Self-defense is a positive defense, so the defendant has The burden of proof making: He must have some evidence from which a jury can defend itself. But then The burden of proof Comes back to the prosecution, which will certainly deny self-defense beyond reasonable doubt.
It wasn’t always like that. At the time of the framing, it was a rule of English common law that the defendant must prove his case with the predominance of evidence, and the Supreme Court has said (Martin vs. Ohio (1987)) It would be constitutional to impose this burden on the accused. But even then, “all but two states, Ohio and South Carolina, ha[d] Has abandoned the rule of law, “and they have changed their rules ever since.” State vs. Sutterfield (La. Ct. App. 2021)), which still requires the defendant to deny self-defense by the predominance of evidence; Louisiana follows the rules of consensus-logic-suspicion for self-defense in the case of homicide.)
Of course this does not rule out what the rule should be. One way to think about the question of that principle is that the almost unanimous rule adopts the view, “It is better to release (or execute) 10 convicted murderers than to imprison a person killed in self-defense for a long time.” The Ohio law, which is also a historical framing-age law, states that “it is a little bad for a guilty murderer to be released (or to be sentenced to death) for a person who kills in proper self-defense.” May be because one changes the burden of proof or determines the amount of evidence elsewhere, such as clear and credible evidence. But the current law is quite clear,