# 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:** 548
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10943 "2013-06-17T13:20:56Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > (Hint: self-defense isn’t an element of the crime, it’s an affirmative defense that has elements of its own) Not in Florida. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10944 "2013-06-17T13:25:49Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > The second is a natural result of the first. > > But lets try it one more time. > > Victor is a quadraplegic, killed by a shot to the face. The cops walk in and find joe holding the smoking gun pointed at dead Victor, the medical examiner confirms time of death was a minute earlier. > > Joe claims self defense. His story is that Victor could shoot flame from his mouth like a dragon and was doing so, forcing Joe to kill him with a shot to the face. > > The prosecution’s evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe murdered Victor in the first degree is joe’s journal, expressing his desire and plan to do so, plus all the physical evidence and joe’s admission that he did indeed pull the trigger that sent the bullet into Victors face. > > The prosecution declines to in any respect address Joes claim. > > Jury looks at the evidence, including Joes. They laugh and convict. > > Joe appeals on the grounds that the prosecution failed to disprove his claim that he was terrified and had to defend himself from Victor’s quadraplegic fire-breathing. > > Does joe win his appeal? No. Why the difference? Because in this set of facts, there’s not even a scintilla of evidence put forth by the defense to support the claim of self-defense. The judge is – and the jury are – entitled, as a matter of law, to disregard the fantastical claim that a paraplegic can breath fire like a dragon. So the first step of the process – where the defense raises self-defense – fails to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10945 "2013-06-17T13:31:19Z")
> [@Zyanthia](#): > > Wanted to add clarification to my response. I went with the assumption that the judge was allowing the defense to claim self-defense since we were talking about the prosecution and jury trial. > > The judge could look at their evidence and say, “No you can’t argue self-defense because of this” before it even gets in front of a jury, which is what I think would really happen. Interesting procedural question. But it will muddy up the thread to answer it. What would happen if the judge allowed the dragon/fire self-defense claim to go forward? If that happened, and the prosecution still failed to address it, then presumably the same judge would have to rule that the prosecution failed to make a legally sufficient case, since he obviously believes that, as a matter of law, fire dragon breath is possible. So he’d presumably direct an acquittal. The prosecution could appeal, and on appeal argue that the judge’s ruling was an abuse of discretion, a claim for which I think they’d find ready support in any appellate forum. If the jury had already returned a guilty verdict, the appellate court would reinstate it. What the prosecution should do at that moment the judge decides the dragon breath issue against them is ask leave for an interlocutory appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10946 "2013-06-17T13:38:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > Why the difference? > > Because in this set of facts, there’s not even a scintilla of evidence put forth by the defense to support the claim of self-defense. The judge is – and the jury are – entitled, as a matter of law, to disregard the fantastical claim that a paraplegic can breath fire like a dragon. So the first step of the process – where the defense raises self-defense – fails to happen. Does an obviously false witness statement _never_ count as evidence, or is this something specific to this case? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10947 "2013-06-17T14:05:40Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Does an obviously false witness statement _never_ count as evidence, or is this something specific to this case? For some values of “obviously.” 🙂 I say that to emphasize that one person’s “obviously,” may not be the next person’s…an observation especially useful in this thread, I think, where people arguing both sides have used the word in describing opposite conclusions. But a judge can find that certain testimony – or, indeed, any evidence – is unreliable as a matter of law. I think the phrase “as a matter of law” is confusing to some readers here. What it means: normally, the jury is the finder of fact. They hear evidence and decide what happened. But the judge can say that the law requires a particular conclusion. Sometimes this is a matter of policy, expressed by the legislature; the jury may think that it’s relevant that a rape victim had a rich and varied sex life prior to her attack, but the law mandates that this fact is of no relevance, so “as a matter of law,” that’s not relevant. And sometimes, as with the claim that a man can breath deadly fire, the claim runs so utterly counter to our understanding of the physical world that we’d say that no reasonable person could ever decide it was true. That takes it out of the hands of the jury and allows the judge to say that this particular witness statement is of no relevance whatsoever, because it’s so obviously false that no one, no reasonable finder of fact, could ever credit it as being accurate. This kind of finding is a “nuclear option.” It’s not used for statements that are “obviously” false because, c’mon, we can just SEE the guy is lying. That’s the province of the jury. It’s reserved for statements for which we can confidently say that NO reasonable listener could find it true. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10948 "2013-06-17T14:26:17Z")
Thankyou. It appears I was wrong, and that in that hypothetical, the accused would not have grounds for an appeal. So, my understanding now is that any claim by a defendant that they killed in self defence that could possibly be believed by a reasonable listener requires the prosecution to not just disprove that specific statement, but all reasonably believable scenarios where it was self defence. (In Florida, obviously). Does this seem accurate to you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10949 "2013-06-17T15:06:46Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Thankyou. It appears I was wrong, and that in that hypothetical, the accused would not have grounds for an appeal. > > So, my understanding now is that any claim by a defendant that they killed in self defence that could possibly be believed by a reasonable listener requires the prosecution to not just disprove that specific statement, but all reasonably believable scenarios where it was self defence. (In Florida, obviously). > > Does this seem accurate to you? It’s true that the general concept of reasonable doubt is that the evidence must eliminate all reasonable scenarios except those that support guilt. So, yes, the prosecution must disprove all reasonable self-defense scenarios – but the “reasonable” calculation includes the totality of evidence adduced at trial. That is, the prosecution doesn’t have to disprove that the victim threatened to detonate a grenade if no grenade was ever in evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10950 "2013-06-17T15:30:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s true that the general concept of reasonable doubt is that the evidence must eliminate all reasonable scenarios except those that support guilt. > > So, yes, the prosecution must disprove all reasonable self-defense scenarios – but the “reasonable” calculation includes the totality of evidence adduced at trial. That is, the prosecution doesn’t have to disprove that the victim threatened to detonate a grenade if no grenade was ever in evidence. So, in **Stoid** ’s hypotheticals, if there’s no knife in the bedroom, and no genetic mutation in the quadriplegic’s throat that means he can breathe fire, then the prosecution can point this out to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self defence (assuming that the evidence doesn’t suggest any other reasonable self defence scenarios)? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10951 "2013-06-17T16:37:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …and their verdict is set aside by the trial judge as a matter of law. > > Stoid: **elements of the crime.** > > The jury has a set of instructions from the judge. They don’t simply vote “guilty” or “not guilty” without referring to these instructions. (I suppose they might, but that’s the kind of thing that causes verdicts to be tossed out as a matter of law.) > > The record must affirmatively reflect evidence for each and every element that the prosecution must prove. > > When the defense’s case put self-defense on the table, at that moment, the list of elements that the prosecution had to prove changed. It grew. Added to the existing elements of murder, the state now also had to disprove the presence of self-defense. [Here are all 704 pages of Floridas standard jury instructions. Page 64 is where you will find the jury instructions applicable to cases where justifiable use of deadly force has been offered as a defense.](http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf) I have edited them appropriately to make them a little easier to read and apply to this case. Please, if you would, show us where it says they must have self-defense disproved in addition to and _ **as an element distinct from** _ having the crime proved beyond reasonable doubt. Pretend I am a juror and give me the instruction that conveys to me this new element that must be disproved, (vs the crime that must be proved) from the text. > [@](#): > > . 3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE > > An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which Joe is charged if the death of Victor resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force. > > “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. > > A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. > > However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: > > Joe initially provoked the use of force against himself, unless the force asserted toward the defendant was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Victor. > > In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which by was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real. > > No duty to retreat. > There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification. > > If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. > > Reputation of victim. > If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation. > > In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim). > > 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. Additional instructions of interest: > [@](#): > > [3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF > The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. > To overcome the defendant’s presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of \*\*\*proving the crime \*\*\*with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. > The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything. > Whenever the words “reasonable doubt” are used you must consider the following: > It is recommended that you use this instruction to define reasonable doubt during voir dire. State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1996). > A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have \*\*\*an abiding conviction of guilt. \*\*\*On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. > It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. > A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence. > If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. > Comment > [@](#): > > MURDER—FIRST DEGREE > § 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat. > When there will be instructions on both premeditated and felony murder, the following explanatory paragraph should be read to the jury. > There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder. > To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: > > 1. (Victim) is dead. > 2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant). > 3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim). > > Definitions. > An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. > “Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. > The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing. > Transferred intent. Give if applicable. > If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10952 "2013-06-17T17:09:24Z")
Here - > [@](#): > > 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 it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in using deadly force, then they must find him not guilty. If self defence is not introduced, then they are not instructed to consider whether the killing was justified. Therefore, when it is introduced, there is an additional thing that the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, in addition to the rest of the elements of the crime. If your confusion is because they don’t explicitly refer to it as an “element”, well, it’s been explained t you enough times by experts, as well as amateurs. I’m not sure why you’ve listed the elements for first degree murder, as they have nothing to do with this case. That level of confusion does rather sum up how little you understand, though. **Stoid** , if you think I’m wrong, please explain how the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was not justified without proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was not a killing in legitimate self defence. And, if your argument is along the lines that a justified killing cannot be a criminal act, or an unlawful killing with a depraved mind, then explain why the Florida legislature, along with most other jurisdictions, added specific laws governing self defence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10953 "2013-06-17T17:09:44Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > [Here are all 704 pages of Floridas standard jury instructions. Page 64 is where you will find the jury instructions applicable to cases where justifiable use of deadly force has been offered as a defense.](http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf) I have edited them appropriately to make them a little easier to read and apply to this case. Please, if you would, show us where it says they must have self-defense disproved in addition to and _ **as an element distinct from** _ having the crime proved beyond reasonable doubt. > > Pretend I am a juror and give me the instruction that conveys to me this new element that must be disproved, (vs the crime that must be proved) from the text. > > Additional instructions of interest: Stoid, Before I answer your request, I should ask you something: how do you imagine jury instructions work? I ask because your question suggests that you picture that the judge hands those sheets to the jurors, or something. So… in an actual trial, what do you picture happens to convey instructions to the jury, and where do those instructions come from – as specifically as possible? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10954 "2013-06-17T17:14:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because in this set of facts, there’s not even a scintilla of evidence put forth by the defense to support the claim of self-defense. The judge is – and the jury are – entitled, as a matter of law, to disregard the fantastical claim that a paraplegic can breath fire like a dragon. So the first step of the process – where the defense raises self-defense – fails to happen. Au contraire, counselor: A. The defendants statement to police is evidence. B. The defendant’s burden of proof is merely to produce any evidence at all, even if its just his statement to police, that he feared for his life and acted from that fear. And his “prize” for meeting that burden an instruction to the jury to consider the possibility that he did act from self-defense. In this case, change Joe’s assertion to “Victor could throw knives with his mouth and he had one in his mouth so i had to kill him.” C. In the absence of any suggestion of truth to the idea that the defendant acted from self-defense, the jury is entitled to reject it. After seeing the evidence that Joe had written in his journal about his plans to murder Victor, even joe producing video evidence of Victors mouth knifing skills would matter to them, since joe intended to kill victorto start with. There would be no “disproving” of self defense, merely proving first degree murder, which has the same effect. No distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10955 "2013-06-17T17:22:36Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Au contraire, counselor: > > A. The defendants statement to police is evidence. > B. The defendant’s burden of proof is merely to produce any evidence at all, even if its just his statement to police, that he feared for his life and acted from that fear. And his “prize” for meeting that burden an instruction to the jury to consider the possibility that he did act from self-defense. In this case, change Joe’s assertion to “Victor could throw knives with his mouth and he had one in his mouth so i had to kill him.” Sure – and that’s a significant change. Unlike breathing fire, the claim that someone could throw knives with their mouth isn’t incredible as a matter of law, although it’s pretty unlikely. So if the accused made that claim, the prosecution would have to address it in some way. There would need to be something on the record that would entitle the jury to reject that claim. It wouldn’t be difficult - the absence of a knife found at the scene, for example, with such absence appearing affirmatively in the record, should do the trick just fine. > [@](#): > > C. In the absence of any suggestion of truth to the idea that the defendant acted from self-defense, the jury is entitled to reject it. After seeing the evidence that Joe had written in his journal about his plans to murder Victor, even joe producing video evidence of Victors mouth knifing skills would matter to them, since joe intended to kill victorto start with. > > There would be no “disproving” of self defense, merely proving first degree murder, which has the same effect. No distinction. You’re describing the more classic application of self-defense, an affirmative defense where the accused bears the burden of persuading the jury by preponderance of the evidence that self-defense was used. I understand the confusion – it’s the variety of self-defense we all grew up hearing, immortalized in countless works of fiction and lots of real-life trials. But the plain and simple truth is that, despite that being the law in many states, it’s not the law in Florida. In fact, maybe that’s a good thought experiment to help illustrate the point. **Stoid** : do you believe Florida’s self-defense law differs materially from the law in other states? If you think it does, can you describe how? Or would you say that self-defense is self-defense, no matter where you go? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10956 "2013-06-17T17:30:58Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > C. In the absence of any suggestion of truth to the idea that the defendant acted from self-defense, the jury is entitled to reject it. No, in the absence of any reasonable possibility that it could have happened that way, the jury is entitled to reject it. If the defendant claims it happened that way, and that claim meets the standard of reasonable possibility, merely disbelieving the defendant doesn’t prove his guilt. There is, in that situation, reason to doubt whether or not it was self defence, so he, _according to your cite_, must be found not guilty. The jury is explicitly instructed not to act the way you claim they should, that is to say, they may not assume that proof that it would be murder if it was not self defence is proof that it was not self defence. Here is the quote from your cite - > [@](#): > > 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. which makes explicit that they may only consider the other elements of the charge if they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was not justified. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10957 "2013-06-17T17:52:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Stoid, > > Before I answer your request, Why should we divert? My request is entirely reasonable and fair. You have asserted repeatedly that the Brown case language (" the money quote ") is proof that an actual separate and distinct burden on the prosecution exists, that of “disproving” self defense. Even now, after I have introduced the true source of “the money quote” Bolin, which itself _specifically rejects any such idea_, particularly as a _special instruction_ to the jury, and \*specifically rejects anything beyond the standard instruction regarding proof of guilt as being required, \* you still go so far as to assert that it is part of the jury instructions when self defense is raised to tell them to make sure they consider the new element that the state must disprove. Florida’s statutes, case law and jury instructions are all unusually easy to access, if it is a fact, you should have no problem pointing to it, especially since we aren’t talking about complex lawyers-only matters that mere mortals cannot hope to fathom, but the issues which the mere more mortals known as jurors _must_ be made to clearly understand. If you plan to use this attempted diversion to argue that the _standard_ jury instructions for considering self defense are just suggestions from which extensive and elaborate alternate instructions are routinely built, and _thats_ where the _real_ instructions, including the directive regarding the disproving of self defense will be found, go for it, and show some evidence for it, since the case law with the money quote says no, sorry, dont think so. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10958 "2013-06-17T17:55:42Z")
It’s already been shown, in the cite you provided, so why don’t you answer his question? ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10959 "2013-06-17T18:05:15Z")
Without addressing the merits of anything posited as to jury instructions in this case, standard jury instructions are a model for the appropriate instructions depending on the evidence. Both sides often try to make them more specific and complicated. The defense wants them complicated as, if the instructions are incorrect or confusing, there is a better reason for appeal. It can play that way for the other side too. This is true in both civil and criminal trials. Entire cases with written opinions involve the precise wording of jury instructions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10960 "2013-06-17T18:39:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Why should we divert? > . > . > . > If you plan to use this attempted diversion to argue that the _standard_ jury instructions for considering self defense are just suggestions from which extensive and elaborate alternate instructions are routinely built, and _thats_ where the _real_ instructions, including the directive regarding the disproving of self defense will be found, go for it, and show some evidence for it, since the case law with the money quote says no, sorry, dont think so. Yes, **Stoid** – that’s exactly the case. Proposed jury instructions, modeled from the standard jury instructions, are in fact routinely submitted by each side. There is some wrangling and negotiation about what they should say in each case, the judge ultimately approves a version, and then they go to the jury. It’s true that the majority of cases use the standard jury instructions; it’s NOT true that this is never a matter of debate. I find it amazing that you don’t know that, and yet remain confident that you have correctly discerned the actual language of jury instructions in all circumstances. I shouldn’t, perhaps, because no less than the Florida District Court of Appeals (1st) made that same claim in a case called _State v. Bryan_. They said, “…any substantial deviation from use of these instructions [Standard Jury Instructions] will almost always end in error on the part of the trial court.” So you’re in good company. But the better company is mine (shared herein with the Florida Supreme Court as they overruled the lower court) : > [@State v. Bryan](#): > > The Florida Jury Instructions should be used, to such extent as may be applicable in the judgment of the trial court, but it does not follow, as the First District seems adamant in saying, that such instructions must be literally given in each and every case, and even in the instance where no objection has been made (as here) to a charge which varies from the standard charge. We do not agree that “Any substantial deviation from use of these instructions will almost always end in error on the part of the trial court.” > > Our caveat in the general approval of these, as in other jury instructions (240 So.2d 472 (Fla. 1970)), makes express reference to the fact that the approval is only “generally” of “the theory and technique” involved “as recommended by the Committee and embodied in its proposed instructions.” > > We then said: > > “The Court will, accordingly, authorize the publication and use of such instructions, but without prejudice to the rights of any litigant objecting to the use of one or more of such approved forms of instructions. The Court recognizes that the initial determination of applicable substantive law in every case should be made by the trial judge and that it would be inappropriate for the Court at this time to consider the recommended instructions with a view to adjudging that the legal principles embodied in the recommended instructions correctly state the law of Florida. Similarly, the Court recognizes that no approval of the forms by the Court could relieve the trial judge of his responsibility under the law properly and correctly to charge the jury in each case as it comes before him. This order is not to be construed as any intrusion on that responsibility of the trial judges. The Court is confident that the forms of instructions recommended by the Committee state as accurately as a group of experienced lawyers and judges could state the law of Florida in simple understandable language.” > It is apparent that the Supreme Court’s approval of recommended committee instructions is not iron clad or carte blanche and must be applied in each instance as appropriate. > > By this Court’s approval of the jury instructions for publication, it was not intended that they be iron clad, because we recognized the importance of the trial judge on the scene who has the “feel” of the case, the psychology of its movement through trial and what aspects appear from subtle inflections and overtones to be important in the jury’s mind and for its decision. That is one of the reasons that a trial court’s decision has historically had the presumption of correctness on appeal. These are matters, as we have repeatedly said, that are not apparent from the “cold record”. What is important is that sufficient instructions — not necessarily academically perfect ones — be given as adequate guidance to enable a jury to arrive at a verdict based upon the law as applied to the evidence before them. The evidence presented in particular cases will, of course, often vary what instructions apply, or whether certain instructions apply. Does that help? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10961 "2013-06-17T18:40:08Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > … One interesting bit of analysis is from George’s dad … This one was much more interesting, > [@](#): > > … The controversial text contains the bold claim that April’s Boston Marathon bombing never would have happened had the FBI not been spending so much time investigating the death of Trayvon Martin. > > Zimmerman directs most of the blame to Attorney General Eric Holder, who he says “shamelessly” hyped his son’s alleged murder case “to obtain great advantage in the African-American community.” He goes on to claim that Holder’s decision to investigate whether Martin’s death constituted a federal civil rights violation led to the FBI to not have “adequate resources to investigate clearly identified potential terrorist” threat in Boston. “Tragically,” Zimmerman writes, “we have suffered the consequences of Mr. Holder’s politically motivated decisions.” …[RIGHT][CITE](http://www.mediaite.com/online/zimmermans-father-blames-boston-bombings-on-eric-holders-decision-to-investigate-trayvons-death/) & [CITE](https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=boston+bombing+zimmerman&oq=boston+bombing+zimmerman&gs_l=hp.3...2249.20441.0.20861.24.18.0.6.6.0.492.2816.6j10j0j1j1.18.0...0.0...1c.1.17.hp.Ptbcv232We0)[/RIGHT] CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/10962 "2013-06-17T18:46:08Z")
I feel frustrated because it’s apparent that there’s a good understand of legal issues when they are ones that appear on television – people seem to grasp suppression of evidence and Fifth Amendment assertion reasonably well. But where television fails to find dramatic footholds – and believe me that a couple days of sending proposed jury instructions back and forth between the judge and prosecutors is many things NOT dramatic – then the feeling seems to be that the law is what’s easily readable on the Internet, and no lawyer’s gonna tell me different! Both **BottledBlondeJeanie** and I have criminal law experience. We’re both saying that this is true. Against that, you seem to feel that what you can discern from links ought to trump it. But how likely is that? If that were so, it would seem someone could become a criminal defense lawyer in six weeks of concentrated study. But … that’s not the way it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=547) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=549)