# State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501 "2013-06-20T20:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 109
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2161 "2013-07-14T22:58:16Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The Federal investigation into whether it was a race hate crime was dropped. I don’t know of any other Federal crime that applies, but there may be some. [Justice Department Mulls if Further Action Possible in Zimmerman Case](http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/07/14/us/politics/14reuters-usa-florida-shooting-justice.html) Probably he should consider taking a relaxed vacation to Bolivia or Peru and paying a friendly visit to the Venezuelan and Cuban embassies in La Paz. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2162 "2013-07-14T23:06:57Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > [Justice Department Mulls if Further Action Possible in Zimmerman Case](http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/07/14/us/politics/14reuters-usa-florida-shooting-justice.html) > > Probably he should consider taking a relaxed vacation to Bolivia or Peru and paying a friendly visit to the Venezuelan and Cuban embassies in La Paz. Would you like to make a little bet on these two matters: 1. That DOJ will not charge Zimmerman with anything 2. That if Holder is stupid enough to go ahead and charge (the only thing they can do is charge him with a (LOL) “hate crime”), that Zimmerman will win the case. For each of the above, if I lose I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. If you lose, you donate 100 to Zimmerman. We can have some trusted mod here hold the in escrow if you like. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2163 "2013-07-14T23:36:14Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Really? I’d expect it to be raised in a motion to dismiss in Martin v. Zimmerman, assuming a civil action is filed. Possibly even as a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer… The problem with that approach is it doesn’t establish res judicata as to anyone else with a wrongful death interest. The procedure in Peterson creates a bar against any civil action by any party. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2164 "2013-07-14T23:38:11Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > … > It’s possible that in the meantime, Zimmerman would keep an eye out for Martin so he could convey that information to police. Heck, it’s possible Zimmerman decided right then and there to apprehend Martin himself. But that’s just one of many plausible scenarios. Hence, reasonable doubt. I was reminded of this because I was bringing it up to elucidator. Nice try. Weak, but a solid attempt. And as ever…“Hence, reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean anything. It only becomes a source of reasonable doubt if the jurors believe it. “Reasonable doubt” is something in the minds of the jurors, not a separate thing that either is or isn’t. In this instance, if I were a juror, it wouldn’t cause me to doubt at all because it doesn’t strike me as genuinely plausible. But of course, I wasn’t a juror and the jury found something to cause doubt. I just didn’t want to leave this unanswered. Again, admirable attempt, definitely better than Steophan’s swiss cheese of an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2165 "2013-07-14T23:47:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with that approach is it doesn’t establish res judicata as to anyone else with a wrongful death interest. The procedure in Peterson creates a bar against any civil action by any party. True, but since he waived the immunity hearing in the criminal trial, I’m not sure the State would/should be the real party in interest in a subsequent immunity action. The criminal trial is over, the State has no further interest in Zimmerman…regardless of any potential civil liability in a wrongful death action. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2166 "2013-07-14T23:50:22Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And as ever…“Hence, reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean anything. It only becomes a source of reasonable doubt if the jurors believe it. “Reasonable doubt” is something in the minds of the jurors, not a separate thing that either is or isn’t. > . So what does an appeals court mean when they overturn a guilty verdict by saying that, contrary to the jury verdict, there was reasonable doubt as a matter of law? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2167 "2013-07-14T23:51:23Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > True, but since he waived the immunity hearing in the criminal trial, I’m not sure the State would/should be the real party in interest in a subsequent immunity action. The criminal trial is over, the State has no further interest in Zimmerman…regardless of any potential civil liability in a wrongful death action. Yes, that’s a valid point as well. So the Florida courts need to answer it. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2168 "2013-07-15T00:31:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what does an appeals court mean when they overturn a guilty verdict by saying that, contrary to the jury verdict, there was reasonable doubt as a matter of law? I [asked exactly that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16457142&postcount=1394) almost a week ago and no one answered! > [@Stoid](#): > > Asking a legal question now. The finders of fact, in this case the jury, have an awful lot of room to decide what is true or not, and on appeal those factual findings are _ **rarely** _ considered at all - (that was the most enlightening, frustrating, potentially terrifying thing I learned in my extensive study of the appellate process- contrary to what many people assume, an appeal is not a do-over, the appeals court doesn’t re-examine the evidence and in fact appeals based on a claim of insufficient evidence almost _never_ succeed because the appellate court can’t assess witness credibility, etc.) What becomes difficult to parse, and actually makes up a lot of the arguments happening in this thread even though it’s not always obvious, is where the legal rules and the room the jurors have intersect. > > To start with, simply “reasonable doubt”: for the jurors themselves, that isn’t some lofty standard they are trying to identify and adhere to- it is presumed that through the selection process itself these 6 people have been judged to be citizens who represent “reasonable” minds to begin with. They embody the concepts themselves, which is why it is they who must be convinced by the evidence. > > Of course there are rules given to them about the way they look at the evidence and consider it, hence jury instructions. > > But as we’ve clearly seen through a couple thousand posts, people can see things VERY differently. > > Given that, let’s assume that the jury does what hardly anyone is very confident they will do: convict. When they are sitting in that jury room, they all turn out to view things very much the way prosecution has encouraged them to, which is very much the way I and many others see it. They do not find most of the witnesses very credible, they think Zimmerman is lying his ass off, they genuinely, however hard it is for some people to accept, really, truly, in their heart of hearts do not have any doubt at all that George Zimmerman did not have what they consider a reasonable fear for his life at all and he totally went gonzo on Martin and he committed second degree murder. > > Given that the prosecution brought the case, and the judge denied the motion for acquittal, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to decide the question, how could the jury be said to have erred by coming to honest held conclusions based on the evidence? Other than by that incredibly difficult standard of asking the appellate court reverse the denial of the motion for acquittal, which would involve the appellate court doing the ultra rare thing of considering the evidence de novo, where is the appeal that seems so widely expected? If the case was so fatally defective that no one can imagine allowing a jury’s findings of fact and conviction based on those findings to stand, why/how was it brought? > > I ask the question in a sincere quest for understanding; I understand very well that criminal and civil appeals have some important distinctions, what with the whole human freedom thing being on the line, hello, and my most extensive research and understanding is about civil appeal. So I welcome the education. > > Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2169 "2013-07-15T00:41:06Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I was reminded of this because I was bringing it up to elucidator. Thanks for addressing it. > [@Stoid](#): > > Nice try. Weak, but a solid attempt. Can you explain why it’s weak? It’s all there in the recording: the dispatcher gets the directions wrong the first time, then cuts Zimmerman off when he tries to give them again later. Would you trust that person to transmit the directions accurately, when you had the option of giving them directly to the responding officer in real time? > [@Stoid](#): > > And as ever…“Hence, reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean anything. It only becomes a source of reasonable doubt if the jurors believe it. “Reasonable doubt” is something in the minds of the jurors, not a separate thing that either is or isn’t. Right, I meant that for me, it was one of many sources of reasonable doubt as to Zimmerman’s guilt (in this case, the allegation that Zimmerman pursued and confronted Martin), which led me to my conclusion that Zimmerman should be acquitted. > [@Stoid](#): > > In this instance, if I were a juror, it wouldn’t cause me to doubt at all because it doesn’t strike me as genuinely plausible. I find it much more plausible than the idea that Zimmerman planned to give Martin a head start of several minutes, somehow find him again, in the dark with only a tiny keychain flashlight, place him in a grapple, and wait for the police to call him at some subsequent point so he could direct them to the “suspect” he’d collared. Lord only knows how he’d explain that to the police when they did arrive. I find it to be more plausible because the evidence for it is right on the tape: the dispatcher gets the directions wrong, and doesn’t allow Zimmerman to give them a second time. > [@Stoid](#): > > But of course, I wasn’t a juror and the jury found something to cause doubt. I just didn’t want to leave this unanswered. Again, admirable attempt, definitely better than Steophan’s swiss cheese of an answer. Thanks. “Attempt” isn’t really the right word, though, I didn’t think of this in response to your challenge, it was something I’d already thought of and found to be plausible, and even likely. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2170 "2013-07-15T00:46:33Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Would you like to make a little bet on these two matters: > > 1. That DOJ will not charge Zimmerman with anything > > 2. That if Holder is stupid enough to go ahead and charge (the only thing they can do is charge him with a (LOL) “hate crime”), that Zimmerman will win the case. No, I’m not interested in such a bet. Because I think the odds favor Zimmerman. Nevertheless, if I were him I would seriously consider leaving the country – I don’t fancy a 20% chance of being in DOJ crosshairs. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2171 "2013-07-15T01:18:49Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > True, but since he waived the immunity hearing in the criminal trial, I’m not sure the State would/should be the real party in interest in a subsequent immunity action. The criminal trial is over, the State has no further interest in Zimmerman…regardless of any potential civil liability in a wrongful death action. Considering the fact that Zimmerman currently has not a pot to piss in, owes his attorneys, it’s hard to imagine what attorneys would take any case against him. Now if he goes on to write books and comment on Fox and pile up some money, maybe. But as it stands… Hard to imagine. ---
**Author:** ![gms453](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@gms453](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gms453)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2172 "2013-07-15T01:47:29Z")
Given the evidence adduced at the trial, any attempt by Martin’s heirs to civilly sue Zimmerman will probably be answered by him making a counter-claim against Martin’s estate for the damages Zimmerman suffered as a result of Martin’s assault on him. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2173 "2013-07-15T02:04:34Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Considering the fact that Zimmerman currently has not a pot to piss in, owes his attorneys, it’s hard to imagine what attorneys would take any case against him. Now if he goes on to write books and comment on Fox and pile up some money, maybe. But as it stands… Hard to imagine. Remember that he has a pending [defamation lawsuit](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2013/07/14/zimmerman-will-move-asap-lawsuit-against-nbc-fraudulent-audio-edi) against NBC that might refill his coffers before too long. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2174 "2013-07-15T02:08:31Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > I haven’t read the whole thread (but most of it) and I watched very little of the trial. > > From what I did see, Zimmerman had the same expression – or lack of expression. I’ve never seen such a lack of interest by a defendant. I couldn’t tell if I was looking at a photo or a live person. It was like “I guess I have to get through this but damn, this is boring.” > > Anybody else think his flat affect was kinda odd? Or was I just watching at the wrong times? Having _been_ a criminal defendant (30+ years ago, I was only a little older than Martin, still in my teens\*) I can tell you that it _is_ boring. Incredibly so. I only showed any emotion when I was telling the judge that I wanted to dump my court-appointed lawyer for one my parents were going to pay for, when the judge said “I don’t know why you’re switching lawyers _now_, since the trial starts tomorrow”. I almost shit my pants, then. I didn’t know the trial was supposed to start the next day. My PD wasn’t keeping me very well informed. I copped the guilty plea my PD had negotiated, already, since it didn’t require any jail time, right then. You _can’t_ go by the look on the defendant’s face to determine what he’s thinking or feeling. The defendant’s affect doesn’t really tell you anything. [sub]\*Yes, I’m a convicted felon. I was convicted when I was 19 years old. I’ve now spent 30+ years without committing a felony (at least any I’ve been caught at). Blow me.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2175 "2013-07-15T02:12:16Z")
Here it is: [QUOTE=18 USC 249] (a) In General.— (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person— (A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and (B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if— (i) death results from the offense; or (ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. [/QUOTE] No nexus to state activity required. Would have to be proven that Z willfully caused bodily injury “because of the actual or perceived race” of Martin. Tall order. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2176 "2013-07-15T02:14:32Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Can you explain why it’s weak? Because I look at it in context with everything else. It is clear to me that Zimmerman absolutely intended to follow Martin and prevent him from getting away like the other “assholes”, based on the compelling evidence of his statement and of the fact that he exited the vehicle at exactly that point to follow Martin. So he had already set out on that task, revealed his thinking process driving his actions, and he openly admitted what he was doing. So that’s pretty powerful evidence that he intended to continue, all by itself, but it is hardly the sum of it. I agree with the prosecution’s portrayal of Zimmerman as a wannabe, based on many things, which contributes to my belief that his intention was absolutely go after Martin. He was fascinated with being the one who catches the bad guy, and here he was being presented with an opportunity to do exactly that! He wasn’t going to pass that up simply because the dispatcher said “we don’t need you to do that”. Specifically considering your alternative explanation, I cannot find it plausible because it doesn’t seem rational to me to choose to have the cops, the busy cops already on scene, take the time to _then_ call him so he can give them a complicated explanation of his complicated location, (a location that, if he does not have Martin in sight, doesn’t really matter that much anyway) _after_ they have already arrived. That’s stupid and wasteful of their time, specifically and especially if they are supposed to be pursuing a genuine criminal. Far smarter to take the time of the dispatcher who can then describe it to them while they are driving. Now, if Zimmerman were just an average person who never made such calls, that might make sense. But that’s emphatically _not_ who he is, he’s somebody that wants to impress the cops, wants to be a cop, wants to show off his mastery of the lingo the cops use. He doesn’t want to waste their time, he wants to be acknowledged and appreciated for respecting their job and their time he wants them to see how much like them he is. He is very invested in the way he is perceived by police, just for his ego. In that same vein, he doesn’t want to stand around picking his nose waiting for them to show up so he can tell them about this guy he already told the dispatcher about, this guy that is almost certainly by that time long gone, making the whole visit pretty pointless and him the guy that called them there, wasted their time with a phone call to tell them where to find him,all so he could tell them the guy disappeared ten minutes ago. He wants to deliver the guy to the cops, wants to at least be able to point to where the guy is, if not actually have him under his control by the time they show up. It goes back to what I said originally: if he does _ **not** _ plan to search for Martin, what exactly does he plan to do instead while he waits for them to arrive? If it seems overly complicated to describe his location (directly inside the entrance to the complex?) then why not simply kill two birds with one stone, and tell the dispatcher you will meet them at the entrance to the complex? That keeps it simple, and gives you something to do in between: go back to the entrance to the complex. Because you have nothing else to do, if you have no plans to search for Martin. Then add to all of that this: The story about going through the cut through to look at Retreat View Circle, when he was parked on Twin Trees Lane. To assist him in telling them what? Why does he need to go to retreat view Circle to tell them where to find him on twin trees Lane? Especially in light of the fact that he never told them where to meet him, he said call me. And he claimed that is why he was continuing to follow Martin towards retreat view circle after being told it wasn’t necessary. Finally, factor in the most obvious thing of all: I find it hard to imagine that many of us have never had the experience of telling someone who was going to be meeting up with us somewhere to call us when they arrived so we could direct them to where we would be at that future time, knowing that our location was going to be changing between the end of the call and their arrival. It is an extremely common thing for people to do for exactly that reason, so coming up with a very different reason takes effort. Keep in mind the saying about zebra and horses, about Occam’s razor… So, while your perspective and point of view might be different than mine, if you understand what mine is and you look at all of the things that I look at, understanding how they appear to me, you should understand that the vast weight of evidence and reasonable inferences point directly at Zimmerman intending to search for Martin, and that the likelihood of any other thing being the true explanation is so minimal that it raises no doubt whatsoever. > [@](#): > > Thanks. “Attempt” isn’t really the right word, though, I didn’t think of this in response to your challenge, it was something I’d already thought of and found to be plausible, and even likely. Fair enough! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2177 "2013-07-15T04:03:18Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I [asked exactly that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16457142&postcount=1394) almost a week ago and no one answered! Sorry I didn’t answer your question. You posted a long screed quoting California law about the nature of inferences. I haven’t researched the details of how that actually works in California, but in Florida, the jury is not permitted to stack inferences, to “pyramid” inference upon inference to reach an issue of ultimate fact. In Florida, the rule is that where two or more inferences in regard to the existence of a criminal act must be drawn from the evidence and then pyramided to prove the crime charged, that evidence lacks the conclusive nature to support a conviction. See _Edison v. State_, 954 So. 2d 1235 (Fl DCA 2007). Because the jury is not permitted to build one inference on top of another, a circumstance occasionally arises when the record shows that there was no conclusive evidence supporting the elements of the crime. When the trial court has permitted such a conviction to stand, the appeals court will correctly overturn, because the record shows evidence that only supports conviction when inferences are stacked on one another, as it appeared to me you were advocating when you laid out your concept of inferences. Does that help? It’s not an easy concept. And there are nuances. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2178 "2013-07-15T04:25:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sorry I didn’t answer your question. > > You posted a long screed quoting California law about the nature of inferences. I haven’t researched the details of how that actually works in California, but in Florida, the jury is not permitted to stack inferences, to “pyramid” inference upon inference to reach an issue of ultimate fact. > > In Florida, the rule is that where two or more inferences in regard to the existence of a criminal act must be drawn from the evidence and then pyramided to prove the crime charged, that evidence lacks the conclusive nature to support a conviction. > > See _Edison v. State_, 954 So. 2d 1235 (Fl DCA 2007). > > Because the jury is not permitted to build one inference on top of another, a circumstance occasionally arises when the record shows that there was no conclusive evidence supporting the elements of the crime. When the trial court has permitted such a conviction to stand, the appeals court will correctly overturn, because the record shows evidence that only supports conviction when inferences are stacked on one another, as it appeared to me you were advocating when you laid out your concept of inferences. > > Does that help? It’s not an easy concept. And there are nuances. It’s an extremely easy concept! I like it because it is specific and rational, and those are two of my favorite things. Obviously each situation won’t always be itself crystal clear, but this provides some kind of guide. It’s also something that should be explained to juries… I mean inference generally. If they don’t understand what it is they are allowed to infer, they may assume reasonable doubt because they mistakenly believe they are not permitted to infer anything all. And judging from the threads and the arguments I would say that that probably happens a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2179 "2013-07-15T05:18:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In Florida, the rule is that where two or more inferences in regard to the existence of a criminal act must be drawn from the evidence and then pyramided to prove the crime charged, that evidence lacks the conclusive nature to support a conviction. > > See _Edison v. State_, 954 So. 2d 1235 (Fl DCA 2007). > > . Actually, turns out not so much. I always backtrack through the case citations until I get to the case that actually discusses the issue in some depth. Because then you get fun stuff like this: > [@](#): > > Federal criminal cases appear consistent with the Arizona approach and also consistent in basic rationale with our application of the Voelker exception. For example, in Toliver v. United States, 224 F.2d 742, 745 (9th Cir.1955), it was said that “The old rule … that an inference predicated upon an inference is inadmissible has been repudiated. [Citations omitted.] The acceptability of the inference drawn turns on whether it has been founded upon `fact’ regardless of whether such fact has been arrived at by direct or circumstantial evidence.” There are state criminal cases to the same effect. See Annotation, Modern Status of the Rules Against Basing an Inference Upon an Inference or a Presumption Upon a Presumption, 5 A.L.R. 3d 100, 161-62 (1966). \*\*Indeed, it has been said that a rigid rule prohibiting the basing of an inference upon an inference has received “almost unanimous criticisms of legal scholars and of those courts which have gone into the matter at any length.” \*\*Id. at 105. > > Foremost among legal writings criticizing the rule purportedly prohibiting the basing of an inference upon an inference is Wigmore, a prior edition of which was described in Voelker, 73 So.2d at 407, as having “justly and appropriately criticized” the rule. Wigmore, referring to the “once suggested” rule limiting evidence of an inference based upon an inference, states: > > 954\*954 \*\*There is no such orthodox rule; nor can there be. If there were, hardly a single trial could be adequately prosecuted… . All departments of reasoning, all scientific work, every day’s life and every day’s trials proceed upon such data. The judicial utterances that sanction the fallacious and impracticable limitation, originally put forward without authority, must be taken as valid only for the particular evidentiary facts therein ruled upon. \*\* From Benson v. State, 526 So. 2d 948 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 1988 Whichs looks to the civil case Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 73 So. 2d 403 - Fla: Supreme Court 1954 for answers in criminal cases. > [@](#): > > \*\*that is to say when no contrary reasonable inference may be indulged, such inference is elevated for the purpose of further inference to the dignity of an established fact. We are also convinced that this principle creates an exception to which the often-stated rule against laying inference upon inference must yield, \*\*or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the rule itself should never be applied without reference to its purpose, which is nothing more nor less than to protect litigants from verdicts or judgments based upon speculation. We do not believe that the “inference upon inference” rule, whose common acceptance has been justly and appropriately criticized by Professor Wigmore (1 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., Sec. 41, pp. 434-441), should be construed to mean that under no conceivable circumstances may one inference be deduced from another. We think, however, that such method of establishing an ultimate fact should not ordinarily be indulged unless the first inference meets a test which may be analogized to the criminal rule concerning circumstantial evidence, i.e., in the ordinary case, only if the prior or basic inference is established to the exclusion of any other reasonable theory should another be drawn from it. The discussion in both cases is very interesting and comprehensive, and basically comes down to reasonable rules about when inference can be added to inference. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2180 "2013-07-15T08:49:20Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Here it is: > > No nexus to state activity required. Would have to be proven that Z willfully caused bodily injury “because of the actual or perceived race” of Martin. Tall order. Well the argument is really simple: Anyone who defends himself against a violent attack from a stranger is far more likely to harm a black than a non-black since a disproportionate number of violent attacks are perpetrated by blacks. Therefore Zimmerman is guilty of Racism for the same reason as the New York City Fire Department – disparate impact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=108) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=110)