After looking at specifically Florida definitions, yes, murder second degree in Florida does not require intent to kill. But here is a curious definition here:
“First degree is the result of a willful act with the intent to kill. A death is considered second degree murder when it happens as the result of an intentional criminal act, even though the perpetrator may not have meant to kill someone.”
Which “intentional criminal act” of Zimmerman’s can Corey show that resulted in the supposed second degree murder?
“His expressed intent was to prevent him from getting away, and in the process of trying to accomplish this, he ended committing murder.” That doesn’t preclude my theory for how the shooting occured, so I don’t see how you figure this.
I find the hearsay rules maddeningly complex. But let me see if i have at least this much correct:A witness can testify as to a conversation that they had with someone, and the things which both parties said, but it is hearsay if the witness testifies to the other parties words as proof of something that the witness herself has no direct knowledge of, is that correct?
In other words, if Deedee had been with Trayvon that night and (for some unknown reason) needed to testify about a conversation he had with someone else, in which he told the *other *person that he was scared and being followed (and again for some strange reason) that testimony was offered as proof that Martin was scared and being followed, that would not be hearsay because she was directly observing that he was scared and being followed,right? (and that was an incredibly bad example… But that’s the problem with trying to understand hearsay, for me,is that it becomes difficult to come up with scenarios in which it’s not hearsay to testify about conversations which are still somehow pertinent to the case. Any easy to understand examples you could offer would be much appreciated.)
You’re just going into complete fantasy here. I tell you what. I am not even requiring you to make a bet. If the state has “compelling evidence” to support that “Martin wasn’t beating Zimmerman as he claims he was, rather Zimmerman was holding him at gun point to keep him from moving”, I will donate $1000 to the charity of your choice.
Pointing the gun at Martin’s chest and pulling the trigger. And don’t talk about self defense, unless self-defense is found, the act of pointing the gun at Martin’s chest and pulling the trigger is a criminal act.
All the State has to do is put enough holes in Zimmerman’s story about having his nose broken and his head beaten against concrete, Terr. Without that evidence, all we’re really left with is Zimmerman’s claim that this occurred. Which means very little if the jury doesn’t believe the guy has any credibiltiy.
Ok, then good lesson: they’re really not, especially when you get down to the nitty-gritty like this.
All states broadly draw their law from our legal heritage: the common law of England. Some states still use that common law as their base:
Other states have similar clauses, but then each, over the year, altered the common law offenses in some way, and each did it differently. Faced with this mish-mash, a project in the sixties called the Model Penal Code attempted to bring order to the chaos. Some states adopted the MPC, some did not, and even among the states that have adopted it, some have made individual changes since then.
And one state – Louisiana – uses a French-based civil code system that is different from either the MPC and common law!
So the bottom line is: you can’t reliably quote one state’s laws for any kind of detail about the effect of a similar-sounding charge in another state.
And the other bottom line is: in Florida, second degree murder does not require an intent to kill. At all.
Once again, the state has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, Zimmerman’s guilt. “Putting enough holes in Zimmerman’s story” does not meet this standard. The state has to present its “story” and prove it, beyond reasonable doubt.
That would (to me) be an indication of how this case will go.
If these three invest a considerable amount of money and time in this…then Zimmerman is cooked.
If they back off, I see aquittal or conviction on reduced charges.
I’m NOT cynical.
Which won’t necessarily be all that hard to do. You seem to be committed to the idea that it’s close to impossible, but folks get convicted for murder everyday in this country.
Yes, they do. With evidence. So far I have not seen any evidence of murder. Maybe the prosecution is hiding some explosive evidence, but I don’t find that likely. And in any case, they do have to disclose it to the defense by this Friday. Thus, by the time the pretrial SYG hearing rolls along, we will find out.
My understanding is that homicide is not, in and of itself, a crime in Florida - it needs to be either murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide. This is not just a pedantic nitpick, because it means that the state has to prove something other than that Zimmerman killed Martin. If he did in fact kill Martin in self defence, him pointing the gun at his chest and pulling the trigger was most emphatically not a criminal act.
Also, my understanding is that he only has to assert self defence, and it is up to the prosecution to prove him wrong. That you, or anyone else, disagrees with the burden of proof here doesn’t change the fact that it is so.
Kinda yes, kind no. The state normally does have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody murdered somebody else. The difference in this case from most cases is that we know for a fact that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. He admitted it. Knowing this puts the state way ahead of the usual game in terms of what they need to prove. in the vast majority of cases, showing that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin is all that needs to be shown, the reason is beside the point. Motive is bonus, not necessity. Because, of course, shooting and killing people is almost always illegal.
So in this case Zimmerman’s “Reasonable doubt” is not doubt about whether he killed Martin, but doubt about whether he did so in self-defense. If his self-defense story collapses significantly his reasonable doubt is gone.
OK, let me see if I can unwrangle it – but I will tell you that you’re not alone in finding this hard. Different people seem to click with different concepts. I still have to stop and draw a diagram of interests vesting and lives in being before I can discuss the Rule Against Perpetuities – there’s a reason I gravitated towards criminal law!!
To figure out hearsay, start with two questions:
What is the evidence?
What is being offered to prove?
If the evidence is a statement that was made outside of the court, and you want the jury to hear that statement because you want them to believe it was a true statement, then it’s hearsay evidence.
Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible. But there are exceptions.
So your question:
if Deedee had been with Trayvon that night and needed to testify about a conversation he had with someone else, in which he told the other person that he was scared and being followed that testimony was offered as proof that Martin was scared and being followed, that would not be hearsay because she was directly observing that he was scared and being followed,right?*
Wrong. She could testify that he appeared to her to be nervous, shaking, sweating, and that in her ordinary experience that’s consistent with fear. She could testify that she saw someone following Treyvon. But she can’t testify that Treyvon said, “I’m being followed and I’m scared,” if the purpose of that testimony is to convince the jury that in fact he was being followed and he was scared.
Now, having said that – maybe she can testify to that statement. There are several possibilities.
it’s not offered for the truth: maybe you need to show the jury why Treyvon inexplicably hid under a bush. This is not something a normal person would do, and you want to show the jury Treyvon hid because he was scared, not because he was, say, lying in wait to attack. Now she can testify, because the testimony is to show the jury not that he was scared, but why he hid. It’s not for the truth of the matter in the statement.
It falls into a recognized exception to the hearsay rules. For example, a excited utterance – a statement made under extreme surprise or shock, uttered spontaneously, as the event is happening – is hearsay, but admissible, simply because there’s a rule that says it’s admissible.
If it was not self-defense, it empathetically was. Seriously, put on your thinking cap: the “act” that Zimmerman took was to point and shoot. If the Act was self-defense then it was not criminal. If the act was not self-defense then it was criminal.
It’s ridiculous for you to say “but how could it be a criminal act if it was self-defense?” as though self-defense were a fact gathered as part of the forensic evidence, rather than a defense to a charge of murder. We don’t know if it is self-defense yet. Thats what trials are for
Once again, it is not “his reasonable doubt”. It’s jurors’ “reasonable doubt”. If jurors’ have reasonable doubt in the state’s narrative of the event, Zimmerman walks. The state has to present a story in which Zimmerman is not entitled to self-defense defense, and has to prove that story, beyond jurors’ reasonable doubt.
