I guess defence may need testimony from witnesses to say they saw the screen in place and OK before the incident, but assuming they can do that (not hard)... what the defence expert argued is that the screen MUST have been out of the frame BEFORE the shot was fired.... that was what he explained with reference to height of the hole in screen, McBride's height, and position of wound. So McBride dislodged it while trying to gain access (Break in)

Here’s a question, ladies and gentlemen of the jury: if someone is beating on your front door after 2:00 AM, and when you go investigate you find the only thing between you and a stranger is a screen door, which the stranger is pushing their way through -- are you in reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death? I think the answer is “yes,” fear would seem reasonable. Does that fear justify shooting the stranger in self-defense? According to the law it does.

These are some of the details we learned yesterday during a hearing in the Theodore Wafer case -- the shooting of Renisha McBride: McBride was drunk and high. She had been in an accident, and she was injured and disoriented. We saw the screen door and heard testimony that McBride may have been forcing her way through. We heard a short 911 call where Wafer is clearly distressed in the wake of the shooting. We heard the claim that the shotgun went off accidentally, and we heard from a firearms expert that the gun couldn’t go off without pulling the trigger.

If the case goes to trial, we’ll hear and see much more, but the purpose of the hearing yesterday (continuing today) is to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial for second degree murder and manslaughter. Our justifiable use of force laws -- especially the Castle Doctrine -- are designed to recognize that the decision to defend oneself, including the use of deadly force, is a decision made quickly, under duress, and with limited information. From that perspective, based on the information we’ve seen so far, prosecution may not be appropriate.

The accused’s claim that the gun went off accidentally complicates the issue a bit -- it opens the door for the manslaughter charge to stick. Self-defense is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, and if the defendant was not acting affirmatively, it weakens the argument. While the claim of an accident eliminates the depraved mind qualifier in a second degree murder charge, killing someone accidentally is, almost by definition, manslaughter. If the case moves forward, it may rest on this point. Nonetheless, if the case does go to trial, I think the prosecutors will have an uphill battle in trying to convince a jury Theodore Wafer didn’t have a right to defend himself when a stranger was coming through his front door in the middle of the night.
[...]

If the position of the person holding the weapon firing as it is in the door frame, it would have to have been fired downward to hit a person on the porch who is 6 inches lower.

Balash said he is 5-foot-11 and would have to shoot downward given the location of the hole in the screen.

The assistant medical examiner testified earlier that McBride was shot straight on.

Balash has explained different scenarios. He said that the damage on the screen doesn't indicate a downward shot. He said there isn't a lot of damage to the screen. He said he would expect to see ripping and a pattern if the shot were fired downward.

Assistant prosecutor: The facts establiished is that Wafer took a shotgun out of a case, it was loaded, racked, the safety was taken off, he carried gun to the front door, "he shoved that shotgun in her face and he pulled the trigger," shooting through a locked screen door.