So, anyone who knows law better than I do can correct me on this; but, reports have shown that a juror did his or her personal research on Texas law, which seems like a dangerous thing, and concluded that Perry needed to prove self-defense in order to be acquitted.
A lot of news outlets got this grossly wrong in the same way after the Rittenhouse verdict; but, since I've read way too much on this subject, I think I can see why people get this wrong.
The moment you claim self-defense, you're admitting to killing or severely injuring another person; but, you're arguing that your actions were justified due to the actions of the other person.
So, it's understandable that self-defense cases can be confusing. Do you have to prove self-defense; or, does the state have to disprove self-defense?
So, if you're claiming self-defense, you have a burden of production, not proof. In order for self-defense to even be considered by a jury, you have the burden to argue that it's plausible that innocence, imminence, proportionality, reasonableness all applied to your actions. Once that is established, and it's ruled that a jury can consider your claim of self-defense, the burden of proof is entirely on the state to disprove your claim.
There's already a barrier in place in terms of claiming self-defense. If there's clear and obvious evidence that you just saw a dude in a hoodie and decided to shoot him because you have the same thoughts as Hillary Clinton, you're not gonna be able to go to trial and argue self-defense.
Even I've fallen into this semantic trap. It's incorrect to say that a defendant in a self-defense trial has to prove that he or she behaved within the parameters of the four (or five) required factors of self-defense. Once the trial has started, the defendant has already established the plausibility of compliance with those pillars. Once the trial starts, the state has to disprove that compliance.