You sound like you really want this to be true. I wouldn’t bet on it, though. If the media reported on something as mundane as the items Zimmerman purchased from the commissary, you best believe they’d post that video if they could.
The simplest explanation is that its not available. Why? Who knows? Why even care, unless you think the video is going change your opinion on his guilt or innocence?
See the links above. More speculation down the drain.
You sound like you really want this to be true. I wouldn’t bet on it, though. If the media reported on something as mundane as the items Zimmerman purchased from the commissary, you best believe they’d post that video if they could.
Eta: I see you found some video. Haven’t had a chance to look at them. If nothing is there, I gotta wonder why the prosecution feels otherwise.
Why do you think prosecution feels otherwise? Because you really want it to be true?
Because they included it as evidence, duh. That kinda sorta implies they think it’s relevant to establishing the facts in this case.
It doesn’t. They included everything. Hell, watch the videos yourself. What do you see?
The first link alone is about 45 min in length. It would be crazy of me to sit through that, not to mention all of the other tapes, just to engage you on this topic.
What’s clear is that you haven’t even looked at it either, since less than hour ago you didn’t even know of their existence. You simply took one look and concluded there is nothing to see. So why don’t you watch the videos? Come back and tell us what you learned. If there’s nothing to see, I’ll take your word for it.
You are confused and mixing up appellate standards of review and jury trial practice. Any criminal jury is allowed to disbelieve a cockamamie space alien story even if there is no evidence against it. As a matter of fact, as a trial tactic, a prosecutor may decide to not say a thing at all about the defense’s story in order to underscore how frivolous it is.
Nothing on them. If there was, MSM would have been all over it.
Yes there is, yes it does. The legal presumption is that undisputed evidence stands as true. Let Bricker or another lawyer weigh in. That’s the way it is, to the best of my knowledge. I’m willing to be disputed by someone who’s actually licensed to practice law. Otherwise, my understanding is that if the jury decides differently, the jury’s decision will be set aside. They are not allowed to judge undisputed evidence.
Acknowledged. It’s not in dispute, because both sides acknowledge that. No need for either side to establish it. Now we come to the “needs to show is that the Zimmerman acted unlawfully”. That is precisely what the state needs to show. And they can’t do it just by calling “bullshit” on his story. They have to show that it’s bullshit. With actual evidence. No matter how ridiculous the story is. They have to provide evidence. Otherwise, it stands as fact on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
Then the state has to drive that truck through the holes. Period. Else we can all be convicted on the basis that someone calls “bullshit”, and we can’t prove otherwise.
Not at all. I didn’t care about that one enough to read about it, and I don’t care enough about this one to hunt down news about it. Why don’t you link me to what you think relevant? All I’m talking about is the relevant legal standards for conviction. Convince me, the member of the jury, who’s not read the sensationalist news, like a good little juror. Present me the evidence. I will decide according to the relevant legal standard. Convince me to convict, and I will convict. Fail to do that, and I will aquit.
But the appellate standard is what matters. If the conviction is set aside, that means that it was wrong under the law. Regardless of what the jury thought the law was.
If the jury convicts despite an uncontested defense of “space aliens made me do it” the court of appeals is NOT going to say, “Hold, on now, the jury was compelled to find that space aliens made the defendant do it because this defense was not contested by contrary evidence. Therfore, since the jury erred in finding of fact, we are reversing with instructions for the jury to accept as fact that space aliens made the defendant do it.”
No sir. The appellate court says: “We will not substitute findings of fact for that of the jury, unless there was no evidence that could lead a rational fact-finder to their conclusion.”
The apelalte standard is what matters on appeal. At trial, the jury can believe or disbelieve what it wants, and their conclusion will not be disturbed unless there is no evidence to support it.
So, if there is plenty of evidence Joe murdered someone, but he claims space aliens made him do it, and the prosecutor declines to even address the space alien theory, and the jury convicts, no appellate court is going to reverse on a fact issue. They will say the jury obviously did not believe the space alien nonsense and refuse to substitute their judgment for the jury’s.
Not exactly, no. The jury is generally entitled to believe or disbelieve any evidence presented to it, yes. But there are some constraints. Evidence that is inherently not credible can be rejected as a matter of law.
More to the point, I think you are mixing up what the jury has to accept with what they cannot find. The jury can disbelieve even uncontradicted evidence. But they cannot substitute other conclusions without evidence.
They do not need to credit Zimmerman’s testimony as true. But they can’t find, as fact, that something else happened simply because they disbelieve his story. There has to be specific, positive evidence to support any finding.
The implications of what you’re positing are absurd enough that a high school drop out is qualified to dispute it. You’re basically saying Z can say anything he wants to, and unless the State can prove his claims as wrong, the jury has to accept his claims as the truth.
If Z asserted that Martin used telekinetic powers to pummel his head against the ground, do you really think the State would have to spend taxpayer money disproving telekinesis just to convince a jury this didnt happen? Please tell me I’m misunderstanding you here.
You’re almost right.
Undisputed evidence does not have to stand as true.
But the jury cannot find that the contrary theory of the case happened either.
Let’s imagine a case of armed robbery. The state alleges that Abel entered Baker’s store, struck Baker over the head with a blackjack, stole Baker’s wallet, and left. Abel was arrested a block away. The wallet was found in a trash dumpster nearby. Baker never saw his attacker. The police officer who arrested Abel says that Abel was next to the dumpster and looked very nervous when questioned.
Abel testifies that he was in the alley when a woman in a clown suit ran by him, tossed the wallet in the dumpster, and kept running.
Must the jury believe that there was a woman in the clown suit? It’s uncontradicted, after all.
No.
So then can the jury convict Abel? No. Even though they choose to disbelieve his clown story, they cannot substitute another theory that makes Abel guilty. There is no direct evidence of guilt.
In a self-defense trial, there are two sides that have to present a theory as to what happened. This is in contrast to murder trial that doesn’t involve an affirmative defense: in that case, only the State is required to present and support a theory.
The burden of proof necessary for a conviction is the same for both trials. Independent of what the defendant says, the State has to be able to show evidence that a crime took place.
In Zimmerman’s case, he is the only living witness to the entire sequence of events relevant to determining his guilt or innocence. If his credibility is impeached due to too many lies and improbabilities in his testimony, then this doesn’t automatically mean the jury will convict him of murder. It just means that all the evidence against him will not be offset by his claims of innocence. The State will therefore have the upper hand in making their case.
I’ve asked this in a different way and it was never answered, so let me try again. Let’s say Zimmerman didn’t claim self defense. What if his story had been that the two of them had gotten in a struggle and the gun went off accidentally, sending a bullet into the boy’s chest. All the other evidence remains the same as it now. The yelling on the tape, the witness accounts, so and so forth.
Would the prosecution task’s of proving guilt be easier or harder than it is now? Or would it be the same? I think it would be the same, but I’m not married to this position.
After thinking on it, I need to modify my last question.
Would the prosecution’s theory of events need to be different if Zimmerman’s claims were different?
Forget about an accidental shooting. If Zimmerman straight up asserted that he had nothing to do with Martin’s death, I’d imagine it would be very easy for the State to prove otherwise. But it would be trickier to show that he commited murder and not manslaughter.
So I guess my real question is, what exactly would the prosecution have to show in the current case that they wouldn’t have to show if Zimmerman had been bold enough to deny killing Martin? To me, it seems there should be no difference.
Yes it is, if the relevant standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence’. Evidence was presented, in the form of testimony from the defendant. If that evidence was not rebutted, then it stands as fact by the standards that the appellate court will apply. If evidence presented is not rebutted by the opposition, it stands as fact by the preponderance of evidence standard. If, on the other hand, the standard is “reasonable doubt”, then the ‘space alien’ defense will not be overturned. Note the difference here. It’s the ‘standard of evidence’ that is applied to a particular piece of evidence presented.
‘Preponderance of evidence’ standard says that any unrebutted evidence stands as fact. ‘Reasonable doubt’ standard allows the jury to reject ‘space aliens’ as reasonable.
AFAIK, ‘preponderance of evidence’ applies to ‘self-defense’ in this case. If not, then I’m wrong. No big deal. As I said before, I have no emotional investment in this case at all.
Precisely. And if the jury is required to find ‘preponderance of evidence’, then anything at all that’s presented, no matter how ludicrous, stands as fact, unless rebutted by the opposition. Even ‘space aliens’. And the Appellate court will uphold or reverse, based on that standard. Because the jury was required to follow that standard.
That’s because ‘reasonable doubt’ applies in your hypothetical, here, not ‘preponderance of evidence’ and the ‘space aliens’ theory is not reasonable. I didn’t invent a hypothetical, in my earlier post, I merely pointed out that uncontested testimony, no matter how ridiculous, stands as fact under the ‘preponderance of evidence’ standard. The opposition has to offer something as a rebuttal under that standard. If they don’t, they lose.
OK, I got it. My ‘space aliens’ was a bit over the top due to being totally incredible. Martin deciding in advance to deliver a smack-down was what I was trying to get at. Reasonably possible, if somewhat unlikely. But something the prosecution actually has to present evidence to rebut, if ‘preponderance of evidence’ is the standard. Am I right on that?
I’ll wait til’ Bricker schools me to reply to yours. I may be wrong.
Are you talking about in the trial? Or at some other stage?
You may be right, if you’re talking about what Zimmerman is allowed to get away with to avoid charges. That is one of the perks that come with the SYG law, apparently.
But in court, the State is under no obligation to rebut anything the defendant says. If defendant says they were in Mexico during the murder and therefore innocent, the State doesn’t have to prove he wasn’t in Mexico. All the State has to do is furnish evidence that the defendant did the crime.
If Bricker is the only person in this thread that can convince you the State doesn’t have to disprove something as silly as telekinesis, all I can say to that is okey dokey. I tried my best.