06-03-2011, 12:37 PM
(06-03-2011, 12:13 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: no the defense does not have the burden of proof. but his opening was what i would consider an affirmative defense, which would require some basis in fact, i.e. proof.
The burden of proving an affirmative defense is by the preponderance of the evidence. A bit less than reasonable doubt, but the burden is definitely on the defense. They have to offer a hell of a lot more than Casey's word.