Thanks. That was my impression, which I was beginning to question given the avalanche of commentary about how SYG is now timely for repeal (or at least discussion) specifically because of this verdict. And I’m taking about the Justice Department, mainstream and respected newspapers in reporting (not editorials), etc.–a notion that seemed to be unquestioned. This board is loaded with such people, certain that SYG is an evil that gave the racist Zimmerman a free pass.
I won’t speculate that SYG is what pushed Zimmerman’s actions, despite it not being a factor in the case. There’s already enough speculation about what Zimmerman’s true intentions were. Maybe it promotes “cowboy-ism,” I don’t know. I know that in this case it is referenced routinely as having gotten him off the hook, when in fact it was an irrelevancy as far as the verdict goes. My thanks again for responding.
This is correct. As I’ve elsewhere noted, the majority of jurisdictions only impose a burden of production but not persuasion on the self defense claimant. That is, one claiming self defense only needs to adduce as much evidence as to raise a reasonable possibilty that he was licensed to use deadly force in self defense. Some particular jurisdictions holding this way are Connecticut, Illinois, and Florida.
In Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987), the Supreme Court held that Ohio’s requirement the defendant to prove self defense by a preponderance was not a violation of the Due Process Clause, which otherwise affords the consitutional right of a criminal defendant to be acquitted unless the prosecution proves the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Elements must be so proven, affirmative defenses (the absence of which are not an element of the crime) need not be.
But, although a state is free to impose this heightened burden, it is not required. And in the case of self defense, the majority rule (the rule as adopted by a majority of jurisdictions) is that affirmative defenses must be disproven beyond reasonable doubt.
For instance, Illinois, which places the burden of persuasion (in this case, proof by preponderance) on the defendant for imperfect self defense, explicitly does not, in the same statute, 720 ILCS 5/9-2, for regular self defense. “The burden of proof, however, remains on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of first degree murder and, when appropriately raised, the absence of circumstances at the time of the killing that would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code.”
I’ve stated that it’s the law that a scintilla of evidence is needed, and if I haven’t explicitly stated that I was referring to Florida law, I assumed (perhaps erroneously) that context made clear that it was.
It is my understanding that in the majority of US states a preponderance of evidence is required to bring a self defence claim.
ETA although Kimmy’s post suggests otherwise.
A. According to the (LOL) syllabus in Martin, all but two states (Ohio and South Carolina, at least as of 1987) have abandoned the common-law rule requiring proof of affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence.
B. As a practice pointer, I would avoid using “scintilla of evidence” and instead use “enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt.” (1) Most importantly, this makes explicit that one is defeating the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt. (2a) “Scintilla” is typically used (IIRC) in an entirely different context, namely, administrative adjudications, and (2b) second most importantly, “scintilla” is used to describe a side that has not met its burden, which, when you are contending you have met your burden, you don’t want nomenclature possibly to confuse your audience. In general, “scintilla of evidence” is usually prefixed with “a mere” and postfixed with “is not enough.” So best, as a criminal defense attorney, not to say “scintilla” when you are describing how much evidence you’ve adduced to support your case.
Thank you. This clarifies it greatly, and I now fully understand what Bricker meant with his point that, in this particular instance, a mere scintilla is enough.
Yes. But you asked about someone who attacks you, and I wrote about someone in your home.
The distinction is important. You need to show that you felt fear because of an attack. But if someone is, uninvited, in your home, we can assume a malevolent intent.
These are legal principles, but certainly not inconsistent with Catholic philosophy.
The phrase “He had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground…” was mentioned in the jury instructions:PDF page 12.
Would something else have been added to that paragraph if it had technically been a SYG trial?
I was under the impression that the SYG laws changed the jury instructions for these types of cases whether it was invoked or not, but I’m seeing conflicting information about it both here and in the media in general.
The jurors are taught how to make decisions following the law, that doesn’t mean they are experts of the law, camille. They may have believed what they were being told was because of SYG, but that doesn’t mean that it was.
After reading some of the posts in the last few pages of this thread I’ve done even more careful reading of the Florida statutes, specifically the dating of them. Basically in Florida SYG would have a material impact if a) the defendant had requested a SYG hearing or b) the State had asserted that Zimmerman had an opportunity to flee the confrontation. Since Zimmerman’s essentially unrefutable narrative laid out a scenario in which he had no opportunity to flee duty to flee would not have impacted this case regardless of whether SYG was on the books or not.
Instead, Florida has/has had very liberal (to defendants) self defense law, they predate SYG. Combined with SYG it leads to a situation very favorable to people who want to assert self defense in Florida.
Is this some artful phrasing? Do you mean it shines as a beacon of truth, or only that, under the circumstances, we cannot conclusively prove otherwise?
And if they erred because they mistakenly believed that SYG was relevant, would they have made the same mistake if that appalling legislation did not exist?
Martin, are you saying you believe the “had the right to stand his ground” wording was used in FLA jury instructions prior to the SYG laws? I can accept the possibility of a juror being confused, but it is specified in the instructions…
How are people thinking they mistakenly misapplied SYG in this case (rather than just mistakenly mentioning an irrelevancy)? Meaning, specifically how? Even if just speculation, can anyone suggest how might they have come up with an acquittal, with the evidence in this case, based on a mistaken application of SYG (a concept not introduced into evidence)?
No one suggested Zimmerman had the opportunity to flee. No one, and that includes the prosecution. The defense’s story is just the opposite. Lots of people disbelieve that story line, but “lots” didn’t include the jury. I know the defense needn’t prove anything, etc., etc., but this case seemed to rest on a simple foundation: was it self defense or not. Did they believe everything about the defense’s narrative except the fact that Zimmerman could not have fled? The whole narrative is dependent upon that.
SYG is a non sequitur in this case, ISTM. If it’s a shitty law, it’s not because of this verdict. This case was not an SYG case as a practical matter because SYG was not invoked and the defense narrative specifically contradicted the very need to consider it.
It was not just a question of eliminating the “duty to retreat”, which has been trotted out as the reason SYG was irrelevant (i.e., “Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat anyway”).
The elimination of the “duty to avoid danger” is what made the big difference in how the jury could have deliberated this case.
The juror statements about “stand your ground” and how “there was no other way” make more sense in light of this, don’t you think? They most likely would have convicted him if the instructions contained the pre-SYG language.
It is bizarre for you to refer to “your own reasonable doubt”, when no such thing exists.
I have no doubts. None. Reasonable or unreasonable. Zero. No one else on my jury has any doubts. And those are the only persons whose doubts matter, so it’s hard to imagine what you believe you are saying.
From the jury instructions for the Zimmerman trial (tiny just cuz I don’t think anyone’s going to bother reading anyway):
My jury followed the instructions to the letter. Their findings were based entirely on the evidence and they drew reasonable inferences from that evidence.They weighed evidence and testimony of witnesses, came to conclusions about what happened, ***had no meaningful doubts about any of that, and therefore convicted. ***
(FTR, as I’ve previously noted, I know many people who would have found exactly as my fantasy jury found. Especially if the prosecution had been less incompetent at presenting the case. But all the necessary parts leading to the conviction existed independent of the prosecution’s ineptitude.)
So your continued references to reasonable doubt as though it is something that exists apart from the minds of the jurors themselves is extremely strange.
I guess you just assumed, instead of actually reading it:
Now, I’ve been meaning to discuss with you, Counselor:
It was my fault that I wasn’t a little bit clearer…although it’s certainly still a matter of debate as to whether it could fly: my jury thinks that his “punks/assholes” remarks, combined with his intention to find and detain Martin, demonstrate a pre-existing anger and resentment towards the assholes who always get away, and he considered Martin representative of that group that he was angry at for being criminal and getting away with it. He was fueled with resentment towards “these assholes”, and that had everything to do with nearly every choice and action he took that night. So, like your case example where it was found that “pre-existing racial ill will” could be sufficient for 2nd degree, my argument was/is (though I’m not particularly attached to it, just sayin’) that GZ definitely had pre-existing ill-will towards this perceived group of people he believed were committing crimes against people in his neighborhood and getting away with it. Which, if you think about it, is really more legitimately personal ill-will than generalized racism is; at least it’s directed at a group of individuals, albeit unknown, who have actually *done something *to inspire enmity in GZ, and it is something which he, as Neighborhood Watch Guy, takes very personally: gotten away with burglary and theft in His Watched Neighborhood.
So how about that?
Another incomplete on my part: the inference that it was Zimmerman pursuing Martin was not a groundless assumption, it was directly because he was pursuing Martin to begin with, something we the jury had already found. So when they encountered each other, we believed it was reasonable and it followed that any pursuit was Zimmerman pursuing Martin.
But, as you say, not necessary for the conviction, so if that’s still unacceptable, no loss.
And thank you very much for this:
Extremely kind of you to take the time to say it, very much appreciated. And nicely put, to boot.
The problem is actually that you think your opinions about what the evidence shows are the facts, as we’ve gone over multiple times. So when I don’t accept your assessment of the facts, it’s actually been my rejection of your opinions.
Unless you’d care to back this up with some cites to posts showing me rejecting actual facts of the case, actual evidence? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
More of the same: you think you have proved something by your assertion that it is so. Well, no. And again: got some posts showing me rejecting things that have been proven? No, because I don’t reject things that have been proven, that’s kinda the point. I reject things that are simply asserted to be fact based on someone else’s opinion or belief that it has been proven* to them*, yes.
I look forward to you showing me proof that what you say about me here is true. (Even though I know that genuine proof, in the form of quotes of my actual posts, vs. your descriptions of what you think I’ve said, does not exist.)
Thanks. It’s the pain of the jury system. And again, really bad prosecution. I’m halfway to believing what someone had said along the way about the prosecution wanting to lose. Especially in light of what we’re hearing from them. It’s REALLY?!? With Seth and Amy time…Sigh…
:dubious: Are you saying that if a juror thinks that Zimmerman is lying through his teeth because it serves his purpose to do so, but they don’t have a specific alternative to his lie they are required by law to experience doubt they are not actually experiencing? Granted, they cannot convict exclusively on the basis of not believing him, but they hardly require every lie to be specifically refuted.
Especially this one: how does the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicions mean anything in relation to reasonable doubt about his actions in killing Martin? He either killed him in self-defense or he killed him unlawfully as murder or manslaughter - what part do the reasons for his suspicions about Martin being in the neighborhood play in creating reasonable doubt around that question? I’m not saying it doesn’t, just saying I don’t see it and I’d welcome your enlightening me.
Wasn’t it somewhere in these threads that I read that Judge Nelson had been persuaded to not include the language about provocation in her instructions? Because I think that would have changed things completely, since you still have to try and retreat and find other means if you instigated the danger you are defending against.
It is true that if Florida had not eliminated the duty to retreat unless one is at home (or other locations to which the Castle Doctrine applies), a different outcome may have occurred. But saying “If this jurisdiction had different laws, you’d need to decide differently” isn’t the same thing as “was an issue at trial.”
Something is at issue at trial if either (i) there is a genuine factual dispute as to a material fact, (ii) there is a bona fide controversy as to the existing law’s application to those facts, or (iii) both.
Here, there was no factual dispute that Zimmerman was in a place he was lawfully permitted to be nor any controversy regarding the application of that law to those facts, i.e., he had no duty to retreat .
As to “avoiding the danger” in the Florida Pattern Jury Instructions (note also that you misquoted this in your analysis, it is "duty to avoid the danger, not “duty to avoid danger”), the danger to be avoided is the immediate avoidance of the assailant’s specific imminent infliction of death or bodily harm (one must avoid the danger of being on the recieving end of that force. It does not mean “avoid getting yourself entangled in heated situations.” In particular, Zimmerman’s continued following of Martin contrary to the dispatcher’s statement that “we don’t need you to do that,” would not represent his failing to “avoid the danger,” as that term refers to the specific danger of the assailant’s threat or use of deadly force and not some generalized concept of danger.
:dubious: Are you saying that if a juror thinks that Zimmerman is lying through his teeth because it serves his purpose to do so, but they don’t have a specific alternative to his lie they are required by law to experience doubt they are not actually experiencing? Granted, they cannot convict exclusively on the basis of not believing him, but they hardly require every lie to be specifically refuted.