The defense has no responsibility to put on a positive defense. When the judge asks the defense if they have any witnesses, they can say, no, the defense rests. Prior to this they would have had the opportunity to cross all of the prosecution's witnesses and attack that evidence as it stands on its face.
On the other hand, instead of saying, "we don't know what happened, just that the state has not proved its case," the Anthony defense presented what is called an alternative theory of the crime. They had to to explain away the damning evidence they couldn't hurt with their cross.
When the defense presents an alternative theory of the crime, they reduce the number of possibilities to two. They can't have it both ways and say, "no, the crime didn't happen the way the state says, it happened like this," and then also claim maybe aliens did it.
The jury believed, wihtout any evidence, that george, for some reason, took the accidentally-drowned todddler and threw it in a trashbag into the woods a block down the street from his house.
Possible alternative explanations of unknown likelihood might or might not rise in a jury’s mind to reasonable doubt. It’s the nature of the beast to allow it. I can’t see NOT allowing it. The prosecution also has a duty to be intelligent and allow for the jury to consider lesser crimes than the worst accused (I believe it didn’t in the Casey case).
“The defense has no responsibility to put on a positive defense”
I don’t know the law perfectly, and am unsure whether it’s expected for defendants in justifiable homicide cases to take the stand. But I believe that to be immune on the basis of self-defense you have to assert self-defense. They could choose not to assert it, but he’s already admitted to killing him, and the jury is going to expect him or someone to explain how he felt in immediate danger of great bodily injury and/or death, which is the standard for justifiable homicide.
You see, this is different than normal cases, in which all the defense has to do is sit back and let the prosecution prove it if they can. They are admitting Zimmerman killed Martin, and are arguing he’s immune due to it being in self-defense. In order to argue that, there must be some standard to which you must rise in the eyes of the jury. So there is at least a bit of burden of proof on the defense.
I use that term, “burden of proof” loosely, by the way. They may not talk about it like that, but practically speaking the defense has to assert something in order for Zimmerman to be immune.
“When the judge asks the defense if they have any witnesses, they can say, no, the defense rests.”
Okay, they are free to do so. But if they want to get him off, they’ll have to convince the jury that it was justifiable homicide, and in order for it to be justifiable homicide he must have reasonably feareed for his life and/or bodily safety.
“Prior to this they would have had the opportunity to cross all of the prosecution’s witnesses and attack that evidence as it stands on its face.”
By doing so they could implicitly make the case that self-defense applies. But wouldn’t they, at least as a practical matter, want to assert a positive case?
“On the other hand, instead of saying, ‘we don’t know what happened, just that the state has not proved its case,’ the Anthony defense presented what is called an alternative theory of the crime. They had to to explain away the damning evidence they couldn’t hurt with their cross.”
That case and this, though were different in that Casey did not admit to killing Caylee. They didn’t have to present an alternative theory, but did to make assurance doubly sure. Zimmerman, contrarywise, I think has to make a positive assertion to be immune, as I believe will be the defense’s case.
“The jury believed, wihtout any evidence, that george, for some reason, took the accidentally-drowned todddler and threw it in a trashbag into the woods a block down the street from his house.”
Did they believe it, or did they merely accept it as a reasonable possibility which the prosecution did not forestall? I think it came down more to the case against Casey not being proved than the jury’s gullibility concerning George’s involvement. It was enough that maybe it happened that or another way, as opposed to the way the state pretended it knew happened without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.