Last night, the police released this video showing George Zimmerman shortly after he killed an unarmed Florida teen. I discussed the legal significance of the video on Countdown last night.
As I mentioned last night, the video would pose both strategic and tactical problems for a defense. First, the absence of obvious injuries would obviously undermine the claim of a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death in the use of lethal force. However, it would not be determinative on the question. Zimmerman was treated by paramedics at the scene who could testify that he was indeed bleeding. Moreover, the defense is based on a reasonable fear of such harm. If Zimmerman could convince at least one juror that Martin was the aggressor, he may be able to avoid conviction on this nebulous standard. This might be strengthened by a claim that Martin tried to grab his gun. However, the video shows a Zimmerman who appears unharmed and casual. At a minimum, it seems to contradict accounts that he was a bloody mess at the scene. That would put particular importance on the testimony of the paramedics and officers at the scene.
On a tactical level, my first thought as a criminal defense attorney was that the video could be viewed as admissible in a trial. It seems obviously relevant to the claim of self-defense. Yet, defense counsel (and judges) work hard to avoid jurors seeing a defendant in prison garb or handcuffs. The prejudice from such an image can be immense. This video of Zimmerman in handcuffs after the killing could present such a prejudicial impact, but still be viewed as admissible since the value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial impact. The video leaves the impression of an immaculate assailment — where an individual fights for his life but shows no obvious injury.
While the 911 call has portions that help and hurt Zimmerman, this video is entirely detrimental to the defense in my opinion. I would not want a jury to see the video as a defense attorney but I would expect a judge to admit it as material to the question of self-defense. That does not mean that I would not try to keep it out. One claim would be that, since paramedics had cleaned him up at the scene, the video is misleading as well as prejudicial. Defense counsel could also point out that there is a reported four-hour delay the fight and this video. Finally, some have noted that one officer appears to check out part of Zimmerman’s head at one point on the tape. between A judge, however, could deny the motion on the ground that the defense can make that point through cross-examination and argument.
In the end, the prosecutor will have to decide on the viability of even a manslaughter claim based on the conflicting accounts of witnesses – and the generous self-defense standard in Florida. Courts have generally given shooters the benefit of doubts on the reasonable fear of grave bodily injury and self-defense. It is possible to use the privilege of self-defense before one is injured. It has also been used successfully in cases of an unarmed alleged assailant.
I still believe that there is sufficient evidence here to sustain a charge. However, as I have previously said, I have great reservations about the effort to pressure the prosecutor through petitions and political pressure — as well as recent irresponsible acts that border on vigilantism. I do not believe in prosecution by plebiscite and thus declined to sign the petition demanding prosecution. This video offers another piece of evidence that I believe supports prosecution. Yet, there remains difficult legal questions about the viability of a charge under the Florida standard and prior case law. The country and justice would be better served by an objective review of such evidence.
We still need to see the forensic evidence that I previously described as well as the statements of some of the witnesses like the paramedics. Many questions remain unanswered like the trajectory of the bullet, any fingerprints on the weapon, the extent of the respective injuries on the men, and the proximity and relative position of the gun when it was fired.
Blouise,
You are sooooo right. We can’t save Trayvon, punishing Z is somebody else’s job.
All we can do is expose the rot in our police departments.
Why weren’t for example the cops in the “thin blue lie” thread wired for sound and even mini-video in compulsory helmets???
All the courses in police academy won’t change their corps spirit. Only supervision will. Try to do the best we can is all we can do for Trayvon.
And ourselves.
Exchanging stuff with PJ is meaningless. Better spend the time talking about what productively each can do in their own purvieu would be better.
Excuse the von oben lecture. Not really meant as such, but old habits you know……..
When is someone going to clarify:
1) Can two people both claim self defense? I presume the answer to be no.
2) Who gets to claim self defense, the person that survived? That’s crazy.
Why is Zimmerman even being considered for this statute? We know from his own conversations with the dispatcher that: 1)Trayvon saw Zimmerman. 2) Trayvon ran from Zimmerman and attempt to avoid contact with Zimmerman. 3) We also know from Zimmerman’s own words that he pursued Trayvon.
At this point, how dawg gone difficult is it to make the case that Trayvon was fearful of Zimmerman and that he had reason to be: 1) It was dark. 2) He does not know Zimmerman. 3) Zimmerman outweighs him by 100 pounds. 3) Zimmerman has no authority over Trayvon.
So… Can the legal presumption of fear shift from one person to the next? According to the Florida statute, it appears not:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.–The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) INITIALLY PROVOKES THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST HIMSELF or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
It is clear that the incident is provoked by Zimmerman. There would have been no interaction at all if Zimmerman had not followed Trayvon. Of course Zimmerman’s “story” addresses the subsequent “UNLESS” component. Yet, it does not say, “unless” you are losing the fight. As a matter of fact, based on the wording of the “unless” component, it really is no longer a “stand your ground” issue. As a matter of face you have to demonstrate a willingness to, in fact, “STAND DOWN”.
My question is this: once you have been established as the aggressor, doesn’t the burden of proof lie on the aggressor to prove that “he desire[d] to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continue[d] or resume[d] the use of force.”
Next. I need to know more about how Zimmerman was carrying his weapon. Was the gun tucked into his pants or did he have a holster? The point is, depending on what kind of holster you have, you cannot hold the weapon on your person while you are in a car. We know that Zimmerman was observing Trayvon from his car. If he doesn’t not have a suitable holster, then that means that when he got out of the car, he had to make a conscious effort the reach for the gun with the intent to pursue Trayvon. You cannot have a more clear cut act of aggression.
PJ,
I guess when the facts are against you your reaction is to call me names. Have fun with that, but if Zimmerman was following Martin and felt threatened, why didn’t he call 911? He was already told by the police that they did not want him to follow Martin. The Right wing crap that you are referring to is your comments not Zimmerman. Who wrote the stand your ground law? It certaintly wasn’t progressives.Doesn’t Trayvon have the same Stand your Ground rights as Mr. Zimmerman?
You have been informed by many on this thread of the actual facts, but you continue to ignore those facts and insult myself and others. I did not insult you, nor will I now.
150 years…..
PJ, the only ‘eyewitness’ GZ has is a 13 year old kid who did not see the whole scenario or the shooting. Pretty thin. TM has many more witnesses with the same thin experience….how about the boy who walked his dog who said that Zimmerman “tripped” and fell and was on the ground by himself shouting?
When we know the bullet trajectory, we will see that GZ shot him from the ground while TM was standing, I would wager.
GZ was afraid to be on the ground, tripping over his own feet scared the hell out of him, enough to pull out his gun and aim….
Some of the posts on these multiple threads appear to be in defense of Zimmerman but in actuality are attempts to deflect attention from the actions of law enforcement’s handling of this matter.
Some law enforcement personnel who have gotten used to the shadows of “business as usual” are nervously squirming to get law enforcement out of the spotlight and back into those shadows.
Defending Zimmerman casts a lovely shadow.
PJ,
There was more than one witness.
I don’t spout talking points like you. I read about what has been going on in Florida with regard to the investigation, the chief of police, the prosecutor, etc.
“The fact that Martin was a teenager, or that he was returning to the place where he was staying, has no relevance to Zimmerman’s justified use of deadly force.”
How do you know Zimmerman was justified in his use of deadly force–because he said so?
Trayvon was just walking back to the place where he was staying. He had not committed a crime. A man he didn’t know was shadowing him. That’s how the story starts. I’d be frightened if I were walking home and some man I didn’t know followed me. I wonder what has relevance for you. Anything that makes Trayvon look guilty and Zimmerman look innocent?
“Methinks PJ is a deep ditto-head.”
And I think you’re an emotional idiot. How does that change anything?
Elaine M.
The fact that Martin was a teenager, or that he was returning to the place where he was staying, has no relevance to Zimmerman’s justified use of deadly force. Of course you already know that, but you want to make sure your emotions can somehow influence the exchange.
“One has to wonder why the police chief lied and said there was no probable cause to charge Zimmerman with a crime when the lead investigator wanted him to be arrested and charged with manslaughter.”
Are you really that ignorant? Did the “lead investigator” make his determination before or after knowing of the eyewitness account corroborating Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense? Did the “lead investigator” make that determination before or after making note of the statutory prohibition of filing such a charge?
PJ,
It appears you have a different opinion from the lead detective in the case who did not believe Zimmerman’s account of what happened on the evening Trayvon was killed.
“Serino said in an affidavit taken on Feb. 26, the night of Martin’s death, that he did not believe Zimmerman’s version that Martin felled him with a single punch from behind and was shot during a violent struggle on the street in Sanford, Fla.”
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Trayvon-Martin-Zimmerman-Florida/2012/03/28/id/434108
You, someone who did not question Zimmerman or witnesses or investigate the case, see things differently. I’ll take the word of the lead detective Chris Serino–not you.
rafflaw,
I call you a “racialist” because you have yet to point out anything about Zimmerman that would support a claim of Zimmerman’s actions being based on race. Further, Zimmerman was a registered Democrat. so you know where you can put your “right wing talking point” crap.
“How many times did this self proclaimed watchman call 911?”
Are you nothing but a fool? Until a physical confrontation took place, there would have been no justification to call 911. 911 is for emergencies. Zimmerman called the non-emergency number to report suspicious activity. That’s what educated people do. A “suspicious person” who is not committing a crime, does not warrant a 911 call. Idiot!
As I said, you’re not a very deep thinker. Your comments prove my point.
Methinks he represent far too many who we don’t want to consider.
Its the same stuff that helps keep racism alive and happy. !50 years and they’re still fighting to keep the blacks down.
“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” Martin’s friend said told ABC News, in an interview with lawyers asking the questions because the girl is underage. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”
Watching, not following, but watching. Did this scare Martin? Martin refused to run, but decided to walk fast. In the direction of Zimmerman, or away from Zimmerman? Did Martin walk fast towards Zimmerman? Did he put his hoodie on and then walk fast at Zimmerman? Apparently Martin had a problem with Zimmerman watching him. By the girlfriend’s account, it was Martin who said “Why are you following me?” To which Zimmerman responded with “What are you doing here?” -How dare Zimmerman question what Martin was doing there? That must have ticked Martin off. Martin, being the big tough 6’3″ teenager, showing how much of a man he was, decided that he was going to teach Zimmerman that he was a man, so he clocked Zimmerman. Unfortunately for Martin, Zimmerman, though Martin had gotten the best of him, and was on top of him “teaching him a lesson” (probably for the benefit of the girlfriend who was listening), made the fatal mistake of deciding that he was going to beat the crap out of a guy who still had the ability to defend himself.
What would be the position of the MSM had Martin put Zimmerman in a coma? Did Zimmerman deserve it? Does a nosy neighbor deserve to be beaten because they had the audacity to question why someone new to the neighborhood was there?
rafflaw,
Methinks PJ is a deep ditto-head.
PJ,
So what if Trayvon put his hood over his head. One has to wonder why you think Zimmerman was justified in his killing of Trayvon–the teenager he stalked as he returned to the house where he was staying. One has to wonder why the police chief lied and said there was no probable cause to charge Zimmerman with a crime when the lead investigator wanted him to be arrested and charged with manslaughter.
PJ,
The “racialist” in this discussion is you and your friend, Zimmerman. Actually, I am a deep thinker, but someone who is programmed to respond to a specific right wing talking point does not care about what the facts actually suggest. How many times did this self proclaimed watchman call 911?
rcampbell,
Martin wasn’t standing his ground. When Martin noticed Zimmerman, Martin put his hoodie on.(as reported by Martin’s girlfriend) “He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on”. Only one good reason to put a hoodie on as a result of a man watching him. That would be to hide his identity.
Zimmerman did not “defy” police instructions. He may have continued to follow the suspicious person to see where they went, even though the call taker (not identified as a police officer) told him that they didn’t need him to follow. -Why do you feel a need to distort this issue? Nevermind. I know why.
“it’s worth mentioning that even if Zimmerman was “…yelling for help…”, it was to save his shame from the embarrassment of getting bested by a skinny UNARMED kid.”
17 =kid 18=man Since you find it so important to point out that Martin was a “kid”, albeit a 6’3″ kid, why don’t you tell us the difference between a 6’3″ 17 year old, and one that is 18, or 19, or 20? Surely you can explain the relevance as it pertains to the conflict without relying on the emotional appeal called for by referring to Martin as a “kid”.
“The witnesses accounts also include statements of a young voice crying loudly and then a shot fired and the crying stopped.”
Zimmerman says that voice was his. An eyewitness says that voice was Zimmerman’s. Would Zimmerman have a need to continue calling for help after Martin was down? -Do you know what Zimmerman’s voice sounds like?
You’re a racialist, just like your buddy rafflaw.
PJ
Your support of Zimmerman is starting to sound desperate—and rightly so. Nothing in what you or Zimmerman has said justifies killing Trayon Martin who was rightfully standing HIS ground against an armed bully who was openly defying police instructions Nothing. Again, it’s worth mentioning that even if Zimmerman was “…yelling for help…”, it was to save his shame from the embarrassment of getting bested by a skinny UNARMED kid. The witnesses accounts also include statements of a young voice crying loudly and then a shot fired and the crying stopped. The crime is still murder. As despicable as Zimmerman’s actions were, the coverup by the Stanford police is worse and does nothing to dispel the appearance of racial overtones .
Oddly even rabbits, etc do so with their young. ?????
Dredd,
There is enough blame to be meted down from JEB to Zimmerman and all the things in between…..