No, any other known to me to be a competent lawyer will work, too. He’s just the only one qualified who’s been posting in this thread, today. Good enough?
ETA: I did notice that I can respond to this part:
Actually, the state does have to prove the defendant was present, so they do have to rebut that Mexico defense.
Good thing, because you and it need to break up.
The prosecution’s task is much easier in the hypo you craft, at least for getting a conviction on a lesser-included offense.
Why? Because he’s admitted to facts which would allow a jury to infer manslaughter. They can say, “Here’s our evidence for his ill intent, his evil motive. But even if you don’t believe it, his own words acknowledge the shooting was accidental. You can find from that alone that the shooting was manslaughter.”
They would have to show he was there and that he fired the shot that killed Martin. In the actual case, the defense concedes those points.
But only indirectly. The State doesn’t have to present reams upon reams of airline records, showing the absence of the defendant’s name on flight manifests. They don’t have to interview Mexican hotel clerks to find evidence that the defendant was never seen by them. All they have to do is show evidence that the defendant did the crime. The defendant not being in Mexico is not central to that.
It’s the difference between proving a positive and proving a negative. If Zimmerman claims Martin injured him telekinetically, there is no way the prosecution can disprove this directly. Maybe the kid had special powers unknown to anyone until that moment. Sure, telekinesis has never been documented, but there’s a first for everything, right?
The jury is under no obligation to accept this happened just because the State can’t prove it didn’t happen. Because its fantastical, the jury will likely see this as a strike against Zimmerman’s credibility. Not just on that detail, but all the rest of it. If they don’t assign any weight to Zimmerman’s evidence, then they will have nothing to base an opinion on except the State’s evidence.
Not that I expect you to believe this, since I’m not a lawyer.
But cant the State say the same things now about Zimmerman? We have the same evidence for ill intent and evil motive. And we have his admission that he shot Martin. The only difference is that instead of an accident, the reason offered is self defense. Not seeing how that would alter the evidence the State is obligated to provide to make their case against him.
Right. So doesn’t this mean that if this thing goes to court, the State is essentially in the same position it would be if Zimmerman had denied killing Martin? Evidence in support of 2nd degree murder exists independently of the defendant’s claims.
No, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact under any evidentiary standard. Evidentiary standards are a matter of how much evidence or how much evidentiary weight is needed as a matter of law. It has NOTHING to do with whether a jury believes any particular piece of evidence.
The one exception would be if a jury for instance did find guilt and and there was NO EVIDENCE at all that what was charged is true, from neither the prosecution nor the defense, wherefore an appellate court can be sure their verdict was improper. As long as there is evidence a rational factfinder could believe, the courts leave it alone.
google insufficiency of the evidence.
So, Bricker, let me ask you something. This is from a Cornell law professor:
Corey now has made the prosecution a personal issue. Will she conduct the prosecution in such a way as to achieve justice, or to set herself up for a personal lawsuit against Dershowitz and Harvard?
…
By threatening suit against a critic in the middle of the case, Corey has put her own financial interests at stake in the outcome and conduct of the prosecution.
Florida has adopted American Bar Association Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to Prosecution Function. ABA Standard 3-1.3 Conflicts of Interest provides in pertinent part:
[INDENT]
(f) A prosecutor should not permit his or her professional judgment or obligations to be affected by his or her own political, financial, business, property, or personal interests.
Corey should step down. Now.
[/INDENT]
I am pretty sure Corey won’t step down voluntarily, but the question is: can something like this be a cause for an appeals court overturning the conviction (if achieved)?
How about paralegals? After all, it was frequently my job to figure out sometimes tricky details about what the lawyer I worked for ought to argue, or at least help him figure it out, as the case may be. many cases with lesser issues were practically entirely in my hands but for the five minutes it took my boss to appear in court and get the judge’s ok.
Is that good enough?
Not meaning to argue from my own authority, but really, you shouldn’t disbelieve a doper just cause they’re not a lawyer. You should ask them to cite if you doubt.
Er… no.
The jury is not required to believe any particular evidence.
The prosecution’s case is presented first. At the close of their case, they must have made a legally sufficent record the proves guilt on each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
This before the accused produces a single witness.
Under a traditional self-defense as an affirmative defense system, the jury is entitled to infer that a killing is unlawful. So all the prosecution has to do is show that the killing happened and the accused did it, and the jury can infer criminal culpability.
When the accused pleads self-defense, and adduces evidence that the self-defense was at least more likely than not, then the jury must consider that claim and decide if they believe it.
Under this Florida system, that’s not true. The state must prove that the self-defense claim is not true, and they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
If their case did not already purport to do this, they are permitted to call rebuttal witnesses to refute aspects of the defense’s claims.
The state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
The state can fail to disprove accident and still get a conviction.
The jury most certainly could convict. Conviction does not require direct evidence. While a case like this could be aided by, say, Abel’s fingerprints on the wallet, there is enough here, even if part of it is the fact of disbelieving Abel’s story.
A Jury will reason, “why would he lie?” “Why has he placed himself here during the time the crime was committed?” “If the wallet went from the shopkeeper’s pocket to the dumpster somehow, and here’s someone who claims to know how the wallet got there, but puts it off on a clown, why, if he is not guilty at least of protecting the true criminal, if he’s not?”
Coupled with Abel’s nervousness and the wallet being found in the dumpster beside Abel, and assuming I believed all that to be true, I’d convict, and I’d sleep at night.
Come on, Bricker, you know that we convict people of death penalty offenses on circumstantial evidnece alone and it doesn’t have to be direct evidence.
Not quite the formula I would use.
If the state presents no evidence for an element of the crime, and the defendant testifies that the element did not happen, the jury may not disbelieve the testimony and thereby conclude that this element happened.
Absolutely not. The state’s evidence does not exclude all reasonable hypotheses except guilt. The problem is not the circumstantial evidence; it’s the attenuation between the wallet and the accused.
Based on what has been released to the public the evidence does not support a 2nd degree murder prosecution which is what a Harvard Law Professor of 50 years has stated.
Take it up with him.
You have not (yet) established to my satisfaction that you are what you claim or are competent at it. Not denying you are, just pointing out that I don’t have sufficient grounds to accept your claim. This is the internet, a quasi-anonymous message board, and people make false claims of expertise for themselves in those circumstances, all the time. So, no. Sorry.
I’m seeing your issues here, with the Florida law. I’m also seeing that my understanding of the standards of evidence was a bit… off. Thanks.
Everyone else, disregard what I said in previous posts. I wasn’t getting it right.
(my emphasis)
I’d like to expand on the bolded part for you, Cheshire, to be sure your grasp on this is correct.
The implication of what Bricker said there has its most force in an application of jury instructions. In most, if not all jurisdictions, proving the preponderance of your self-defense entitles you to an instruction from the court to the jury during its final charge that they should consider the defense, and if they believe the facts, that the defendant is entitled to acquittal as a matter of law. If you fail to prove a preponderance of the evidence, the court doesn’t have to give the instruction.
Now, if this goes up on appeal, the big difference is the judge is the trier of fact for the purposes of deciding whether to give the instruction, and he might have said what facts he believed and how there was or wasn’t a preponderance. Still as long as a rational fact-finder could believe what the judge believed based on the evidence, they aren’t gonna tell him he had a preponderance of the evidence either, if the judge had said he didn’t.
The cold hard record hides much.
What I’m really pointing out is that you are engaging in the appeal to authority fallacy in so doing. You should be looking to what you can verify yourself, and assuming the good faith of other dopers, rather than being suspicious, you can merely ask any of us to cite and that could be the end of whether you got good information or not.
it isn’t too hard to read court cases.
I’ll show you plenty if you want to see.
It may seem imtimidating but it’s really not that hard if you have an interest in it.
Perhaps I am imputing a little too much time in the alley to Abel. Does his testimony indicate that he was in the alley at the time of the crime? Cause if it does, if he’s like minding his own business and just hanging out in the alley and along came a clown, etc., then that HAS TO MEAN that Abel knows how the wallet got into the dumpster. Not telling us credible facts about what he certainly must know can impute guilt, and this is precisely why one’s attorney should strenuously warn someone that they really shouldn’t, in most cases, take the stand.
The Jury is allowed to make an inference that an obvious lie hides guilt. His lie tends to show that it was Abel who hit the shopkeeper on the head because if it was not a woman in a clown suit then Abel knows who did it and ain’t telling. The Jury cannot construct a fanciful situation that involves the whole circus too. But they are entitled to one inference from the evidence adduced, including the fact that Abel is lying about how the wallet got there. The inference to be drawn is that Abel beyond a reasonable doubt put the wallet there.
In this case the prosecution would have failed but-for Abel’s testimony.
Do you have some particular case you are thinking of that is on all fours to this hypothetical?