And that might include photos of Zimmerman post-incident, the medical report, the autopsy report, that sort of thing?
In your opinion, is the evidence for self defense strong enough to survive such a ruling?
Thanks for answering my questions.
Would such evidence have to be provided by Zimmerman personally, or could his lawyer present it?
The jury may receive instructions about self-defense, but that doesn’t mean that Zimmerman’s claims about Martin attacking him and threatening him can be presented to the jury without him taking the stand. The instructions simply inform the jury on what they should and should not consider when assessing the evidence presented to them.
If it ultimately turns out that the defense has no any real evidence to present (which will very likely be the case if Zimmerman doesn’t testify), then guess what? The jury can conclude self-defense is not a viable theory.
In your brain, what would the latter even look like?
O’Mara taking the stand while West asks him questions? Are you serious?
Evidence that the defense could use to support self defense, other than Zimmerman’s testimony, includes but isn’t limited to:
- Photos of Zimmerman post-incident.
- Zimmerman’s medical report.
- Martin’s autopsy report.
- Crime scene photos illustrating where the flashlight and phone were found.
- The transcript or recording of the NEN call.
- "John"s testimony.
ETA: As has been well established, you don’t seem to think of any that constitutes reasonable doubt in this case. I do. I also believe that 12 jurors won’t all see it your way, because your way is wrong, in my opinion.
He doesn’t necessarily need to claim this. He doesn’t need to claim anything, other than that he acted in self defence. I suspect this will be done by Zimmerman in person, but if that’s all he says in his testimony, there will be nothing there that can be used against him. The prosecution can’t simply question him about anything they feel like.
The can only do that if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was not self defence. The absence of evidence that it was self defence is in no way evidence that it was not - the State will have to affirmatively prove that.
O’Mara - “Your Honour, my client was attacked by Trayvon Martin, and was in such fear that he felt he had no option but to shoot him. Here is a photo of my client after the attack”.
If that’s not allowed, then call an expert witness psychologist who will state that someone with such injuries may well have been in reasonable fear of death or serious injury.
Look, I seriously doubt this will be an issue. The whole trial will be set up in an attempt to prove it wasn’t self defence, and whatever means are required to claim it, the defence will use.
The lawyer cannot testify. But the defense could, for example, call the person who took the bloody-head photo, authenticate it via that testimony, and then argue that the inference is that Zimmerman was attacked.
No. As I just explained above, other evidence apart from Zimmerman’s testimony could certainly trigger the requirement for the state to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
But you’re correct about the underlying point: that’s very weak evidence compared to Zimmerman’s testimony.
Thankyou. Am I right in thinking that putting forward that argument at any point triggers the self-defence instruction to the jury, and requires the prosecution to prove that it was not self defence?
Not the argument – the evidence.
Argument is the lawyer’s speech to the jury, telling them that they should reach certain conclusions from the evidence. The evidence is testimony and physical artifacts presented and authenticated by witnesses.
But yes – at any point, even during the prosecution’s case-in-chief, if evidence comes out that supports self-defense – even a scintilla – then the state must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is evidence he was in an fight or an accident. It would be like showing a picture of OJ an hour after Nicole’s knifing, with a bleeding wound on his hand. On its face, the photographic evidence does not paint a picture of a severe, life-threatening beatdown. So I think it’s questionable that this will be sufficient to merit jury instructions alone. It certainly enough to allow the jury to infer the shooting was lawful.
See above. The medical report suggests he was in a fight or an accident, but it doesn’t paint the picture of a severe, life-threatening beatdown. I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem that the PA’s comments about Zimmerman being attacked would be counted as hearsay and ruled as inadmissible. Which just leaves us with evidence that he had some nicks on his head and a possible broken nose.
There is no evidence in the autopsy that suggests self-defense, but I dare you explain why you think there is.
None of this means anything if ZImmerman doesn’t testify as to how those objects got there. By themselves, they only suggest that Zimmerman was in the area, and that has nothing to do with self-defense.
Zimmerman can not use this evidence to support his case without taking the stand and verifying to the court that he was the caller. It counts as hearsay and is inadmissible evidence for the defense. The prosecution, however, is allowed to use hearsay to support their theory.
At any rate, the NEN call provides no evidence of self-defense. Unless you can point out where on that tape Martin beats up Zimmerman and threatens him. There is nothing on that thing that is exculpatory.
John only saw a snapshot of the fight and what he was able to see is questionable since it was dark. Since he only witnessed the fight in the middle, we can not infer anything from his testimony about what happened when Zimmerman killed Martin.
How would they argue that inference? The photographer wasn’t there to witness the fight and the photographer woun’t be able to parrot back what Zimmerman told them about how the wounds came to be (b/c that’s hearsay).
So what would this even look like?
Yes, I understand that you don’t think anything I listed, or rather all of it together, is enough for reasonable doubt. This is because you’re trying to demonstrate that the evidence I listed doesn’t prove Zimmerman acted in self defense. This is irrelevant, it doesn’t need to do that for an acquital, it just needs to be enough to raise reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not lawfully act in self defense. To my mind, it is enough to accomplish that, barring any new evidence.
ETA: re: the autopsy report: no fighting wounds on Martin save for one on his hand, a single shot fired from very close range, grass stains on his knees.
And how would this not be evidence for murder?
Erm, because it’s evidence that Martin was uninjured apart from the gunshot, that he attacked Zimmerman, and that he was on top in the confrontation. All of which is evidence that it was not murder.
The gunshot wound is evidence that Zimmerman killed Martin, but my understanding is that fact is not in doubt - although this may well be how the prosecution choose to prove it at trial.
To make the autopsy report evidence for murder, you’ll have to explain how it’s evidence that Zimmerman was not acting in self defence.
Well, if the injuries Martin inflicted on Zimmerman were the result of Zimmerman attacking him, surely that attack would leave signs, such as an injury to Martin.
A single shot fired is consistent with “shooting to stop”, ie self defense.
A shot fired at very close range indicates that Martin and Zimmerman were very close when the shot was fired (obviously). The shot location indicates that Martin was facing Zimmerman. Considering the time gap between the NEN call and the confrontation, and where the confrontation started (seemingly the T, where the light and phone were), this points to Martin coming to Zimmerman rather than vice versa, and it doesn’t support Zimmerman chasing Martin down.*
The grass stains support that Martin was atop Zimmerman, which also supports "John"s testimony.
- That aside, Zimmerman’s pistol being holstered when the confrontation occured casts doubt on Zimmerman chasing Martin down to kill him.
You’re right that the photographer couldn’t repeat anything Zimmerman said – at least, not anything useful to the defense.
But the wounds are res ipsa loquitur, in the sense that the finder of fact would be entitled to infer – with some additional evidence – that the wounds were the result of contact with Martin. For example, the defense can put up someone from Zimmerman’s errands who can say that at 6:30 PM, Zimmerman had no bleeding head wounds; the photographer can testify that at 7:20, he did.
I don’t understand that.
If it (i.e. whether Martin was a stranger to fighting) is relevant when the prosecution brings it up, then why is it not relevant even if they don’t?
The question of who attacked who is going to be central to the case regardless of whether the prosecution brings up Martin’s history directly, and if we agree that Martin’s history is relevant to that question, then it should be admissable in any event. (If one were to argue that Martin’s familiarity with fighting or lack thereof does not change the odds in assessing who attacked who then logically it should be inadmissable in any event.)
Regardless of the above - what about if the prosecution does not explicitly claim that Martin was a stranger to fighting - which they would have to be nuts to claim, given what it would open up - but does go about depicting a portrait of Martin as some sweet innocent young child, such that an average person might assume that he was not familiar with fighting but without the explicit claim. Is that enough for the defense?
That wasn’t a picture of a bloody nose. That was taken AFTER he was cleaned up. It shows where his nose was broken. This alone was justification under Florida law for use of deadly force. Zimmerman chose not to do so and instead endured the beating which includes injuries that show his head was pounded into the cement. Again, that is something that justifies the use of deadly force but according to Zimmerman his gun did not enter the equation until it was exposed and then a struggle ensued.
The Prosecution has to prove beyond doubt that Zimmerman wasn’t in fear for his life. This is on top of SYG laws that would have justified shooting Martin.
So unless you have evidence that Martin was done beating Zimmerman or there was some indication that a neighbor was going to help then there currently isn’t any evidence to support the case.
With less than a week left before the Trayvon Martin trial begins, an attorney for Martin’s family now claims that George Zimmerman’s lawyer Mark O’Mara fabricated evidence in an attempt to sway both the public and the jury.
Since Zimmerman’s fatal confrontation with the 17-year-old Martin more than a year ago, both the judge and the public have been presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence during numerous court appearances and hearings. During a hearing last Tuesday, Zimmerman’s defense team claimed that they had obtained video footage of “two buddies of [Martin] beating up a homeless guy.” In a statement on Zimmerman’s website, O’Mara later apologized for mischaracterizing evidence that in fact showed two homeless men fighting over a bike.
Wow… this is disgusting