Thanks for the explanation, Bricker. Does FL allow an immunity hearing to be held post-verdict? And piling onto your point about allowing civil immunity in the first place, another reason for not allowing civil immunity to be settled in a hearing like that, is that future plaintiffs are denied the ability to depose or otherwise get the testimony of the defendant. Especially to cross-examine the defendant. Again, NAL, but this seems like a big burden to place on the plaintiffs.
Perhaps it was answered elsewhere in this, or another of the trial threads, but was the State obligated to introduce the Zimmerman interviews into evidence? My thought is this: self-defense is a claim by the defendant, requiring a scintilla (right?) of evidence to put the claim before the jury, but this evidence is more than just asserting it in his answer to the complaint, right? Would introducing the testimony of one of the witnesses to the fight and the EMT who treated Zimmerman be enough?
I’m just trying to see how a self-defense claim can be asserted without the defendant getting in front of the jury and saying so. Introducing the interviews allowed the defense to do just that, while denying the prosecution the ability to cross-examine Zimmerman. Now if the claim could be put before the jury just by those other witnesses’ testimony then I can see the need to introduce Zimmerman’s interviews in order to provide context.
The world is an imperfect place and the best solution on balance is frequently “deeply flawed”.
The average middle class person would be financially ruined - years of hard work and/or saving money out the window - by having to defend against either a criminal trial or a civil trial, let alone both. And there are always going to be civil lawyers willing to take a shot on commission. In the absense of SYG civil immunity, punks and thugs get two shots at the pie. Try to rob the guy, and if you get harmed in the process, turn around and sue him.
In that context, SYG civil immunity is a great idea. It’s possible that these laws will be weakened in reaction to the TM/GZ case, and that’s a shame.
They wouldn’t have had to know each other for TM to have “ill will” against the creepy ass cracker who had watched him and then had gotten out of his vehicle, after TM had run away to his daddy’s fiance house.
Not personal knowledge of who exactly was by the “T” but that there was a person by the “T” who TM disliked.
TM returned to the “T” to do what? Shake the strangers hand? Ask him why he was there? Ask him why he was following him? Punch him in the face?
Prosecution just ended their rebuttal closing. Again, no evidence offered, pure emotionalism. Oh and questions. Lots of questions. What if? What if? What if?
I’m surprised no one is talking about the unusual argumentative tone that the judge took when asking Zimmerman if he was going to testify. She scolded his lawyers like kids. Wouldn’t even let them speak. She was badgering Zimmerman with questions about whether he would testify or not. The legal analyst-talking heads are saying it’s very unusual to do this, especially when the trial wasn’t over yet.
Did the jury see this? I think the judge was posturing for the mob.
You mean, no evidence like pointing out the 2 minute time gap? Like pointing out the different versions of Zimmerman’s story? Like pointing out how there’s no way Martin could have even seen, let alone try to grab, Zimmerman’s gun? LIke how Zimmerman couldn’t have drawn his gun with Martin on top of him? That kind of ‘no evidence’?
If that’s what you mean by ‘lots of questions’, then yes, the prosecution did ask a lot of rather good questions. I’m baffled as to why they waited so long to connect the dots for the jury, but I guess better late than never.
That’s a very reasonable assumption. TM was returning over 100 yds back to the “T” in order to verify if it was safe for TM to again walk over 100 yds back to his home.
I think it is when the only true question before the jury is
“Do you believe GZ’s claim of self defense?”
I don’t know how else they would defeat that claim.
The rest of the facts are not in dispute, namely that
a) GZ did shoot TM
b) It happened in Seminole, FL
It would be nice if Bricker or another attorney would weigh in on how they would have argued it.
eta - the question of “who had ill will of whom” really does not matter if they believe the claim of self defense - it would matter if they have to deliberate between M2 and Manslaughter.
If they have ‘reasonable doubt’ as to the validity of his claim - then one would think they would move to convict on one of the two charges.
If they have ‘reasonable doubt’ about the prosecutions ‘proof’ against the claim - they would move to acquit.
If they believe his claim - overall, even tho there is some doubt - then they should move to acquit.
the wording seems confusing to me, and its possible we’re ‘actually in agreement’.
eta - I see the claim of ‘self defense’ as a positive assertion by the defense - one that the prosecution has to ‘disprove’ in the eyes of the jury. I see this as very analogous to the prosecutions positive assertion of ‘he killed him’ that the defense has to cast reasonable doubt on. I’m happy to admit that I may not be fully correct in how the arguments in court in this matter would be raised/defended.
They have to know beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered Martin. That includes knowing beyond reasonable doubt that it was not self defence. If reasonable doubt exists, he is not guilty.
That is the point the instructions make clear. Merely doubting or disbelieving the self defence claim is not sufficient to find him guilty.
its reversing the logic a bit in my head - I am saying ‘reasonable doubt as to believing GZ’ == conviction - the real logic is “reasonable doubt it was NOT Self defense” -
I get that now - thanks.
ETA - it has nothing to do if they believe GZ or not - it has to do with if they believe it ‘might have/could have been self defense’ (reasonably).
O’Mara is worried about that too. He had a whole chart for the jury of of various stages of believe/disbelief and associated verdicts. E.g. “probably was not self-defense = not guilty” and so on.
No. Reasonable doubt about the validity of his claim is not enough. They have to be convinced that there is no validity to the self-defense claim BEYOND reasonable doubt.
Again my question had nothing to do with any statute being violated or federal charges brought. I was asking about a federal lawsuit brought against Zimmerman by the Martin family.