Unfortunately, that comprehensive article misses one key point: the jury is NOT entitled to instructions on the “complete law of self-defense.” They are only to be given instructions that cover any circumstance for which there was evidence at trial. In other words, the jury doesn’t automatically get instructed on self-defense; they only get the self-defense instruction if they have heard at least a bit of evidence that would allow them to conclude that self-defense happened.
By the same token, they don’t get to hear the initial aggressor instruction because there wasn’t even a bit of evidence from the prosecution that would allow them to find that Zimmerman used violence or a threat of violence against Martin.
So Don West was correct: if the judge had allowed the instruction, and Zimmerman had been convicted, on appeal he would have said, “The judge gave the jury this instruction despite no evidence on the record for the proposition that Zimmerman used violence or the threat of violence.” And the appeals court would have agreed.
Even if Martin felt threatened, and even if that fear was reasonable, and even if he was acting in legitimate self defence, that doesn’t affect Zimmerman’s right to self defence, as he was not acting in a forceful or illegal way by following Martin, no matter how scared or threatened Martin felt.
I’ll try again. Following someone is not illegal. Following someone is not a use of force. Following someone is not a threat. Following someone is not a provocation. These, Stoid, are facts. Facts you know, as you’ve repeatedly cited the laws that show them to be facts. That you don’t like the facts doesn’t mean you get to disregard them, just as the fact that your argument for Manslaughter contains reasons to doubt guilt can’t be handwaved away because you feel he’s guilty.
Facts are not contingent on your feelings, or anyone else’s. They are observed, or deduced logically. That’s why, in all cases, the standard is what a reasonable person would do, as that is an almost objective standard.
Reasonable doubt - would a reasonable person have doubt in this case, not whether any individual does, in fact, doubt.
Reasonable fear - would a reasonable person have fear in this case, not whether any individual does, in fact, fear.
As for your nonsense about having proved manslaughter, you failed simply because you started from the wrong place. As a juror, you are required to start from a position of, not just doubt, but outright disbelief that the defendant is guilty, and only to convict if the evidence so overwhelmingly shows guilt that it overcomes that extreme prejudice in favour of the defendant.
But, Stoid, you also see that there are plenty of times in which the jury’s verdict is overturned by the appeals court simply because the appeals court said that no reasonable jury could have reached the conclusion it did, right? In other words, those juries presumably applied their actual beliefs and opinions, yes? And the verdict was still set aside, for the reason that their actual beliefs and opinions did not find sufficient support in the record.
That was not my argument, though. My argument is that Stoid, in her hypothetical juror situation, did not examine the evidence with a firm belief that Zimmerman was innocent.
OK. But a reasonable juror could, as a matter of law, look at the prosecution’s case and find guilt of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.
I grant you that in my opinion, few jurors would. But Stoid’s point as I read it is: not every hypothetical juror must agree with your conclusion that Zimmerman should be acquitted of manslaughter.
There is nothing in Stoid’s hypothetical which suggests she even considered self defence, let alone setting out what evidence supports a belief that it was not that.
If you claim that a manslaughter conviction can be supported, what evidence supports the claim that it was not self defence?
ETA My understanding from the various interviews with the jurors is that is what convinced those who believed he was guilty to vote for acquittal.
Off the top of my head: Why wouldn’t Jeantel’s testimony about hearing Martin say “get off” count as evidence? Credibility is up to the jury, no? However slim, it is evidence.
Also, this professor seems to think it could be argued that Zimmerman following Martin could be reasonably seen (by Martin) as a threat of force. I know you have said otherwise.
So what is a layperson to make of these major disagreements between legal experts?
As I asked about Dan Gelber earlier, do we have a reason to discount their opinion? Is Professor Burke deliberately overlooking the points that seem so clear to you? Is she that confused about the law, and yet was still able to attain the position she is in?
The prosecution was prepared to argue for the inclusion of the instruction; they didn’t just concede and cite what you just said. Aren’t they as familiar with the laws as you are?
The prosecution witness who testified that Zimmerman’s injuries were not particularly serious. The jury can believe that, and infer that Zimmerman didn’t fear serious injury either.
Hmm. I’m inclined to take your word for it as you’re the expert, but that doesn’t seem like enough to me. I am, of course, well aware of basing a legal conclusion on seemings and feelings.
We spent quite a lot of time in these various threads discussing Zimmerman’s injuries, and I thought the conclusion was that they were neither necessary nor sufficient to determine whether self defence was valid.
Would there not also need to be some evidence that there was no ongoing reason for Zimmerman to fear? Such as evidence that Martin’s attack had ceased, or that it could not have put a reasonable person in fear of future serious injury.
But it doesn’t count as establishing that Zimmerman used force against Martin. It’s too thin – “get off” requires inference stacked upon a second inference to conclude force by Zimmerman against Martin.
Sure, it could be argued.
But if it were argued, and allowed to stand, it would represent a change to Florida law. When a “legal expert” says things like, “It could be argued that…” They are saying there’s no case in which it has been previously argued.
I don’t know her. But I know she doesn’t cite a single case in support of her position. She discusses Gibbs (which does not support her) but tries to distinguish it. And she doesn’t identify the case she is relying on – because it doesn’t exist.
The prosecution had an obvious motive to argue for inclusion. A conviction and appeal that goes against them at some future point two or three years from now is infinitely better than the acquittal now.
The prosecution argued for second degree murder too, and that charge was without sufficient support as a matter of law.
I suppose I have conflated justice with death. Being a bad-arse thug going around beating people up seems somewhat risky. Apparently you can get killed doing that sort of thing.
Justice was served the night TM got himself shot to death.
Sure: the knowledge in Ziimerman’s head that police were moments away from arriving. The jury could conclude he did not sustain serious injury and knew that help was moments away.
Probably way too off topic. But I was reading about John Adams defense of the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre case and found it interesting the defense Adams used, namely he basically argued it was self-defense or at the very worst manslaughter. Six of the soldiers were acquitted, two were convicted of manslaughter. Interestingly, the punishment for manslaughter was: death. That makes me scratch my head, why did there exist in English common law a separate crime of manslaughter if it was also punished by death?
Now, procedurally, the two condemned soldiers were not actually executed. In a quirk of law at the time they were able to apply for benefit of clergy, which meant they were immediately branded on the thumb with an “m” for manslaughter, and released.
But if the statutory punishment itself was death, why were there different classes of illegal homicide? Just seems very strange to me. Did it solely exist just so people could get out of the sentence via benefit of clergy? If lawmakers knew that would happen, why wasn’t it punished instead by some other punishment in the first place?
There’s a gulf, both conceptual and practical, between the notion of criminal justice in colonial times and now.
The short answer is: many felonies were punishable by death. The plea of “benefit of clergy” was basically a “have mercy on me.” You were only entitled to rely on such a plea once in your life – thus the branding iron. And it was originally only available to white men who could read – not sure what the logic was there, except to point out that those looking for examples of racism in the administration of justice would have a very simple task in those days.
The plea was not automatic – early Virginia diaries record brief recitations of court cases in which multiple defendants are found guilty of some offense, but only some receive benefit of clergy. (Others asked and received “transport,” which was simply getting kicked out of the colony.) There was very little in the way of formalized review of court process, though, and no real standards apart from the inclination of the particular judge hearing the case.
One very interesting aspect about being a lawyer in Virginia is the opportunity to learn all sorts of historical oddities about the common law practices, writs and origins thereof. We had to learn modern post-conviction review but also the writ of coram nobis, for example. A debtor in Virginia must still fear a writ of fieri facias. Shoplifting prosecutions must prove caption and asportation, and if they don’t a writ of error and writ of supersedeas may await.
I told you guys this would happen. Way back when we were debating admitting lawyers, I said so. Now, we’ve got like, what, ten? And that’s just the ones who admit it!
Hoo boy, the stories I could tell ya. Here in Pennsylvania you need a writ of plantar fasciitis just to charge somebody with jaywalking. And to get a search warrant? You must first establish honus wagner via a petition of La donna è mobile, which is damn near impossible. Man, you can’t make this stuff up…
I will be addressing other posts as well, as I can (super busy and I have a seriously pinched nerve that is massively fucking with my hand…)
And good luck finding many jurors who ever do, or that such is even expected. The presumption of innocence is less about “a firm belief” that the defendant ***is genuinely innocent ***than a firm belief that the defendant does not have to prove their innocence, the state has to prove their guilt. Because in other eras and places, people were accused and expected to prove their innocence, which is, of course, completely insane.
It’s more of a protection against presuming guilt from the mere fact that the accused IS accused.
So no, jurors are not required to come to the trial with a “firm belief” that the defendant is innocent. They are required to come to the trial with the firm belief that the prosecution must present evidence that proves to them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty, and they must consider only the evidence presented at trial, nothing else, in determining whether the prosecution has met that burden.
I’ve already proven you wrong on this. Read the jury instructions I provided for you earlier, stop spreading misinformation, and adjust your beliefs on how a jury should act based on the actual jury instructions, not random unsourced musings, that cite Mississippi law as though it’s relevant to Florida.
