuasion at trial. In the pretrial hearing, the defendant has the burden of production and persuasion, to a standard of "more likely than not" it WAS reasonable use of deadly force in self defense.