O'Mara previous appeal

[AJ]

Found this document, thought it was quite interesting and figured I'd share.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6605994745182856001&hl=en&as_sdt=2,37&as_vis=1

Essentially it's another self defense claim that went to appeals. I went searching after hearing a claim that Mr. O'Mara stated that the defense carries the burden of proof for self defense (person refused to cite a source, and they weren't saying it was true - just that he said it).

[cboldt]

The burden of proof of justified use of force varies as between an immunity hearing and trial, but it is always the defendant's burden of production and persuasion.

Immunity hearing burden of proof is to defendant, to a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)

At trial, burden of proof is to the state, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had not acted in self-defense

[cboldt]

Separately, on reading that appellate opinion, O'Mara of 1996 was sure making some silly arguments.  He lost the case and he lost the appeal, and i don't see anything in the DCA opinion that suggests either the trial court or the DCA made a mistake.  I see a few areas where it looks like O'Mara was wasting time and effort.

[AJ]

Document pointed to doesn't say anything about the burden at immunity. I wasn't pointing to the document for that reason. Everything below the url is just back-story regarding how I came across the document, it has nothing to do with the document itself other than the first sentence.

[cboldt]

Document pointed to doesn't say anything about the burden at immunity. I wasn't pointing to the document for that reason. Everything below the url is just back-story regarding how I came across the document, it has nothing to do with the document itself other than the first sentence.

Right.  But you originally said ,"I went searching after hearing a claim that Mr. O'Mara stated that the defense carries the burden of proof for self defense (person refused to cite a source, and they weren't saying it was true - just that he said it)," which is correct for immunity.  I didn't know if you were citing the appeal, which describes the standard of proof for self defense at trial, as contradictory or even informative as against the claim that sent you searching.  So, I just provided the burdens of production, persuasion and proof for the two contexts that appeared in your OP, immunity by the claim that sent you searching; and trial by the case you linked.

Just curious, when you say "other than the first sentence," are you referring to your "Essentially it's another self defense claim that went to appeals," or to the first sentence in the linked opinion?  Is the only point of the OP to introduce an appeal taken by O'Mara?  Meaning, you find nothing interesting about the appeal, or nothing particular to remark about it.  If so, pardon me for butting into a pointless post.

[AJ]

Right.  But you originally said ,"I went searching after hearing a claim that Mr. O'Mara stated that the defense carries the burden of proof for self defense (person refused to cite a source, and they weren't saying it was true - just that he said it)," which is correct for immunity.  I didn't know if you were citing the appeal, which describes the standard of proof for self defense at trial, as contradictory or even informative as against the claim that sent you searching.  So, I just provided the burdens of production, persuasion and proof for the two contexts that appeared in your OP, immunity by the claim that sent you searching; and trial by the case you linked.

You're reading too much into it.

Just curious, when you say "other than the first sentence," are you referring to your "Essentially it's another self defense claim that went to appeals," or to the first sentence in the linked opinion?  Is the only point of the OP to introduce an appeal taken by O'Mara?  Meaning, you find nothing interesting about the appeal, or nothing particular to remark about it.  If so, pardon me for butting into a pointless post.

You mean about as pointless as responding to a pointless post with information that is not requested or needed? I'm sorry if it does not please your highness, but as I stated in my first post, I thought others might find it interesting as well and left it open ended on purpose. Whether or not you, specifically, do find it interesting is not my concern. If I would've known that it bothered you, specifically, so much I would have put a big disclaimer at the top saying "DON'T READ THIS CBOLDT!"

[cboldt]

You mean about as pointless as responding to a pointless post with information that is not requested or needed? I'm sorry if it does not please your highness, but as I stated in my first post, I thought others might find it interesting as well and left it open ended on purpose. Whether or not you, specifically, do find it interesting is not my concern. If I would've known that it bothered you, specifically, so much I would have put a big disclaimer at the top saying "DON'T READ THIS CBOLDT!"

Even though it is none of your concern, I found it interesting, and read the opinion, and even made a remark about it.  My mistake for thinking you had a point to make or ask when you posted it.  Thank you for clarifying your objective, and other stuff.