State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

So based on your observations and analysis thus far, do you believe Zimmerman will be convicted?

My answer still remains: I don’t know. The decision is in the hands of the jury.

Can I ask why you keep asking me this?

[Hbns]

@you_with_the_face

My answer still remains: I don’t know. The decision is in the hands of the jury.

At this point, if the jury acquits will you think they came to the wrong finding?

[Terr]

@Stoid

No part.

I realize that the word “doubt” appears in both phrases, but that does not mean they have the same meaning

ROTFLMAO.

Ok. He gets the benefit of reasonable doubt.

Or, as you quoted:

benefit of the doubt - a judgment in one’s favor when the evidence is neither for one nor against one.

That’s what defendant gets in our judicial system. Definitely a judgment in his favor when the evidence is neither for him nor against him.

[you_with_the_face]

@Hbs

At this point, if the jury acquits will you think they came to the wrong finding?

Well that’s easy. An acquittal would make perfect sense if the State rested its case without putting up any ballistic or forsenic evidence, the testimony of the ME who examined Martin’s body, and the testimony of the investigators who found probable cause to arrest GZ.

I know that’s not the answer you were looking for, but it’s a stupid question.

[Hbns]

@you_with_the_face

I know that’s not the answer you were looking for, but it’s a stupid question.

I don’t think so. It seems reasonably evident that you have drawn your own conclusions about Zimmerman’s guilt. This makes me curious whether you will view an acquittal as a fair outcome based upon the evidence at hand, or simply as a failure of the prosecution to make a better case.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

My answer still remains: I don’t know. The decision is in the hands of the jury.

Can I ask why you keep asking me this?

Because it seems to me that your view of how the trial is going is at odds with the great weight of analysis from the various legal commentators.

And this makes me curious to learn whether your analysis is also informing your predictions. It’s curious that you have identified so many deficiencies with the defense, and such a string of victories for the prosecution, and yet are so unsure of the eventual outcome that you’re unwilling to offer a prediction.

In other words, it would seem that someone with your view of the trial thus far would be at least somewhat confident of a conviction.

It’s not clear to me how you could believe, as you seem to, that the prosecution has experienced a string of unbridled victories and yet be hesitant to predict an eventual prosecution win.

That’s why I keep asking.

Because right now, I predict an acquittal after a short deliberation period.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

Because it seems to me that your view of how the trial is going is at odds with the great weight of analysis from the various legal commentators.

Because I make assessments based on own my eyes and brain. Legal commentators are paid by media outlets to attract an audience, not to be truthful and objective. Furthermore, since none of them are in the jury box and looking at the evidence through a layperson’s eyes, they are not in a good position to guess how convincing O’Mara or BLDR comes across to the people who will decide GZ’s fate.

Legal commentators are often wrong about cases. Casey Anthony for one. OJ for another. Drew and Scott Peterson too. For every talking head who is swearing the defense is kicking ass, you can find another who says the State is.

But continue to hang off my every word, if you must.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

For every talking head who is swearing the defense is kicking ass, you can find another who says the State is.

Really?

Find me two that aren’t named Frederick Leatherman. Two lawyers (or talking heads, if you prefer) who say the state is kicking ass.

[you_with_the_face]

How about you watch MSNBC instead of Fox News? For once?

Your inability to find legal voices that differ from your own is fascinating albeit completely unsurprising to me, but you could at least demonstrate for us that you know how to work a remote control.

[Richard_Parker]

I watch MSNBC. Dan Abrams has been very clear that the prosecution’s case has not proceeded as well as it would have liked. What legal analyst on MSNBC are you thinking of?

[Terr]

@Steophan

It would astonish me if the prosecution don’t find an expert as least as credible who can testify that Zimmerman’s injuries are consistent with an attack that would leave one in reasonable fear of death or serious injury.

Defense is going to call Vincent di Maio, who is one of the country’s most respected experts on gunshots/firearms and a pathologist/medical examiner.

[Stoid]

@Terr

ROTFLMAO.

Ok. He gets the benefit of reasonable doubt.

Or, as you quoted:

benefit of the doubt - a judgment in one’s favor when the evidence is neither for one nor against one.

That’s what defendant gets in our judicial system. Definitely a judgment in his favor when the evidence is neither for him nor against him.

Let’s relive the magic, using your preferred definition:

@simster

What is interesting to me in these threads is that Martin has been given no ‘benefit of the doubt’ - as if he has already been convicted of being the aggressor here.

To which you replied:

@Terr

Martin is not on trial. Benefit of the doubt is applied to the defendant.

To which I replied:

@Stoid

What do you mean by saying that “benefit of the doubt is applied to the defendant”? I think you are confused about the meaning of a presumption of innocence, since I can’t find anything that gives the term “benefit of the doubt” any legal weight:

Then you:

@Terr

Which part of “reasonable doubt” is unclear to you?

You seem to be saying that these two statements are identical in meaning:

“The defendant must be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt”
“The benefit of the doubt is applied to the defendant”

And you selected one definition as your proof:

a judgment in one’s favor when the evidence is neither for one nor against one.

So let’s stick with that definition to test it:
simster said that Martin has not been given the benefit of the doubt…
which means that “there is no evidence for or against” martin being the aggressor and in the absence of such evidence we “should judge him favorably”…
in this case, judge him to not be the aggressor…
but he has been assumed to be the aggressor…
so he clearly has not received the benefit of the doubt.

Good so far…Except that you said it only applies to the defendant. So let’s try that:

Zimmerman is the defendant. Using the definition you liked and restated:

That’s what defendant gets in our judicial system. Definitely a judgment in his favor when the evidence is neither for him nor against him.

We run into an immediate problem… If there is no evidence against, why are they a defendant?

Finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t mean there is no evidence for or against. Nor does it mean there is exactly the same amount of evidence for or against (as though such a thing could be quantified anyway), as there might be mountains and mountains of evidence against a defendant but one incredibly compelling piece of evidence calls all of the evidence into question, raising reasonable doubt.

So there’s simply no way that “the benefit of the doubt” (defined as no evidence for or against, therefore leading to a favorable judgment) has the same meaning as “the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”: it makes no sense.

And that leads me to think that you are still mixing all of it up with the presumption of innocence, as I said to begin with, because until the evidence is actually presented and evaluated by the jury or judge, there is no evidence for or against, so to speak. So we are kinda sorta giving the accused the benefit of the doubt…bit not really, as previously explained.

So in conclusion…
giving someone the benefit of the doubt (defendant or not!) and
finding the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and
presuming the accused to be innocent until proven guilty

are all separate and distinct ideas and none of them mean “the benefit of the doubt is applied to the defendant” because the defendant is actually not entitled to such benefit at all, so it can hardly be confined only to the defendant.

You made an error. It’s really not a big deal.

[Terr]

@Stoid

Let’s relive the magic, using your preferred definition

Long tiresome blah blah snipped, since it just reiterates the same thing. “Doubt is not doubt”.

No, Stoid. Doubt means doubt. No matter how much you bloviate. In fact, the judicial system gives the defendant much more than just a “benefit of the doubt”. The “benefit of the doubt” implies somewhat equal doubts both ways. The judicial system gives the defendant “benefit of even very little doubt”. Even if there is a big “preponderance of evidence” that he committed the crime, he will be acquitted if there is even a bit of reasonable doubt.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Terr

Defense is going to call Vincent di Maio, who is one of the country’s most respected experts on gunshots/firearms and a pathologist/medical examiner.

You don’t call one of the country’s most respected experts on gunshots/firearms to testify about head wounds unless they’re caused by bullets.

CMC fnord!

[Terr]

@crowmanyclouds

You don’t call one of the country’s most respected experts on gunshots/firearms to testify about head wounds unless they’re caused by bullets.

You will already have him on the stand testifying about bullet wound. So you may as well ask him about head wounds. He’s plenty qualified.

[Magiver]

@crowmanyclouds

You don’t call one of the country’s most respected experts on gunshots/firearms to testify about head wounds unless they’re caused by bullets.

CMC fnord!

and what do pathologists and medical examiners do?

[doorhinge]

@crowmanyclouds

You don’t call one of the country’s most respected experts on gunshots/firearms to testify about head wounds unless they’re caused by bullets.

CMC fnord!

Ahem… “One of the country’s most respected experts on gunshots/firearms **AND a pathologist/medical examiner **.”

Why wouldn’t O’Mara bring in Vincent di Maio? Di Maio has plenty of experience as a medical examiner. Di Maio should certainly be able to describe head injuries as well as GSR and terminal ballistics.

Plus, he doesn’t have the troubled history of Valerie Rao.

George Zimmerman Trial: Walking Back the Damage - TalkLeft: The Politics Of...

[Stoid]

[QUOTE=Terr]
No, Stoid. Doubt means doubt.
[/QUOTE]

Of course it does. But it does not follow that any and all sentences and phrases employing the word doubt are interchangeable, as you seem to think.
Very simply:

benefit of the doubt
a judgment in one’s favor when the evidence is neither for one nor against one.
**beyond a reasonable doubt
**almost without any doubt. (A legal phrase.)

[QUOTE=Terr]
In fact, the judicial system gives the defendant much more than just a “benefit of the doubt”. The “benefit of the doubt” implies somewhat equal doubts both ways.
[/QUOTE]

Doesn’t merely imply it, that’s what it actually means, remember? The end of the VA quote below:

All the rule really means is that when all the evidence on a particular issue is equally balanced between positive and negative, VA must give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran on that particular issue. The rule only applies when there is a close call on some issue: when the evidence tilts one way or the other, the rule does not apply.

[QUOTE=Terr]
The judicial system gives the defendant “benefit of even very little doubt”. Even if there is a big “preponderance of evidence” that he committed the crime, he will be acquitted if there is even a bit of reasonable doubt.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, the defendant must be acquitted if there is reasonable doubt lingering in the mind of the jurors, that does mean that the defendant is “getting the benefit” of that reasonable doubt.

But that still does not mean that “the benefit of the doubt is applied to the defendant” is interchangeable with “reasonable doubt”

From the book Jury Argument In Criminal Cases:

Trying to meaningfully describe reasonable doubt is akin to trying to tell someone what an oyster tastes like. Not an easy task. Still, if the defender is to successfully argue the existence of a reasonable doubt, s/he must translate this essential yet esoteric legal construct into something a lay juror can understand and recognize. … In the section that follows you’ll find a few examples of reasonable doubt arguments.
**+Presumption of innocence and burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt - **
We all have heard about the right of an accused person to be presumed innocent. That means that when we started this trial every one of you should have the firm belief that (name the defendant) is not guilty. The presumption of innocence says he’s entitled to the benefit of the doubt from the start.<—hence my assumption about where your confusion lay- benefit of the doubt is much closer in meaning to the presumption of innocence than to the reasonable doubt standard> And the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that firm belief that he’s not guilty travels with (name the defendant) to the end of the trial unless it’s replaced with factual evidence so ironclad and so utterly believable as to totally remove from your minds each and every conceivable reasonable doubt of guilt.

Interesting how the three ideas bump into each other, yet are separated…

Another discussion of the terms in law, this time actually specifying a separate “benefit of the doubt” rule…

A key difference between the VA benefits system and other federal benefits systems is the standard for how convincing the evidence has to be in order to support an award. In legal terms, this is called the “standard of proof” or the “evidentiary standard.” Most people are familiar with the standard of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal trial. This is a very high evidentiary standard.

In VA benefits cases the standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” This is a very low – and more easily met – evidentiary standard. Because “preponderance” means the “majority,” an award should be granted when the evidence supporting a claim is ever so slightly more than the evidence against a claim. Another way of stating this is that VA is supposed to grant a award unless more evidence is against the claim than supports the claim.

The preponderance of the evidence standard leads directly to another important rule, known as the “benefit of the doubt” rule. The law requires that, after consideration of all the evidence, if there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue should be given to the claimant. In other words, if VA finds that the evidence is equally divided between evidence supporting a claim and evidence against a claim, such as two conflicting medical opinions, the claimant gets the benefit of the positive evidence. For this reason, the rule is also known as the “tie goes to the runner” rule, where the claimant is the runner.

The benefit of the doubt rule, however, is widely misunderstood and is often the source of great frustration for claimants. Despite what many believe, the rule does not mean that VA must make an award anytime a claimant submits an account of an event supporting an award. The rule also does not mean that VA has to believe a claimant, a claimant’s spouse, or claimant’s doctor when other evidence is in conflict with their statements. VA is always required to weigh such evidence against other evidence, such as service records or other medical opinions, but VA can find other evidence more convincing.

**All the rule really means is that when all the evidence on a particular issue is equally balanced between positive and negative, VA must give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran on that particular issue. The rule only applies when there is a close call on some issue: when the evidence tilts one way or the other, the rule does not apply. **

Yeah, so not all doubt is the same doubt.

[Hbns]

All I can say is it is a damn good thing George Zimmerman isn’t applying for VA benefits. :rolleyes:

[Terr]

@Hbns

All I can say is it is a damn good thing George Zimmerman isn’t applying for VA benefits. :rolleyes:

ROTFL. Stoid is just clueless.