- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Putting Rittenhouse on the stand wasn’t a good idea
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:58 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:58 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Because the burden of proof shifts to defendant if using an affirmative defense like self defense.
Although you could see from the video that it looks like self defense, he needed to ultimately testify that he believed he was in imminent danger. He needed to establish fear of harm. Would be hard to do without his testimony since Rosenbaum was not in possession of a weapon.
That’s my guess.
Although you could see from the video that it looks like self defense, he needed to ultimately testify that he believed he was in imminent danger. He needed to establish fear of harm. Would be hard to do without his testimony since Rosenbaum was not in possession of a weapon.
That’s my guess.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 4:00 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
Because the burden of proof shifts to defendant if using an affirmative defense like self defense.
I'm pretty sure in Wisconsin, the burden is on the State to disprove self-defense
Posted on 11/10/21 at 4:05 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
Because the burden of proof shifts to defendant if using an affirmative defense like self defense.
Not in Wisconsin
Posted on 11/10/21 at 5:48 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
he needed to ultimately testify that he believed he was in imminent danger. He needed to establish fear of harm. Would be hard to do without his testimony since Rosenbaum was not in possession of a weapon.
This - he should have been required to testify if his only defense is 'self defense.'
Supposedly, that makes it more difficult for the state to prove intent, because they have the onus to disprove self defense. If the defendant refuses to testify that could look bad for a 'self defense' tactic.
But = I am always on the side of wanting the defendant to testify - especially in murder cases.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News