A Question for Our Legal Eagles
I’ve been watching the trial of George Zimmerman off and on over the past week and yesterday I caught Sean Hannity discussing it on his radio show. Hannity kept saying that the prosecution couldn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and, as such, the jury had no choice but to acquit.
Is this accurate? It was my understanding that the burden/standard of proof shifts when a defendant is making an affirmative defense, which I believe Zimmerman to be making when claiming that he shot Martin in self-defense. He does not seem to be denying that he shot Martin, but that he was justified in doing so.
Do I have this right? Or is Hannity right? Or something else entirely?
Please note: I do not intend this thread to rehash arguments about who did what, when, where, and why and what ought to come of it. I’m simply asking a procedural question about how the law works in cases such as this. I offer my appreciation in advance to those who can help us walk this narrow lane.