State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread

[Stratocaster]

@Steophan

What bearing do you think the fact that he lied would have on this case? That fact would not prove murder.

That’s what I’m missing. Maybe I’m just not seeing something, but the endless, “He’s a lying liar! A pathological liar!” blather hasn’t produced a plausible theory that jibes with the evidence. “He’s hiding something”…what? Like the lead detective, I think the discrepancies are minor. They could easily be misremembering, mistakes, or even the human tendency to put the best possible spin on something so important (yes, that’s a form of embellishment).

And…so what? If we discount everything Zimmerman said that can’t be corroborated by some other evidence, what exactly do we conclude that doesn’t lead to Zimmerman walking? “His injuries weren’t as bad as he described” doesn’t negate the fact that he got his ass kicked. This is not the only thing in evidence, but it seems enormously difficult for the prosecution to place this in a “Zimmerman wasn’t exercising self defense” strategy. “He was a cop wannabe, who wanted to be a hero.” That doesn’t equal “depraved indifference to human life,” no matter how much you hate that type of person. “He should have waited for the cops,” jtgain’s example, even if true, doesn’t mean depraved indifference to human life.

As I stated earlier, I can’t even envision the hypothetical where Trayvon is putting a beat-down on Zimmerman, while simultaneously shrieking in terror for help, immediately before the gun is fired. That tape is fatal to the prosecution’s case, ISTM. “Trayvon was shouting for help, in fear for his life.” “That’s while he was beating Zimmerman’s ass, street fighter that he fancied himself to be, right?” the defense could counter. What’s the answer to that, one that makes self defense evaporate?

How does the prosecution prove a “depraved indifference to human life”? And they must. From Rubin’s column, previously cited:

Second degree murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer had “depraved indifference to human life.” Former prosecutor Andy McCarthy explains: “In a depraved mind case, motive is superfluous because what establishes the mens rea is the objective barbarity of the act itself, not some fuzzy ‘generalized hatred’ that may have been crawling around the killer’s brain. It is virtually inconceivable that a situation involving self-defense on the killer’s part will fit a ‘depraved mind’ charge.”

It isn’t good enough to say Zimmerman was foolish to follow Martin. It’s certainly not good enough to intuit that society has a biased perception of single black men. It’s not good enough to say Zimmerman wanted to be a hero. One has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not simply a fool, a grandstander or even a racist (which the prosecution has utterly failed to do, and indeed has left a gaping hole where evidence of racism was supposed to be in the journalistic narrative) but had such a general indifference to life as to exhibit an attitude, as a federal case cited by Andy puts it, akin to ”opening the door of the lions’ cage in the zoo.”

Seriously, no matter how much the sight of Zimmerman makes your skin crawl, no matter how bad his judgement may have been–what has demonstrated a “depraved indifference to human life”? Not according to your definition, but to one that meets the *legal *definition, which the judge I’m sure will cover in detail in her instructions.

So, yes, I agree, I don’t get what all the “lying liar” stuff is supposed to lead us to conclude, even if I ignore for a moment the fact that I haven’t seen anything I’d categorize as a lie.

[Stoid]

@jtgain

To answer an earlier question, a prosecutor’s duty is somewhat nuanced. The defense attorney is to zealously represent Z’s interests in keeping him out of jail. If he is guilty, innocent, or in between, his job is to keep Z out of jail no matter what.

Ummmm…no. That is not the defense’s job. The job of the defense is to zealousy protect the rights of the accused.

[UltraVires]

@Stratocaster

How does the prosecution prove a “depraved indifference to human life”? And they must. From Rubin’s column, previously cited:Seriously, no matter how much the sight of Zimmerman makes your skin crawl, no matter how bad his judgement may have been–what has demonstrated a “depraved indifference to human life”? Not according to your definition, but to one that meets the *legal *definition, which the judge I’m sure will cover in detail in her instructions.

I asked this question earlier and the response was that his act of pointing a gun at Martin and firing was depraved indifference to human life. If that is the case, then we might as well erase manslaughter from the books as any intentional killing would automatically be murder two under that rationale.

[Loach]

@Stoid

Ummmm…no. That is not the defense’s job. The job of the defense is to zealousy protect the rights of the accused.

“Damn it, are you going to just sit there or are you going to try and win this?” “Sorry mate, I’m just here to protect your rights not to win the case.”

[Stoid]

@Loach

“Damn it, are you going to just sit there or are you going to try and win this?” “Sorry mate, I’m just here to protect your rights not to win the case.”

I was going to add that of course the client wants to win, matter what, but in real terms a defense attorney’s real job is not to win by any means necessary, it is to protect the rights of the accused. In our perfect fantasy world, that will lead to the innocent being freed but the guilty legitimately going to jail. Again not the clients preference but I believe that lawyers are officers of the court first and foremost.

[Stoid]

@jtgain

I asked this question earlier and the response was that his act of pointing a gun at Martin and firing was depraved indifference to human life. If that is the case, then we might as well erase manslaughter from the books as any intentional killing would automatically be murder two under that rationale.

No, because there are other elements…importantly, ill-will.

[Stoid]

@Steophan

No more bearing than if he was mistaken, ultimately. The prosecution do not have to prove he lied, they have to prove he murdered Martin. Proving he murdered Martin would almost certainly prove, in practice, that he lied, but the converse is not true.

All that proving he lied would do would make the jury extremely likely to disregard his testimony - something that showing he was mistaken would also do.

What bearing do you think the fact that he lied would have on this case? That fact would not prove murder.

I want to make sure that I understand clearly what your position is. Are you saying that lying and being mistaken are equivalent in all cases or merely in this case? If so is that because of what you believe the lies/mistakes are about or some other reason?

And are you saying about this case, that the jury would not weigh things any differently if something were deliberately fabricated versus remembered imperfectly? Do you not feel in this case or any others that deliberate fabrication is indicative of something more pertinent to determining someones guilt or innocence than a mere mistake would be? If you do believe this, is it something you believe about the way the law views falsehood, or just the way you do?

[Steophan]

@Stoid

I was going to add that of course the client wants to win, matter what, but in real terms a defense attorney’s real job is not to win by any means necessary, it is to protect the rights of the accused. In our perfect fantasy world, that will lead to the innocent being freed but the guilty legitimately going to jail. Again not the clients preference but I believe that lawyers are officers of the court first and foremost.

One of their rights is a trial with a zealous defence. If the defence isn’t doing everything legal to get their client found not guilty, regardless of their personal feeling about his guilt, they are breaching his rights.

[Steophan]

@Stoid

I want to make sure that I understand clearly what your position is. Are you saying that lying and being mistaken are equivalent in all cases or merely in this case? If so is that because of what you believe the lies/mistakes are about or some other reason?

The jury may not infer from someone lying that the opposite of their statement is true. They may merely discount what is said.

And are you saying about this case, that the jury would not weigh things any differently if something were deliberately fabricated versus remembered imperfectly? Do you not feel in this case or any others that deliberate fabrication is indicative of something more pertinent to determining someones guilt or innocence than a mere mistake would be? If you do believe this, is it something you believe about the way the law views falsehood, or just the way you do?

Lying is not proof of anything other than lying. I really can’t make it any clearer than that. The jury can’t determine anything from the fact that the accused lied other than that his testimony is to be discounted.

What, exactly, are you looking for here? You keep repeating the same question with slightly different phrasing, whilst ignoring my asking you what you think a defendant lying shows. I’ve explained my position clearly, as it’s really quite simple.

[CarnalK]

@BlakeTyner

But still, even though I was a dumbass at 17, I was still ‘adult’ enough to be held to account. For me, that meant not pressing charges on the guy who kicked my ass, since I was the one who left the safety of the school and went outside to meet him. I didn’t throw a punch in that fight (at all) and thus, in terms of the legal definition, I was illegally assaulted. But I put myself there. ETA: Of course, had I (or the other guy) ended up dead, then it’d be a different story.

Well that’s just it. One person was being a dumbass 17 year old the other a dumbass grown man carrying a handgun specifically out looking for trouble. Despite the fact that the events are too cloudy to nail down a legal judgment there is little doubt who was the bigger asshole here.

[UltraVires]

@Stoid

No, because there are other elements…importantly, ill-will.

But there surely needs to be more than that as well. Voluntary manslaughter, at common law was a killing under a provocation or in the heat of passion. Under the MPC, which Florida adopts, it is a killing under extreme emotional duress or an imperfect self-defense claim (IOW, the defendant thought he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm, but a reasonable person wouldn’t have thought that).

Implicit in manslaughter under either definition is ill-will. The state must show that Zimmerman not only acted with intent and ill-will but that his actions weren’t simply a result of a heat of passion but so terribly bad that it exhibited a depraved heart, indifferent to human life. I think that the prosecution has bit off more than it can chew with that hurdle.

[Stoid]

@jtgain

But there surely needs to be more than that as well. Voluntary manslaughter, at common law was a killing under a provocation or in the heat of passion. Under the MPC, which Florida adopts, it is a killing under extreme emotional duress or an imperfect self-defense claim (IOW, the defendant thought he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm, but a reasonable person wouldn’t have thought that).

Implicit in manslaughter under either definition is ill-will. The state must show that Zimmerman not only acted with intent and ill-will but that his actions weren’t simply a result of a heat of passion but so terribly bad that it exhibited a depraved heart, indifferent to human life. I think that the prosecution has bit off more than it can chew with that hurdle.

Yet another in an endless series of issues on which reasonable people can and do disagree. It’s kinda wacky.

[UltraVires]

@Stoid

Yet another in an endless series of issues on which reasonable people can and do disagree. It’s kinda wacky.

Fair enough. So help me out. What evidence is there that Z acted not with negligence, or even gross negligence, but with a recklessness so bad that it evidences a depraved heart indifferent to human life?

In all of the malice murder cases I’ve seen, the defendant never intended to cause the death of the victim, but did something reckless that caused the death (for example throwing bowling balls off of an overpass or keeping an exotic breed of attack dog in an apartment complex). In this case nobody argues that Z deliberately pointed the gun and fired.

It seems that if he decided to murder the rascal, then you might have a case for murder one, with premeditation and deliberation, if that could be shown. Or you have manslaughter, if it can be shown that it wasn’t reasonable for Z to fear for his life.

But recklessness? Where is that shown? By following Martin? There is no law against that and it is simple negligence if supported by other evidence. I’ve yet to see any theory that supports conduct so reckless as to show a depraved indifference to life. Can you give me a scenario?

[Stoid]

@Steophan

They may merely discount what is said.

Lying is not proof of anything other than lying. I really can’t make it any clearer than that. The jury can’t determine anything from the fact that the accused lied other than that his testimony is to be discounted.

Really? Where did you come up with that? Cuz I don’t think it’s quite correct.
Now, I haven’t found the Florida version, so I can’t swear that it’s the same, but this Federal version is substantially similar to all the state material I could find, which was CT, MA, CA and I think IL. So I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that Florida is not so radically different that the concept is lost altogether:

**MODEL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - THIRD CIRCUIT – (Updated 2012)
.31 Consciousness of Guilt (False Exculpatory Statements)

FORECITE National™ Materials Related To This Instruction:

34.1 Opposing Or Limiting Consciousness Of Guilt Instructions

34.4 False Statements**

You have heard testimony that (name of defendant) made certain statements outside the courtroom to law enforcement authorities in which (he)(she) claimed that (his)(her) conduct was consistent with innocence and not with guilt. The government claims that these statements are false.

If you find that (name of defendant) made a false statement in order to direct the attention of the law enforcement officers away from (himself)(herself), you may, but are not required to conclude that (name of defendant) believed that (he)(she) was guilty. It is reasonable to infer that an innocent person does not usually find it necessary to invent or fabricate an explanation or statement tending to establish (his)(her) innocence. You may not, however, conclude on the basis of this alone, that (name of defendant) is, in fact, guilty of the crime for which (he)(she) is charged.

***You must decide whether or not the evidence as to (name of defendant) shows that (he)(she) believed that (he)(she) was guilty, and the significance, if any, to be attached to this evidence. ***In your evaluation, you may consider that there may be reasons - fully consistent with innocence - that could cause a person to give a false statement that (he)(she) did not commit a crime. Fear of law enforcement, reluctance to become involved, or simple mistake may cause an innocent person to give such a statement or explanation.

Comment

In most cases, this issue is best left to the arguments of the parties. Indeed, some circuits recommend that no instruction be given. See, e.g., Seventh Circuit § 3.22; Eighth Circuit § 4.15. The Third Circuit appears to have considered questions concerning false exculpatory statements only rarely. In Government of the Virgin Islands v. Lovell, 378 F.2d 799, 806 (3d Cir. 1967), **the court cited Wigmore for the settled proposition that false exculpatory statements may be admitted as circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s “consciousness that his case is a weak or unfounded one.” **The court noted with approval that the trial court’s instruction came directly from Mathes & Devitt, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 8.14 at 99-100 (1965 ed.). Id. at 807. The Court further commented that other circuit courts had approved similar instructions. Id. at 807 n.9.

In United States v. Chaney, 446 F.2d 571, 576 (3d Cir. 1971), **the defendant conceded that “exculpatory statements made upon interrogation with intent to divert suspicion or mislead the police, when shown to be false, are circumstantial evidence of guilty consciousness and have independent probative value,” **but argued that the prosecutor had improperly commented on his failure to testify. Concluding that the comments did not constitute plain error, the court noted that the trial court had clarified the prosecutor’s meaning by instructing the jury as follows:

The government also asks me to point out to you the government’s contention that, **in addition to the other evidence that they argue with respect to Chaney, it is their contention that his statements . . . were false and that is indicative of guilt.
**

So to be clear: I absolutely do agree that the jury finding that Zimmerman lied about any specific thing does not mean they can then infer that any specific other thing is factually true from that alone. Of course not.

But it does not mean that the only thing the jury can do is discard his testimony. They may, and they absolutely should, find that liars lie for a reason…prolly cuz they’s guilty. (And no, they cannot decide to convict on the strength of this finding alone, of course not. But they absolutely can add the finding that GZ is Liar McLiarson Telling Lots of Lies Cuz He’s Hiding His Guilty Actions to their consideration of the case overall, yessir, they surely can.

At least, that’s my guess, based on similar state and federal laws, leaving me with the impression that this is a legal idea common to all the states. But if someone can show that Florida has rules that specifically reject False Statements Proving Consciousness of Guilt, I will certainly withdraw my assertion that you are Wrongy McWrongerson on the topic of the Power and Meaning of Lies.

[Stoid]

@jtgain

Fair enough. So help me out. What evidence is there that Z acted not with negligence, or even gross negligence, but with a recklessness so bad that it evidences a depraved heart indifferent to human life?

In all of the malice murder cases I’ve seen, the defendant never intended to cause the death of the victim, but did something reckless that caused the death (for example throwing bowling balls off of an overpass or keeping an exotic breed of attack dog in an apartment complex). In this case nobody argues that Z deliberately pointed the gun and fired.

It seems that if he decided to murder the rascal, then you might have a case for murder one, with premeditation and deliberation, if that could be shown. Or you have manslaughter, if it can be shown that it wasn’t reasonable for Z to fear for his life.

But recklessness? Where is that shown? By following Martin? There is no law against that and it is simple negligence if supported by other evidence. I’ve yet to see any theory that supports conduct so reckless as to show a depraved indifference to life. Can you give me a scenario?

I think I’m missing something in what you’re saying here… because my immediate answer is: pointing a gun at someone’s chest and pulling the trigger (especially without doing anything else first…but that’s a whole different argument we’ve all had before) is pretty fucking reckless and indifferent to human life in my book. WAY more so that bowling balls and attack dogs, which are just potential…aiming and firing is pretty fucking direct. And that’s even if you buy that Zimmerman was genuinely afraid for his life - that’s a damned extreme place to go to as your first resort.

And I know there’s much disagreement on this, but the fact is that there’s no factually, irrefutably correct way to look at it, it is absolutely a POV issue. The finders of fact are legally permitted to see it either way. ***My ***POV is that going from zero to bullet in the chest is fucking depraved and totally inexcusable. Especially so in light of the the fact that Zimmerman started the ball in motion with his Stalky McStalkerson routine (i’m having a thing, pay no attention) his very minimal injuries and his failure to identify or explain himself to Martin, making him culpable for Martin’s reaction, whatever it was. I’m entitled to that view. Others disagree and they are entitled to theirs. And if we are all on a jury, we are hung. And Florida doesn’t spend the money for a do-over, so Georgie goes free and Trayvon stays dead no matter what. Which is so incredibly fucked up… it never ceases to amaze me that anyone can think this trial is a “miscarriage of justice”, that GZ shouldn’t have to account for his action. A 17 year old is dead, for fuck’s sake, and he wouldn’t be if George Zimmerman had just been this much less of an overreactive asswipe.

Gah.

[Human_Action]

@Stoid

Especially so in light of the the fact that Zimmerman started the ball in motion with his Stalky McStalkerson routine (i’m having a thing, pay no attention) his very minimal injuries and his failure to identify or explain himself to Martin, making him culpable for Martin’s reaction, whatever it was.

Bolding mine.

That must be a typo, right? How can Zimmerman’s injuries possibly be said to have started the ball in motion or to make Zimmerman culpable for Martin’s reaction?

[aceplace57]

I’ve read the theory that Trayvon was on the porch. The problem is the cat lady testified that she heard a sustained argument prior to the fight/shooting. I think some of the other neighbors said something similar. This all happened by their apartments adjoining the T intersection.

That accounts for the missing two minutes. There was a loud conversation between Trayvon and George. Probably for that entire two minutes. Cat lady was in bed reading and she got up to listen at the window. Then the fight starts with the yelling. Cat lady opens the window, hears the shot, and calls 911.

A lie or inconsistency in George’s recreation. He didn’t want to admit that there was a prolonged argument that led to the fight.

[Stoid]

@aceplace57

I’ve read the theory that Trayvon was on the porch. The problem is the cat lady testified that she heard a sustained argument prior to the fight/shooting. I think some of the other neighbors said something similar. This all happened by their apartments adjoining the T intersection.

That accounts for the missing two minutes. There was a loud conversation between Trayvon and George. Probably for that entire two minutes. Cat lady was in bed reading and she got up to listen at the window. Then the fight starts with the yelling. Ct lady opens the window, hears the shot, and calls 911.

I heard elsewhere that the porch comments didn’t make sense because Tracy and his girlfriend weren’t home. Were they?

[aceplace57]

The kid testified that the parents weren’t at home that afternoon or evening. Thats why Trayvon wasn’t identified until the next day.

[UltraVires]

@Stoid

I think I’m missing something in what you’re saying here… because my immediate answer is: pointing a gun at someone’s chest and pulling the trigger (especially without doing anything else first…but that’s a whole different argument we’ve all had before) is pretty fucking reckless and indifferent to human life in my book. WAY more so that bowling balls and attack dogs, which are just potential…aiming and firing is pretty fucking direct. And that’s even if you buy that Zimmerman was genuinely afraid for his life - that’s a damned extreme place to go to as your first resort.

And I know there’s much disagreement on this, but the fact is that there’s no factually, irrefutably correct way to look at it, it is absolutely a POV issue. The finders of fact are legally permitted to see it either way. ***My ***POV is that going from zero to bullet in the chest is fucking depraved and totally inexcusable. Especially so in light of the the fact that Zimmerman started the ball in motion with his Stalky McStalkerson routine (i’m having a thing, pay no attention) his very minimal injuries and his failure to identify or explain himself to Martin, making him culpable for Martin’s reaction, whatever it was. I’m entitled to that view. Others disagree and they are entitled to theirs. And if we are all on a jury, we are hung. And Florida doesn’t spend the money for a do-over, so Georgie goes free and Trayvon stays dead no matter what. Which is so incredibly fucked up… it never ceases to amaze me that anyone can think this trial is a “miscarriage of justice”, that GZ shouldn’t have to account for his action. A 17 year old is dead, for fuck’s sake, and he wouldn’t be if George Zimmerman had just been this much less of an overreactive asswipe.

Gah.

I don’t know why this entered my mind or what relevance it has but here it is:

A few years ago, me and two of my distant relatives decided to repair a tombstone of our common ancestor. It had fallen down and was unreadable because of moss growth. We got some Quik Krete and bleach and went to the cemetery.

While we were doing our repair job, some 80+ year old woman came walking towards us bitching us out and telling us that we had no business digging up a grave. After we politely showed her what we were doing, she apologized and left.

Let’s say that instead of explaining things to her, I decided to beat her ass and she pulls out a gun and shoots me. What part of her approach showed a reckless disregard for human life? Let’s assume that we have her on tape to 911 calling us “fucking punks” and that “these asshole grave robbers always get away.”