I didn’t say it meant nothing. My point is that a jury can never legally vote guilty if there is any reasonable doubt as to whether the defense’s theory is false. Self-defense doesn’t change this. Disproving self-defense is achieved if the prosecution proves murder. Likewise, in a typical murder case, when the State proves the defendant committed murder they simultaneously disprove someone else committed a crime.
Okay, so then we should be on the same page then. There is no “added element” that the State must disprove above and beyond the elements of 2nd degree murder like you said before. If the jury hears the State’s theory as supported by the evidence and then they hear the defense side, and they leave the courtroom with the absolute confidence that Zimmerman killed Martin in the State of Florida, with ill will, depraved mind, and a reckless disregard for life, then it doesn’t matter how he got those cuts on his noggin. The State doesn’t have to prove that Martin didn’t hit him or utter a cross word to him, either.
What if the killing happened in Canada? Could they score a conviction if the killing happened in Canada? There’s nothing in your link about where the killing took place. Don’t they have to prove that the killing took place in Florida?
That’s not true, at least, not in this case. Self-defense isn’t mutually exclusive of the elements of Florida’s second-degree murder statute. Say the jury believes that Zimmerman really did chase after Martin to kill him because Zimmerman hated blacks (acting with a depraved mind), and shot him in the chest (an act imminently dangerous to another, showing no regard for human life). They should vote guilty, then, right?
Nope! Because they will also be instructed that if they have a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting out of a reasonable fear of losing his life or suffering serious injury. Even if the other elements are proven, if self defense isn’t disproven (i.e., it’s reasonable that Martin struck first and beat Zimmerman, or that Martin didn’t allow Zimmerman to retreat, etc), they must acquit. Which is why they will be informed of this.
I don’t think you mean to ask me about the “burden of proof”, which refers not to what must be proved, but to what degree it must be proved.
Let’s think this through. Let’s say the prosecution does a masterful job, and convinces the jury that Zimmerman acted with a depraved mind, and killed Martin with an act imminently dangerous to another, showing no regard for human life. They make no reference to Zimmerman’s injuries, or witnesses that saw Martin atop Zimmerman, or the various other pieces of evidence suggestive of self defense; they ignore it altogether.
Then, the jury is given the above instruction: if they have a reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force in self-defense, they must acquit.
That’s certainly possible, but to me he just looks fat and overwhelmed. Obesity isn’t an advantage in a fight, weight is only useful if it’s the result of strength, i.e. lean tissue, or in very limited circumstances (pinning, some aspects of wrestling). I’d pick the tall thin guy to beat up the short fat guy every time, the tall thin guy has reach and quickness. It might hurt Zimmerman if he’d worked out for the past year and had bulging muscles or something, but instead he looks soft and weak.
He doesn’t look overwhelmed to me. The man is as detached and unemotional as they come. Once the jury hears the “It was all in god’s plan” from his interview with Hannity, they’ll see how convincingly unemotional Zimmerman is.
Even without a defense motion, questions intended to elicit that information would have resulted in a sustained objection at trial. They all fall into the category of what are called “prior bad acts.” The rule of evidence is that an accused person’s prior bad acts are generally not admissible into evidence. (There are some exceptions, which I can explain if you’re interested).
So, no – the jury won’t hear about any past arrests or violence.
I snarked at you with the face for this sin, and now it’s your turn. You’ve linked to the federal rules of evidence, which illustrate the general principle reasonably well. But they are not relevant for this trial, which will be governed by the Florida rules of evidence.