wife many times and the police presented evidence contradicting that theory, such as the officer’s testimony that the scratches on Henry’s arm appeared to be made by thorns, not knives. Retrial counsel testified, and the record shows, however, that during trial he elicited evidence of the victim’s violent nature and that the victim attacked Henry first. Thus, self-defense was consistent with Henry’s version of events, and evidence existed to support it. In fact, counsel presented enough evidence of self-defense to justify a jury instruction on it. Further, at the evidentiary hearing retrial counsel admitted that self-defense was an imperfect defense because of the repeated stabbing, but he stated that his defense strategy was twofold. See Lusk v. State, 498 So.2d 902, 905 (Fla.1986) (<HOLDING>). Counsel also argued for a depraved mind,
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 holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense holding that a judge may exclude selfdefense if the facts support such a decision holding trial counsels decision to rely on selfdefense here was a strategic choice which did not fall outside the acceptable range of competent choices and stating that considering all the circumstances  selfdefense was arguably the only viable choice holding the defendant sufficiently raised a selfdefense justification in a murder prosecution while thoroughly evaluating selfdefense burden of proof jurisprudence but declining to address applicable burden of proof for raising selfdefense in the virgin islands