“You Have to Believe Everyone Is a Liar”: Why Prosecutors Can’t Force You to Disprove Their Case

By: John Guidry

Have you tried watching a cable news channel recently? I can’t do it. It’s just talking heads arguing over each other. Good luck trying to glean any useful analysis. Courtrooms are different. Our criminal justice system has strict rules. Even though we criminal defense lawyers wave the Constitution every chance we get, our First Amendment right to free speech doesn’t apply when a jury is listening.

• The Rules: We can’t tell the jury about the potential sentence. We can’t tell them our client is facing a 3-year minimum mandatory for $100 worth of pills.
• The Restriction: We are bound by the Evidence Code.

But sometimes, prosecutors try to circumvent these rules and sneak a few lies in the back door. Today’s case is about exactly that.

Did the prosecutor tell the jury they had to find the cops were lying to acquit you?

That is improper Burden Shifting. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Mitchell v. State (The Steak and the Dog)

In Mitchell v. State, 118 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), the defendant was convicted of Animal Cruelty. You aren’t going to like the facts, but here they are:

• The Incident: Mitchell and friends were eating steaks and drinking beer. A friend fed Mitchell’s dog a piece of steak.
• The Reaction: Mitchell freaked out and tried to grab the steak back. Naturally, the dog bit him.
• The Allegation: Witnesses said Mitchell picked up the dog, slammed it to the ground, dropped his knee onto its chest, and punched it.
• The Injuries: Two veterinarians testified the dog suffered a collapsed lung, fluid in the lungs, and fractured ribs.
• The Defense: Mitchell claimed he simply “tripped” over the dog.

Given the severity of the injuries, the jury didn’t buy the “I tripped” story. Mitchell was sentenced to jail and probation.

The Legal Error: Shifting the Burden

You would think this conviction was a slam dunk. But the Prosecutor got greedy in Closing Arguments. Instead of just arguing the facts, the Prosecutor told the jury:

“What the defense is asking you to do is to believe that every single witness in this case is a liar… Every single person has to be a liar except him.”

When the Defense objected, the Judge overruled it. The Prosecutor continued:

“You would have to take the evidence that Doctor Carro gave you, find that she is wrong… find that what [the friend] said didn’t happen at all.”

Why is this wrong?

• The Burden of Proof: The State must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defense has NO burden to prove anything.
• The Lie: By saying the jury must find the witnesses are “liars” to acquit, the Prosecutor is lying about the law. A jury can believe the witnesses (that the dog was hurt) but still believe the Defendant’s intent was accidental. They don’t have to call anyone a liar to vote “Not Guilty.”

The Ruling: Reversal of Conviction

The Appellate Court reversed the conviction.

• The Logic: The Prosecutor’s argument improperly shifted the burden of proof.“The prosecutor crossed the line… by implying that the defendant had a burden to establish that the State’s witnesses were lying.”

The “Not Proven” Verdict: A “Not Guilty” verdict does not mean the defendant is innocent; it means the State failed to prove the case. By framing the decision as “Mitchell vs. The World,” the State tried to force the jury to choose sides rather than weigh the evidence.

John’s 2026 Update: Ponce’s Law & The “Smart Home” Witness

Note: In 2013, Mitchell got 9 months jail. In 2026, he would likely be facing prison.

1. Ponce’s Law (Enhanced Penalties) Since this case, Florida passed Ponce’s Law (effective 2018).

• The Change: It increased the severity of Animal Cruelty charges (making prison more likely) and allowed judges to prohibit offenders from owning pets ever again.
• The 2026 Reality: Prosecutors are much more aggressive with these cases now. If you fracture a dog’s ribs in 2026, do not expect a plea deal for probation.

2. The “Smart Home” Witness In Mitchell, the defense was “I tripped,” and it was his word against his friend’s.

• The Tech: In 2026, almost everyone has indoor cameras (Ring, Nest, PetCams).
• The Evidence: The “I tripped” defense is dead if there is video. Prosecutors don’t need to shift the burden; they just play the tape. However, if the tape shows a chaotic struggle rather than a “knee drop,” we use the video to prove it was a reaction to the bite, not malice.

3. Burden Shifting is Still Common Despite Mitchell, prosecutors still make this argument constantly: “Is Officer Smith risking his pension to lie about this?”

• The Defense: We must object immediately: “Objection! Burden Shifting. Bolstering.” If the Judge overrules us, we have grounds for appeal, just like Mitchell.

Make Them Prove It

The State has the burden. You don’t have to prove the cops are liars; you just have to prove their story doesn’t add up. Don’t let them trick the jury into thinking otherwise.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s hold the State to their burden.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.