# Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125 "2012-04-18T04:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 541
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10803 "2013-06-13T16:22:37Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > **Stoid** , you and I are exactly on the same page with this. Well, you are both persistently wrong. But I wouldn’t say you are on the same page - you are wrong on the facts, the evidence and the law. **Stoid** is only wrong on the law. Of course, she has put a lot more effort into being wrong on the law than you have, so chin up. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10804 "2013-06-13T16:31:18Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Your unwavering faith in the justice system is cute, but be rest assured, if you think that the jury will not take into consideration Zimmerman’s prior behavior from witnesses , then I think you’re being naive. Do you really think that when Witness 8 comes to the stand: when she talks about how Zimmerman sexually abused her and the racist comments from his family, do you think these revelations won’t sway the jury? They won’t sway the jury because they won’t happen. The defense’s _in limine_ motions to exclude that evidence were granted. Witness 8 won’t be asked any questions that elicit any information about how Zimmerman sexually abused her and about the racist comments from his family. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10805 "2013-06-13T16:41:12Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > So what the hell are all these people on about? What is the scenario in which the prosecution proves to the jury, _ **beyond a reasonable doubt,** _ that the accused did in fact commit the crime he has been charged with, yet simultaneously have failed to disprove self-defense? The two things cannot exist in the same space, for god’s sake, if one is true the other can’t be, so why all the arguing with me about it? Because you seem to be missing the specific implications of the general rule. In order to prove the accused committed the crime, the prosecution must prove the truth of all the elements of the crime, proving each one beyond a reasonable doubt. When the accused offers even a scintilla of evidence of self-defense, then the prosecution becomes obligated to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not the same thing as before, _because the list of elements the prosecution must prove has changed._ It’s grown longer. When you say, “…the accused did in fact commit the crime he has been charged with, yet simultaneously have failed to disprove self-defense…” it appears (at least to me) that you’re not recognizing the way that can happen: if the prosecution proves all the original elements of second-degree murder but fails to address the claim of self-defense. Now, I get that you’re hanging your hat on the “lawfully” aspect of the issue, and reasoning that if the jury finds he acted unlawfully, that’s the same as the jury rejecting the idea of self-defense. But that fails to take into account the requirement that the record must reflect positive evidence on which the jury can rely to establish each and every element. If the prosecution simply fails to address the claim of self-defense, the jury might indeed decide he’s guilty, but that verdict won’t withstand challenge, because the record will be legally insufficient. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10806 "2013-06-13T16:45:17Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The state’s burden of proof is a major part of any criminal trial. > > The state does need to disprove self-defense. Yes. But remember: it’s not always true. It’s true for this case, because that’s Florida law. Other states require that the accused prove self-defense by preponderance of the evidence. **you with the face** seems stuck in that mode: she expects the defense to have some burden to prove their self-defense case, and if this trial were happening under the laws of, say, Michigan, she’d be precisely correct in that expectation. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10807 "2013-06-13T16:54:33Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > In Florida, if a scintilla of evidence of self-defense is introduced, **the jury is instructed as to an additional element which must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant was acting in self defense.** Not according to the instructions [here](http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter3/p1c3s3.6.f.rtf). The operative language is included in the last sentence of the document, right before the closing comment: > [@](#): > > However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. Notice there is nothing in there implying that if from the evidence the jury is convinced that the defendant is guilty of all the elements of the charge, they should acquit if the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense. Wanna know why that’s not in there? Because it’s retarded. Just because a judge decides there is cause to educate the jury as to what constitutes justified use of deadly force doesn’t suddenly mean the prosecution has an added hurdle to jump. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10808 "2013-06-13T16:58:00Z")
Why the hell are you quoting jury instructions when the issue is legal sufficiency? Answer: because you don’t understand the concept of legal sufficiency. Notice that you are completely unable to articulate what elements the prosecution must prove. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10809 "2013-06-13T17:01:21Z")
Furthermore, the instructions say nothing about the evidence _proving_ that justified use of deadly force did not occur. The juror only need to be convinced from the evidence that the killing was unjustified. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10810 "2013-06-13T17:02:59Z")
> [@](#): > > However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. And under Florida law, that the accused was not acting in self-defense is one of the elements of the charge that has to be proven. > [@](#): > > Just because a judge decides there is cause to educate the jury as to what constitutes justified use of deadly force doesn’t suddenly mean the prosecution has an added hurdle to jump. Florida law says that the prosecution has an added hurdle to jump. Namely, that if the defendant claims self-defense and has a scintilla of evidence to back him or her up, then the prosecution has to prove that additional element. IOW, it is contradictory to say that the prosecution has proven all the elements that determine murder without proving that it was not self-defense. If the prosecution hasn’t proven that it wasn’t self-defense, then he hasn’t proven all the elements of the crime. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10811 "2013-06-13T17:03:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why the hell are you quoting jury instructions when the issue is legal sufficiency? Once again, you butt your nose into a conversation I’m having with someone else to ask a stupid question that should be obvious to answer, if you’re following the conversation. **Human Action** brought up the instructions. I’ve politely pointed out to him that the instructions say nothing to support his assertion. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10812 "2013-06-13T17:09:23Z")
Yeah, **Bricker** - how dare you talk about the law? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10813 "2013-06-13T17:10:36Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Not according to the instructions [here](http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter3/p1c3s3.6.f.rtf). The operative language is included in the last sentence of the document, right before the closing comment: > > Notice there is nothing in there implying that if from the evidence the jury is convinced that the defendant is guilty of all the elements of the charge, they should acquit if the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense. Wanna know why that’s not in there? Because it’s retarded. Ahem: > [@](#): > > If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. > > However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. What do you think that means? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10814 "2013-06-13T17:11:19Z")
Accord this discussion: > [@Murray v. State](#): > > While the State bore the ultimate burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant laid upon himself a requisite of producing evidence of the additional facts necessary for his defense of justification. But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a “burden of proof” identical to the State’s? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard— say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value — other than they might be true? > . > . > . > To repeat, the law did not require defendant to prove his justification of self-defense to any standard measuring an assurance of truth. He did not have to prove the exigency of self-defense to a near certainty (reasonable doubt) or even to a mere probability (greater weight). His only burden was to offer additional facts from which it could be true, that his resort to such force could have been reasonable. The accused has NO burden for proof of self-defense once he has presented any evidence, however slight, to support it. Here is the money quote: > [@Brown v. State](#): > > This court, as with other courts, has recognized the principle that ordinarily the question of whether a homicide was committed in justifiable self-defense is a question for the jury. McCauley v. State, 405 So.2d 1350 (Fla.5th DCA 1981). On the other hand, when the State fails to carry its burden of proof, or where the State’s evidence clearly shows that a homicide was committed in self-defense, courts of this State have not hesitated to reverse jury convictions and to discharge the wrongfully convicted defendant. While the defendant may have the burden of going forward with evidence of self-defense, the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State, **and this standard broadly includes the requirement that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt**. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10815 "2013-06-13T17:14:32Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Once again, you butt your nose into a conversation I’m having with someone else to ask a stupid question that should be obvious to answer, if you’re following the conversation. > > **Human Action** brought up the instructions. I’ve politely pointed out to him that the instructions say nothing to support his assertion. You don’t understand his assertion. The requirement is that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. (Brown v. State). The jury instructions do not address the question of legal sufficiency of the record. The jury must have positive evidence in the record to support whatever it finds. In the case of self-defense, that includes **a positive requirement that the State prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.** That’s what the law of the state of Florida says. That said, the instructions you quote accurately reflect that reality: > [@](#): > > If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. If there is a reasonable doubt about the justification, self-defense, then he must be found not guilty. Thus, the state must prove the lack of justification (self-defense) beyond that reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10816 "2013-06-13T17:19:16Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Ahem: > > What do you think that means? It means the same thing it would mean if we were talking about any other murder case. If there is reasonable doubt that a murder occurred (because it might have occured in self-defense, or because some other person could’ve done it), then the jury is legally required to acquit. The prosecution’s burden of proof doesn’t change just because the defense claims self-defense. Do you disagree with this? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10817 "2013-06-13T17:26:11Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It means the same thing it would mean if we were talking about any other murder case. If there is reasonable doubt that a murder occurred (because it might have occured in self-defense, or because some other person could’ve done it), then the jury is legally required to acquit. > > The prosecution’s burden of proof doesn’t change just because the defense claims self-defense. Do you disagree with this? The list of elements the prosecution must prove DOES change when the defense claims self-defense. So, yes, I disagree. The BURDEN for each element does not change – it remains “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But the set of facts the prosecution must address (you know, the one you keep dodging when asked to provide) changes. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10818 "2013-06-13T17:26:36Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It means the same thing it would mean if we were talking about any other murder case. If there is reasonable doubt that a murder occurred (because it might have occured in self-defense, or because some other person could’ve done it), then the jury is legally required to acquit. They are specifically instructed to acquit if they have a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused acted in self-defense, and you maintain that this means nothing? > [@you with the face](#): > > The prosecution’s burden of proof doesn’t change just because the defense claims self-defense. Do you disagree with this? The burden is the same, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10819 "2013-06-13T17:36:24Z")
**you with the face** : A simple question for you. What specific elements must the prosecution prove true in order to convict Zimmerman? Answer that question, please. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10820 "2013-06-13T17:37:06Z")
[QUOTE=Human Action] The burden is the same, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. [/QUOTE] I think she means what **Bricker** talks about - is the number of elements that has to be proven greater under a claim of self-defense? It is - there is an additional element that wouldn’t be there if not for the self-defense claim. Unfortunately, now **you with the face** is going to pretend you are agreeing with her. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10821 "2013-06-13T17:40:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Unfortunately, now **you with the face** is going to pretend you are agreeing with her. She lives in a little world that only occasionally, and accidentally, intersects with the real one. Perhaps, when the two by chance meet again, she’ll deign to list the elements of the offense. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10822 "2013-06-13T17:42:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think she means what **Bricker** talks about - is the number of elements that has to be proven greater under a claim of self-defense? It is - there is an additional element that wouldn’t be there if not for the self-defense claim. > > Unfortunately, now **you with the face** is going to pretend you are agreeing with her. > > Regards, > Shodan That’s not what I understand “burden of proof” to mean, but yes, with a scintilla of evidence of self-defense, there is an additional element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury instructions that have been quoted, which are only given when the scintilla exists, explicitly state this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=540) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=542)