Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Proposal for Canadian gun laws | Main | Arizona governor casts veto »

A predictable split in Ohio

Posted by David Hardy · 27 May 2008 11:46 AM

Story here. A bill is up that would shift the burden of proof in self defense cases so that the state has the burden. The governor supports it, and the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association opposes.

Don't know if the bill draws a distinction between two types of burdens. (1) Burden of proof: one party must, at the end of trial, have proven something to whatever standard is required. That'd mean that if self defense is raised, the State must disprove it or lose (depending on how it is arranged, this might require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or proof by a preponderence of the evidence). There's every reason to put that burden on the State. (2) Burden of going forward. One party or the other must bring in some evidence before the issue is in play. I can see opposing putting this burden on the State, and requiring the defendant to present some evidence to make it an issue. Otherwise -- two people in a room, one kills the other, and doesn't talk about it. The prosecution will likely fail (whether it really was self-defense or not) since the State has nothing to disprove self-defense, and bears the burden of doing that.

· State legislation

9 Comments | Leave a comment

David, Chandler, AZ | May 27, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply

How odd. That's pretty much the same group that opposed the same thing in Arizona last year. Of course the law here used to be that you had to admit guilt before you could claim self-defense.

Chris | May 27, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply

Are we innocent until proved guilty? -- Or guilty until proven innocent? Old principles that shouldn't go by the wayside.

Carl in Chicago | May 27, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply

"Director John Murphy of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association says the bill could allow drug dealers to claim self defense in shootings of rivals in deals that went sour."

Isn't that always the best argument they can come up with? Remember that lawful use-of-force must be just that...lawful. In Illinois, at least, the defender must not be committing a crime, must reasonably believe their life is in danger, etc. Claiming self-defense in drug deals gone sour, or the killing of rival gang members, would not pass muster. And these attornies know that full well.

Tom | May 27, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply

here's more on it

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5695

Jerry in Detroit | May 28, 2008 4:20 AM | Reply

The problem with the Illinois law is is that Illinois firearms law is so stringent, especially regarding handguns, that it is virtually impossible to own, much less use one, without breaking the law. In other words, the Illinois law is a backdoor attempt at removing our right to self defense. This law is totally unnecessary as killing another party in the course of a committing a crime cannot be deemed self defense.
The practical side of me wonders what is so bad about drug dealers killing each other? Someone who was a danger to the community was killed while committing a crime. How is the community diminished? Maybe we could issue a citation for littering.

Robert | May 28, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply

The Ohio DAs....are just confused. They DID take an oath to support the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have merely forgotten.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | May 28, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply

Another one of the many reasons why I don't much like career prosecutors...you're always a turd to them unless and until *you* prove otherwise. And then you're just another potential turd.

Flash Gordon | May 28, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply

In Colorado the prosecutor has the burden of disproving self defense WHEN AND IF it has been placed in issue by some credible evidence offered by the defendant. In other words, the burden of prime facie proof is on the defendant, but the ultimate burden of non-persuasion remains where it always was, on the prosecution.

This makes sense. Were it otherwise the prosecution would not have proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I would think this is the result anywhere in a criminal case where the standard of proof is BARD, and no special legislation should be required.

The worry of the Ohio prosecutors is misplaced because, I'd bet a dollar to a donut hole, this is already the law in Ohio for the reason stated above, and also because in the type of cases to which they refer the defendant would most likely be classified as an "initial aggressor" and have no right of self defense anyway.

A law that strips someone of their self defense rights when committing any type of crime would be unjust because it would be overbroad and take away the right of self defense in cases where the defendant may have been in technical violation of some non-violent offense and in no way provoking violence by others.

Joe | May 28, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply

Amended SB184 (Castle Doctrine) Passes Ohio House with a 73-23 vote!

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org

Included amendments to SB184 to fix some of the irrational aspects of the original Ohio CHL law. It will now go back to Senate for approval of the amendments made in the House.

Leave a comment