of provocation overwhelmingly rebuts any suggestion that he killed Bissonette with malice aforethought. An imperfect self-defense involves the defendant’s unreasonable use of deadly force to thwart an assault. Rinehart v. Brewer, 561 F.2d 126, 132 (8th Cir.1977). This may be proven by evidence that: (1) the defendant unreasonably but truly believed that deadly force was necessary to defend himself, or (2) the defendant inadvertently caused the victim’s death while defending himself in a criminally negligent manner. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 201 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining differing theories of imperfect self-defense claims); United States v. Manuel, 706 F.2d 908, 915 (9th Cir.1983) (same); see also United States v. Brown, 287 F.3d 965, 975 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). A defendant who proves an imperfect
holding that both involuntary manslaughter and selfdefense instructions are proper when there is evidence that the killing was accidental holding that defendant properly raised selfdefense but passing on the applicable burden of proof for establishing selfdefense in a voluntary manslaughter prosecution in the virgin islands recognizing that a defendant may commit involuntary manslaughter if he acts in selfdefense but is criminally negligent in doing so holding that when selfdefense is carried out with excessive force a defendant would be guilty of manslaughter recognizing that entrapment is a statutory defense rooted in the notion that congress could not have intended to criminally punish those who commit elements of crime but are induced by the government to commit the acts and that outrageous conduct defense is rooted in constitutional law