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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Dumb crook circus | Main | More problems with Colorado law »

Possible shift in PA against self-defense

Posted by David Hardy · 30 July 2013 10:01 AM

Prof. Volokh has a post on the subject. English common law treated self-defense as a true affirmative defense: the burden is on the defender to prove it, and by a preponderence of the evidence (i.e., do more than raise a reasonable doubt). American law almost unanimously treated it differently: the defender must raise some proof of self-defense, and at that point the prosecution has the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt. Now it appears that the PA Supreme Court may shift to the English rule.

· Self defense

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Jeff | July 30, 2013 12:38 PM | Reply

This would definitely be a change for the worse. Raising an effective self-defense claim is already quite difficult. The biggest problem I see is that modern jurors have no understanding of the dynamics of fore or violence. Based on the comments that I hear from jurors following trials, it appears that many of them already place the burden of proof on the defendant (not just in the context of an affirmative defense, but in every regard). But I still don't want that to be the actual rule. Let's at least keep up the pretense of a presumption of innocence.

D.Laden | July 30, 2013 6:12 PM | Reply

Like one commenter there noted--that is dicta in a footnote from Ron Castille who is about to be retired.
I read the opinion and would note that the shooting occurred before Pa. passed its own version of not being required to retreat. I'm not sure how that would affect this case, but not retreating when you could have was an issue there.
What I got out of it was that if you are going to claim self-defense, come up shooting rather than brandishing.
This is troubling...

Leave a comment