Totally agree. They weren't defending their homes, by the way, where a different set of presumptions regarding deadly force might apply. Self-defense is a defense and has to be proved by the defendant, not presumed, so that's why we have trials. I don't understand, based on this story, how they actually corroborated their "proof" since they were the only surviving witnesses and their testimony was implicitly self-serving, but let's presume they managed to do it.
I don't see what difference it makes how they chose to use their property--whether for construction, storage, or sleeping. All that matters is that it was their property.
A good position to assure the future of trial lawyers.
The defense doesn't have to corroborate a damn thing, as the burden is on the State to prove each element of any crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant's are presumed innocent and the Judge/trier of fact doesn't need corroboration of the defendant's testimony to make a credibility evaluation. Further, the defendant's are not required to testify and in this case they should not have had to testify to win. (see below)
You are thinking of the requirement that the State must corroborate a co-defendant's testimony with some other evidence, no matter how slight.
Besides, between the deceased's record for burglary and the hammer with his prints on it the defense was able to corroborate the story.
Further, ANY evidence of fear on the part of the accused gets them a self-defense instruction.
How the State ever survived a motion for judgement of acquital at the end of it's case in chief is beyond me.
What did evidence did the State have?
- a dead burglar;
- a hammer with the dead burglar's prints on it; and
- admissions by the defendants that they killed the burglar after being threatened with the hammer.
The State never had a case to begin with and the "defendants" never should have been charged with any crimes.