A jury could convict Zimmerman of murder without saying one whit about whether or not Martin was acting in self-defense. The State needs to show evidence that Zimmerman commited murder when he shot Martin dead, but the State doesn’t have to prove that Martin punched him in self-defense.
However, none of this means that the jury’s decision won’t ultimately be influenced by the belief that Martin was acting in self-defense. The law can’t prevent a jury from reaching certain opinions that ultimately will affect the verdict it gives, even if those opinions don’t meet certain legal standards.
If Zimmerman testifies at trial that Martin punched him without provocation and that is why he fired, the jury can do one of two things with this information: take it at face value or view it with skepticism. There is nothing legally requiring the jury to accept it as truth (we covered this earlier point earlier in this thread.)
The extent to which they view it skeptically may largely hinge upon how strong the jury is sold on the idea that Martin hit Zimmerman without provocation. If they think its unlikely the kid would have behaved in this manner based on the agreed upon facts in the case, they won’t believe Zimmerman’s story. Do you agree or disagree?
If the jury thinks Zimmerman’s story isn’t believable (for the reason I’ve outlined), then they will more likely buy the prosecution’s theory that Zimmerman committed murder. And as long as the prosectution has some evidence to support their theory, there is no case to be made for an appeal.
Long story short: It’s not as black and white as you’re making it sound.
If you compare Zimmerman’s 911 call and Martin’s girlfriend’s account they both state that they lost sight of each other. Zimmerman agreed to meet the police back at the mailboxes. Put another way, Zimmerman’s stated intention was to meet with police. Martin, against the advice of his girlfriend chooses not to go home. If Martin chose not to go home and he eventually attacked Zimmerman what was his intention?
At no time did Martin say to his girlfriend that he was afraid of Zimmerman. When she told him to run home he said he was not going to run because he was right by his father’s house. According to Martin’s girlfriend minutes pass and the man (Zimmerman) is following him again. If Martin was by his father’s house then he would have had to walk back toward Zimmerman given the location of the altercation. His girlfriend asks again why he isn’t running and SHE said it was because he was tired because he was breathing hard. If Martin was tired from running 300 feet with a 2 minute break he didn’t show it when he repeatedly hit Zimmerman.
On top of this - Martin’s girlfriend said she heard"get off" and when questioned again she said “a little bit, a little bit”. I interpret that to mean she heard it in a lower volume which goes back to what I said about the call. It was made from a blue tooth device where the microphone points forward and will pickup all sounds, not just Martin. Given that Zimmerman was pinned down in close proximity to Martin it’s likely that she heard Zimmerman say “get off”.
But the jury would need other evidence to convict him of murder: they need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was NOT acting in self-defense. For this, they cannot simply disbelieve his story.
Yes, but I don’t think you are understanding exactly what that means. They don’t have to believe him… but that does not translate into, “They are entitled to believe some opposite thing did happen.”
In an ordinary self-defense state, it would be enough: the burden would rest on Zimmerman to prove he acted in self-defense. If he fails to convince the jury, he fails to carry his burden, and is convicted.
In Florida, the state must prove lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
That can’t be done by saying, “We don’t believe his story.”
To convict him of second degree murder, the state must show positive evidence, on the record, to support each of these elements – not by inference upon inference, but clear evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:
[ul]
[li]Treyvon Martin is dead[/li][li]He died because of a criminal act by Zimmerman[/li][li]Zimmerman’s criminal act was done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent[/li][li]Zimmerman’s act was NOT self-defense on Zimmerman’s part[/li][/ul]
Agree.
Yes. But the prosecution has to have that evidence. If they do,the jury is entitled to believe it. They need something beyond what’s been made public.
I understand exactly what that means, I just think it has no bearing on a practical level. A jury can disbelieve Zimmerman for any reason it wants to, and doesn’t have to justify its disbelief to anyone. Whether they believed the opposite occurred or not, the most relevant thing is that they don’t believe Zimmerman’s story. The “why” for this disbelief would always remain unknown to the court.
Of course. This is why I said the prosecution would have to prove its theory for the conviction to go through and withstand any appeal.
You know I know this already, so I don’t know why you wasted bandwidth with all the rest of what you wrote.
The evidence shows he was beaten complete with witnesses.
And I could be wrong but I believe his account is that he was sucker punched, not ambushed. Regardless, the evidence shows he was getting his ass kicked.
The first section applies to non-deadly force which is obviously not relevant to Zimmermans actions.
I would think that the second part in red would only be relevant if Martin were the aggressor and Zimmerman had an opportunity to escape from Martin. I am not finding any case law to invalidate my reading that this state standard requires the ability to retreat be relevant. It would seem to me that Zimmerman’s actions fall under the normal common law self defense laws as it would under any of the 50 states.
Where do you get the idea that the ability to retreat is relevant? The statute doesn’t say that. What cases did you review that failed to “invalidate your reading?”
I disagree with this, it can be totally irrelevant due to his other actions and if you look at the standard to be charged with Murder 2 in Florida:
Depravity of mind can be hitting a golf ball without yelling “four!” or willingly playing Russian roulette with another.
In this case “recklessness” is the mens rea in the states charge of Murder 2 and proper with the statute and case law it can be based on conduct and not on intent or knowledge.
If they can argue his pursuit was really reckless it doesn’t without the SYG immunity.
Not that I think it will stick once again but I think that is their claim.
Note: in researching it also appears the jury can also return manslaughter in some cases in the state. So maybe Murder 2 isn’t as big of a risk for the state as I thought.
Right there, it doesn’t mean it is not justifiable or excusable under common law self defense but it is not automatically justifiable, but I may be wrong.
As much as it pains me to agree with a Cato institute analyst I am not the only one who reads it this way.
But we will find out soon if his SYG claim is accepted or rejected.
Then IMHO it moves to the level culpability to decide if it was justifiable or excusable homicide or murder/manslaughter seeing as he was silly enough to talk without a lawyer.
When people mention the SYG law in Florida, at least in Zimmerman’s case, they don’t really mean the “stand your ground” part of it - because, as we know, Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman, beating him up, and the “escape” part was moot. But the whole Chapter 776 is dubbed “SYG law”, whether it deals with actually standing your ground or other matters.