This is wrong. If you are asserting an affirmative defense you can be called upon to testify in some cases. Asserting an affirmative defense means you know that the facts would not incriminate you and therefore you can not always plead the fifth.

No one can be forced to testify against themselves. It's the 5th Amendment. You can only be 'forced' to testify if you've been granted immunity and you are not incriminating yourself.

@markb that is incorrect in terms of an affirmative defense.

You would be making a claim by saying it is self defense and that claim can be challenged. Pleading the fifth is saying nothing. It's very different.

@Putvi: I literally said the same thing you are saying is correct. You don't lose your right against self incrimination, you waive it (i.e. Choose not to invoke it) because your defense hinges on admitting the thing you are accused of. You can always not raise affimative defenses and not testify against yourself, but an affirmative defense is a defense that I did do that thing, but the circumstances do not make me criminally or civilly liable.

Yes, I agree, but you said he may not testify. I meant that he could be called on to testify and thought you were saying no.

@Putvi: Since an Affirmative Defense shifts the burden of proof to the Defense, it is waiving 5th amendment rights. The Prosecution/Plaintiff is under no burden to prove your defense when you admit to an action you are accused of, but do not offer proof of a narrative different to his.

They don't have to prove your defense, but they would make you testify in order to shoot it down.

They still are not making you testify. You're defense requires you too, but since you invoked the defense, it was your choice, so it was not violating your 5th amendment rights. You could plead the 5th if there was a second crime that you are not charged with that came into play, but an element specific to self-defense is that but for the threats of another person, you were completely legal in all actions up to that point (i.e. you can't be committing a separate at the time to get self defense. Any death in the commission of a crime is Felony Murder.).

Them calling you is them making you.

@Putvi: Who is calling whom?

The prosecutor would call you to testify.

@Putvi: No he wouldn't my defense attorney would call me to testify. The prosecutor would call the cop and ask "How did you know the defense did it? Cop: He said "I killed Rob" [Trial goes on] Defense: Did you say "I killed Rob?" Bob: No. Defense: What did you say? Bob: I said "I killed Rob in Self Defense" Not a violation of 5th Amendment... but he does have to wave his 5th amendment right. Once he does this in court, the Prosecution can cross examine him and he does have to back that statement up... but as soon as you choose to testify, you waive 5th amendment.

You aren't going to go up there and testify if there is any doubt it could go your way. The prosecution will call you up.

@Putvi: Not in the United States. If the prosecution calls you to direct examination, the judge will laugh in his face.

Well it has happened in state and federal courts for years and no one has laughed.

That the prosecution was allowed direct examination of the defendant?

Your affirmative deffense would be filed in writing first. The other side would be objecting to it or both sides would be agreeing to the filing and you would just drop the case.

Affirmative offense is not a thing?

It corrected it falsely lol.

It's still conducted in the format of the trial. It just means the defense must present evidence to meet a threshold of some burden of proof, but not beyond reasonable doubt. Even in the George Zimmerman case, where he asserted self defense, Zimmerman never took the stand to testify himself... but he did present evidence to support his claim. At no time did he deny killing Martin, in fact, he called the cops on himself.

Zimmerman relied on the stand your ground law and did not file to assert an affirmative defense if I recall correctly. Florida has much different laws then most states on that.

@Putvi: Stand your ground is a possible component of Self-Defense, but he still claimed self-defense. And is the rule rather than the exception in the United states (only 11 states follow common law "Duty To Flee" standard). Zimmerman's did not rely on Stand Your Ground during trial, as they felt the nature of the case would qualify for a "Duty to Flee" standard, which is less strict. Never-the-less either standard in self-defense was legal and the defense was still used. Zimmerman waived his right to a pretrial motion to immunity for the charged crime under self-defense.

@hszmv check out this case law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/1964/33350-0.html