Post-Heller Self-Defense bleg:
District of Columbia v. Heller clearly establishes self-defense (not just gun ownership for self-defense) as a constitutional right. In light of Heller, what are some cases from state courts or lower federal courts which might have to be reversed or modified? I am thinking particularly of cases which describe self-defense as a government-granted privilege, for which fewer due process and other protections are available than for a "right." I am not looking for gun regulation cases, but rather for cases about self-defense in general.
Challenges to both kinds of laws have previously not had a federal constitutional dimension.
Even absent incorporation, these issues could be raised vis-a-vis federal law prosecutions.
I might be wrong, but isn't this pretty much every Homicide statute out there?
Every example I can recall treated self defense as an affirmative justification type defense, much like privilege in the civil context.
The extent to which it's not such a defense seems to lie primarily in prosecutorial discretion. The prosecutor simply won't press charges if it's clear the action was justifiable self defense.
Further, I'm not even terribly sure how self defense could really work as anything other than an affirmative defense. Requiring a prosecutor to prove every murder wasn't in self defense would be pretty nonsensical. Treating Self Defense as a rebuttable presumption (once raised the prosecutor must prove it wasn't) would seemingly get the worst of both worlds. Every murder defendant would subsequently try to claim it, and raising it would almost certainly still be subject to some minimum standard of evidence, and if you do raise it the same evidence that shows you were guilty in the first place would probably serve to show it wasn't self defense.
unless it's treated as a rebuttable presumption once raised. Requiring a prosecutor to prove in every case that the Realistically however, that doesn't seem like
Most states require the prosecution to prove the absence of self-defense (when raised by a defendant) rather than force the defendant to prove its existence.
Martin v. Ohio, 480 US 228 (1987)said it was OK to require the defendant to prove the existence of self-defense (so long as the evidence could also be considered in establishing reasonable doubt)--but noted that at that time, only two states still did so: Ohio and South Carolina.
Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but your argument seems to boil down to "This can't possibly the right, because it would be too hard to implement."
It seems to me that 1) the right to self defense does not necessarily mean a right to kill someone else. 2) the right to self defense is not over-arching. That is, you cannot put your self into a situation where suddenly you need to exercise a right to self defense. "I had to shoot the cop, your honor, he was going to kill me before I got out of the bank." So the most likely outcome is that the prosecutor will only need guidance on where the proximate cause shakes out.
More likely, the right to self defense will depend on "What we may defend". Clearly I can defend myself- but what about my property?
Self-defence works like this in Canada for murder, and every other crime, for that matter. If there is an "air of reality" to self-defence then it goes to the jury, whether the defence introduces evidence on it or not, and the prosecution must then disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not an especially difficult way to do things.
On Dave's original question, I think the discussion following Orin Kerr's related post on this topic is fairly enlightening. One could argue that the right of self-defense is a pre-existing natural right (as recognized in Blackstone's Commentaries and even the Old Testament), and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms merely enshrines the availability of arms as permissible tools to use in self-defense where appropriate. Heller dealt only with the individual RKBA in self-defense in the home. Eventually the question will be addressed in other locations and contexts.
My view: Heller changes nothing regarding the right to self-defense. It recognizes there is a right to self-defense, and at best stands for the proposition that anytime you can use deadly force in self-defense, you can use "arms." But where deadly force was not justified before Heller, the case does not change anything -- you may still have a legal duty to retreat or use proportionally less-than-deadly force as per existing law.
It's the difference between two burdens, the burden of going forward and the burden of proof.
Burden of going forward: to have something become an issue, there must be at least a little evidence supporting it.
Prosecution doesn't have to disprove every possible defense by the end of its case or face dismissal. It doesn't have to prove the defendant was sane if there has been no evidence of insanity, etc.
Burden of proof: once something does become an issue, one or the other party (in this case the prosecution) must disprove it or lose.
Questions: If Kopel is right that Heller establishes a constitutional right to self-defense (about which I take no position), is Indiana's burden of proof ok, or not ok?
If not ok, would a plea bargain be reversible as involuntary (possibly "strickland standard".)
Is Heller retroactive?
Is Heller retroactive for people in jail for having handguns in the home in DC?
Is post-conviction relief available for anybody anywhere as a result of Heller?
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.