I’ve said nothing that supports this foolishness. If you claim Zimmerman did something that he specifically said he did not do, just to argue he could have pulled off a certain feat, it means you’re essentially calling Zimmerman a liar whose testimony can not be trusted.
Does this mean he committed murder? No.
It depends. If you’re asking, “Can the prosecution present a legally sufficient case for second-degree murder without ever explaining how Zimmerman got his injuries,” then my answer is: it’s possible. It depends on what other evidence is introduced. If the “mere scintilla” of self-defense evidence is introduced, triggering the requirement for the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, then no: the prosecution cannot submit a legally sufficient case without explaining the injuries.
They have to DISPROVE self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that their case must eliminate any reasonable scenario except that of guilt. If the evidence shows ten ways that Zimmerman could be guilt and only one unlikely one in in which he could be innocent, as a matter of law, that’s a not-guilty.
However, if that self-defense trigger is not pulled, for whatever reason, then I agree: under that circumstance, the injuries do not have to be explained in order to submit a legally sufficient case.
Your focus on Zimmerman’s account says otherwise.
What claim do you speak of? Bearing in mind that I don’t expect Zimmerman to possess perfect recall of the event itself or its immediate aftermath, as previously discussed: that’s a side effect of heightened stress, particularly stress involving physical struggle.
Also, while I wouldn’t call Zimmerman a liar, his testimony is only to be trusted to the extent it’s supported by evidence. I don’t take his word for anything that isn’t, nor do I assume that his testimony is untrue.
Here’s the rub: what does mean he committed murder? Nothing that meets the burden of proof required.
By the way, Zimmerman’s claims of self-defense can be triggered by the prosecution’s evidence. For example, the prosecution has the right to play the tape of Zimmerman’s interrogation, but on cross-examination, the defense can play whatever portion of that tape has Zimmerman saying he was in fear of his life, if such a part exists.
How can they show that he could have retreated when Martin had him pinned to the ground? The instant when he shot him is the point when his state of mind, and his ability to escape, is relevant, not before, not after, whether an instant or an hour. At that point.
Whether he started the fight or not does not affect what fear he was in at that point, whether said fear was reasonable, or whether he could escape. All it affects is whether ability to escape was reasonable.
Don’t forget, unless he was legally responsible for starting the fight - that is, not just in some vague provoked/frightened Martin fashion - he was under no duty to retreat at any time, including after he shot Martin.
So, please explain how you can prove that he was able to escape, and also how you will prove he was required to escape.
Given that self-defense has been the defense strategy from day one, and that there is more than a scintilla of evidence suggesting self-defense, it is hard to imagine an outcome in which the prosecution doesn’t have to disprove self-defense. It would require a profoundly inept defense, and a prosecution devoted to avoiding any of that evidence themselves.
Is the decision to include self-defense instructions to the jury made by the judge in that case, or must the defense request it?
The defense must request it. I suppose the judge could sua sponte include it, but it would be an extraordinary failure on the part of the defense attorney to omit the request.
The judge must decide if the evidence adduced in the trial includes the “scintilla” of evidence necessary to justify it.
Thank you.
Can you cite and show the relevant law that is causing you say this?
Zimmerman claimed he shot and killed Martin because he was threatened and could not get away. So what legally requires the State to even acknowledge the two little nicks on his head?
Here’s Florida’s statutes for self defense:
You just cited it yourself. The prosecution must prove that Martin was not an imminent threat of death or serious injury to Zimmerman, and to do so they will have to account for the serious injury he was photographed with immediately after the incident.
We’ve already covered the caselaw that shows that a broken nose may be considered a serious injury, so again if in this case it isn’t, the prosecution will have to prove that.
Would I assume that the shooter must have overpowered their killer in the situation you’re describing? No. But if the shooter had injuries consistent with an attack then I wouldn’t find a claim of self-defense to be implausible.
Another, more important, thing, you with the face. Why, when you claim to be seeking justice, are you constantly searching for loopholes to prevent the defence doing their job, and to allow the prosecution to avoid having to prove his guilt?
By the way, the Court of Appeals overturned Judge Nelson’s decision in which she denied the defense’s request to depose Martin family’s attorney Crump.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/zimmerman-team-can-depose-martin-attorney/nYBPr/
Defense will be able to depose him.
There is no conflict until Martin assaults Zimmerman. At the time of the assault neither Martin or Zimmerman were doing anything wrong.
The prosecution has to prove they were NOT caused by Martin. Zimmerman claims he was attacked by Martin and all the evidence indicates that he was.
Sure. You quoted the statute portion of the puzzle yourself:
The injuries to Zimmerman are not “two little nicks.” The evidence shows he had: “…a broken nose, black eyes, cuts on the back of his head and a minor back injury…”
A broken nose, alone, is serious bodily harm under Florida law. (People v. Smith, 285 NE 2d 460 (Illinois App. Dist. 1972), quoted with approval by Owens v. State, 289 So. 2d 472 (Fl DCA 1974).
So Zimmerman’s claim is:
(1) I was threatened (indeed, more than threatened; I was the victim of) serious bodily harm.
(2) That makes my fear of serious bodily injury both reasonable and imminent.
(3) Now the state has to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, (1) and (2).
I know everything in post 10532 has been cited before.
Which part do you have trouble accepting?
I think it’s the part about the state having the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite lots of citation showing you that this is how the law works in Florida, I think it runs so counter to your gut understanding of self-defense that you’re literally not letting your thought process accept the truth of the statement.
Is that it?
Finding a claim of self-defense to not be implausible is great and all, but that’s not the same thing as arguing that because Martin had few injuries except for the hole in his chest, he must have overpowered Zimmerman.
We do not need to show that he must have done, only that he might have done. The burden is on the prosecution to show that he must not have done so. your own cite, and Bricker’s expansion of it, show that.
I’ll echo him. What don’t you understand about the burden of proof here?
If the defense proves the (1) was false (e.g., he was not threatened because the kid was too busy pleading for his help and mercy, and by Zimmerman’s own admission,was in a wrist lock and thus unable to fight anymore or grab Zimmerman’s gun), then this disproves (2).
Zimmerman could have lawfully killed Martin even if he’d not had any injuries. Imminent threat does not require someone to already be injured. If Martin had completely restricted Zimmerman’s movement by sitting on top of him, then smothered him, and then threatened to kill him, Zimmerman could still claim self-defense despite the absense of skin trauma. So the nicks on his head are a red herring.