Since Mrs. Riley hasn’t answered, may I ask if my analysis is correct in regards to what additional elements must be proven once self defense is claimed?
Mrs. Riley tried to answer by linking to a resource. I’m in the middle of trying to show her why that’s insufficient.
But going from memory – yes, I think you were spot on.
Sorry, I didn’t phrase that question very well. I meant to ask, “May I post my analysis of the additional elements to see if my understanding of the additional elements is close to accurate?”
This is foolish talk.
How do you reconcile chasing after someone with the intent to commit a violent hate crime against them with the criteria needed to lawfully kill someone in self-defense? A defendant forfeits self-defense when they aggress an attack on someone and fail to make every reasonable attempt to retreat before the use of deadly force. If the jury believed this is what happened based on the evidence, then they have to reason to believe the shooting was unjustified and thus, all is needed for a guilty verdict is for the state to prove murder.
You are making this more complicated than it is because you don’t want Zimmerman convicted.
All is required of the jury to convict is that they be convinced that the shooting was legally unjustified, plus believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder. That’s what is clear in the instructions. There is no requirement that the State disprove that Martin didn’t hit Zimmerman first or anything else about Martin. Because Martin is not on trial. Zimmerman is.
Fair enough. Maybe you can cite the law to support your assertion that when self defense is asserted in Florida, the elements that the State is required to prove increases above and beyond the elements need to prove the crime the defendant has been charged with. It’s not in the jury instructions and it’s not in the statute for 2nd degree murder.
Before I answer your question, I will illustrate your hypothetical with examples of clear, unambiguously incriminating evidence (NOTE: I’m not saying this evidence actually exists). Because just saying that the State proves he committed murder doesn’t really highlight how murder disproves self-defense.
Let’s say the State shows the jury text messages from Zimmerman’s phone seconds before his encounter with Martin. Let’s say in these messages he tells Shellie," I see the kid at the end of the dog path; gonna sneak up on him and grab him so he doesn’t get away". Exhibit A.
Let’s say the State also has text messages immediately after the shooting, with Zimmerman saying “The kid kept yelling like a fool and I shot him because I didn’t want anyone to see us; what should I tell the cops???” Exhibit B.
This evidence plus all the other stuff (the NEN tape, the forsensics, etc.) convinces the jury that Zimmerman murdered Martin beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is no doubt in my mind that the jury would then vote to convict.
May I ask how you reached this conclusion since the FBI disagrees?
I have some questions for our learned Counselor Bricker regarding witness testimony in criminal trials, if he would be so kind as to answer:
1.Discovery includes witnesses each side plans to call, yes?
-
And in criminal trials, does that mean that each side, having learned which witnesses the other side plans to call, may depose the witnesses before the trial? (Not that they necessarily do, but just can they, generally speaking)
-
And if the defense knows they plan to call the defendant to the stand, do they have to admit that this is their intention in advance (although how that could be proved if someone failed to, I can’t imagine), and if they do, does that somehow permit the defendant to be deposed? (I’m thinking no on all this, but can’t hurt to be sure)
-
And if so, and the defendant just kept claiming the fifth, does that preclude the defendant later taking the stand and answering questions that he took the fifth on in deposition? I understand that he’s subjecting himself to cross, of course, I’m just trying to figure out what’s allowed to begin with and how that whole self-incrimination thing works if you elect to testify down the road. I believe that the defendant can only be crossed on matters that were opened on direct (and I’m curious how the lines are drawn about what is or is genuinely an extension of matters opened in direct, other than judicial determination in the moment) but aren’t there some rules attached to taking the fifth and then kinda sorta talking anyway?
Whether someone is “suspicious” is entirely subjective, which is precisely why, as a general rule, one should mind their business. For example, if I think white men have a propensity to molest children compared to Asian-Americans, should I start calling 911 every time there’s a white guy walking past an elementary school? What is the white man was on the playground with children? What if he was tickling them? What if he was waiting outside on the steps of the building? What if a white man was outside the school at nigh, while it was raining without an umbrella? The answer is, of course, an emphatic no. Unless you know what’s going on, one should mind one’s business. If Zimmerman minded his business, Trayvon would be living his life and George Zimmerman would not be on trial for first-degree murder. That’s a fact.
You’re almost right, Zimmerman should have minded his business and Zimmerman is an asshole. I mean, after all, he molested a family member, beat on his girlfriend, bullied a colleague, and got into a fight with a police officer, poor grades in community college. What else would you call it? While it may be painful to read, the best predictor of future behavior is an examination of past behavior. Zimmerman has a treasure trove to dig through and he’s had the added advantage of fully developed cognition that his victim, sadly, was not old enough to get to.
The arguments from the pro-Zimmerman side are logical, but then again, so are arguments from Data from Star Trek. Many of you, like Data, lack the human powers of deduction and foresight, clinging to facts as a kind of worry doll. It doesn’t bother you (or Data for that matter) that Zimmerman has every incentive in muddying the waters of culpability. I mean, really, put yourself in his shoes: you kill someone and no one is witness. Why wouldn’t you do your damnest to say that you were brutally attacked by a black man, that he approached you and said, “You’re going to die tonight” before attacking you, that you heroically slayed the black attacker and his final words were “You got me”. It is complete and utter fantasy, no one behaves that way in real-life. Who gets shot and says “You got me” outside a movie or comic book? What Zimmerman alleges is a fantasy, plain and simple, and no jury is going to buy it.
- Honesty
No doubt in mine either. But these text messages exist only in your fantasies. And yes, the second one, if it existed, would prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shooting was not in self-defense - which is required to convict. So, what’s your point?
Nm
It’s not like this is a state secret, but I’m trying to make Mrs Riley get to the epiphany of, “Of, shit, maybe I don’t understand this.”
Can I ask that you PM me? I can therefore confirm your acumen and avoid handing Mrs. R the answer on a silver platter.
At the time Zimmerman was interrogated, he didn’t know whether there were no witnesses or whether someone got the whole thing on videotape. In fact, since one of the witnesses actually yelled at Zimmerman and Martin during the fight (“witness #6”), Zimmerman should have been 100% sure there were, in fact, witnesses. And, I believe, detective Serino, trying to trip him up, actually told him someone did get it on video, after which Zimmerman expressed relief that someone did witness it. Does that sound to you like someone trying to cover something up?
Yes, absolutely. But saying “It was God’s plan” after you were allegedly attacked and allegedly forced to killed someone’s teenage son is downright inexcusable and shows a lack of remorse on his part. Also, when he was asked whether he’d do something different that night, he said “No”. That’s not the answer the jury wants to hear when you have an exercise in hindsight.
- Honesty
Even if Zimmerman pursued Martin with the intent to do him harm, that alone doesn’t rule out self defense.
Do you see how the elements for second-degree murder don’t, in themselves, exclude self defense?
Oh, are you a juror? You probably shouldn’t be talking about the case, then.
Nothing I do here can influence the outcome of the trial. Thus, I have no motive to distort or deceive.
Hey, you’re getting it! Yes, they must be convinced that the shooting was legally unjustified. This must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Those were examples of reasonable doubts, not specific things the state must disprove)
See post 10808.
You’ve lost me. Exhibit B would go to disprove self-defense, yes. This is necessary.
Setting aside any legal obligations of the state, do you believe that the jury could or would reach a reasonable guilty verdict, even if the state never mentions Zimmerman’s wounds or other evidence that suggests self defense?
That evidence rebuts the claim of self-defense. Zimmerman claims he killed to defend himself but the evidence you mention contradicts that claim, showing that he killed “because I didn’t want anyone to see us.” The state would carry its burden in that instance. It would then be for the jury to decide what they believed – but the record would be legally sufficient.
Yes. Although they’re not obligated to call everyone on their list, but can be sanctioned if they seek to call someone NOT on their list. (At least for their case-in-chief – the prosecution can call rebuttal witnesses that they didn’t list).
No. They can ask, but there is no requirement that a prospective witness submit to a deposition ahead of time.
Now, if one side wishes to tender a witness as an expert, then typically they would have to make available any work product upon which the witness was basing his testimony, so that the opposition would have sufficient opportunity to allow its own expert to confirm or contradict the findings. But an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, “This is what i saw,” witness? No.
No. The accused has an absolute right to not testify, and no negative inference can be drawn from his exercise of that right. The defense doesn’t have to say squat ahead of time on that point.
Once he testifies, he generally waives his Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment, it’s said, is not simultaneously a sword and a shield. He cannot tell only the portion of his story that’s helpful and then refuse to speak further.
The question about the scope of the direct examination is a good one, and your instinct is correct: it’s determined by the trial judge as it happens. But as a general rule, the scope rule is a broad one. If the accused tells his self-defense story, the prosecution has every right to explore it in detail.
That’s one way to look at things, sure. But I bet Kitty Genovese wishes someone wouldn’t have minded their own business while she was getting murdered. I bet Adam Walsh wishes everyone hadn’t minded their own business while he was being abducted.
Average citizens calling the police based on suspicions do prevent crimes, or cause the perpetrators to be apprehended. Not every time, of course. But saying that no one should contact police unless they are positive they are witnessing a crime is a terrible policy, that would do much more harm than good.
Also, way to inject racial profiling into this, rather than noticing behavior.
Setting aside the unproven nature of a couple of those, that’s not how our legal system works, and for very good reason. We don’t put lives on trial, we try to prove facts. That’s the only way justice can be done.
Hell, the Scottsboro Boys were a bunch of no-account black drifters, right? What more do you need to know? They must be guilty, they’re the wrong sort of person!
I’m not pro-Zimmerman, I’m pro-reasonable doubt. He may well be guilty, but since it can’t be proven, he should be acquitted.
Facts are the basis of our legal system.
I don’t think you understand where those who disagree with you here (or at least the large majority of them) are coming from. Who has told you that Zimmerman’s words must be believed? As opposed to believing him only when the evidence supports his account?
That doesn’t mean he wasn’t attacked. Look at Azaria Chamberlain: if your baby disappeared in the outback, wouldn’t you do your damndest to say that a wild dog took her? It’s a convenient story, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
As for Zimmerman’s recounting of Martin’s exact words, as I have noted before, the combination of extreme stress and physical struggle is highly destructive to memory. It is highly unlikely that Zimmerman is recounting the details of the fight accurately, but that needn’t be lying, it can be trying to recollect what happened based only on fragments and extreme emotions. If he felt like he was about to be killed, that might make him recall being told he was going be killed.
Or, he was afraid of being prosecuted, and gilded his story on purpose.
Or, everything he recounted about the fight was totally accurate.
Which is it? I vote #1, but good luck proving any of them.
Didn’t we just go through this with Amanda Knox? There’s no “correct” way to react to something like this that proves innocence, and there’s no “incorrect” way to react that proves guilt.
Are yall even reading before you post?This is beyond annoying. Human Action posted that if the jury believes Zimmerman pursued Martin because he’s black with the intent to shoot him, they have to acquit if the defense doesn’t disprove self-defense. I was simply responding to that hypothetical.
Why don’t you respond to the request for the exact elements of the crime?
Sorry, it read more like a hysterical utterance than hyperbolic counter-example and I was trying to figure that out because nothing you had said so far had seemed so out of left-field.
Thank you for clarifying.