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.
Bdaman,
I thought PJ might be thrown into a catatonic state after reading that report from Fox News.
Ms. Elaine Fox News is a right wing media outlet controlled by Ruppert Murdoch and is not to be trusted.
I’m impressed by the high level of tolerance shown by most of the commenters in this thread.
One commenter has cast all of the following aspersions:
“You’re not a very deep thinker. Are you?”
“You’re a racialist, just like your buddy rafflaw.”
“Are you nothing but a fool?”
“Idiot!”
“Are you really that ignorant?”
“And I think you’re an emotional idiot.”
“I’m glad to see you joined the list of gullible idiots at the Turley blog.”
“Why would I call you a gullible idiot?”
“Just how dim is your bulb?”
“You’re a racialist.”
“If you were more than a pencil pusher with a JD…”
I don’t have that kind of patience. I don’t see much value in responding to someone who cannot carry on a civil, rational conversation. The commenter needs counseling, but isn’t likely to receive it here.
I commend the rest of you for your intelligent, restrained discourse. I appreciate reading your views on this tragedy.
PJ,
Do you actually think that I believe your crap? You haven’t produced one iota of evidence that Zimmerman was anything but a vigilante.
Trayvon Martin’s Death Puts Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law Under New Scrutiny
By NILS KONGSHAUG
March 25, 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-stand-ground-laws-scrutiny-florida-shooting/story?id=15988474#.T3U8lRxVNwc
Excerpt:
Police in Sanford, Fla., have become the target of anger and protest around the country for failing to arrest George Zimmerman after he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
But Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law may have given them little choice.
That law grants immunity to anyone who uses deadly force, inside or outside his home, if he can reasonably claim he was defending himself.
When police arrived at the scene, Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, had grass stains on his back and an injury to his head. He said he’d gotten them fighting Martin off. Recordings of 911calls would later raise questions about his claim of self-defense, but with only one survivor from that deadly encounter, police at the time had only Zimmerman’s story to go by.
Stand Your Ground “really ties law enforcement’s hands,” says Florida law professor Elizabeth Megale, “because immunity is defined so broadly.” Immunity, she says, does not just mean you can’t be prosecuted. It means you can’t be detained.
For defense attorneys, Megale says, Stand Your Ground “is a dream.”
Not surprisingly, Florida State Attorney William Meggs sees it differently. “It is a dream alright, a bad one. It’s a nightmare,” he says.
Florida in 2005 became the first state to pass a Stand Your Ground law. It was backed by the National Rifle Association, supported by legislators from both parties and signed by Gov. Jeb Bush. Twenty other states have followed with similar laws of their own.
The laws expand on the so-called Castle Doctrine, which allow a person to defend himself with deadly force inside his own home (or castle) without first having to retreat. Stand Your Ground eliminates the need to retreat, even outside your own home, so long as you reasonably believe you are in danger.
A subtle change, but a significant one. Combing press reports and state records, The Tampa Bay Times found 130 cases in Florida in which Stand Your Ground was invoked. In more than 70 percent of the cases, someone was killed. But only 28 of the cases went to trial, and only 19 resulted in a guilty verdict.
State Attorney Meggs says because of Stand Your Ground he just lost a case in which a young man was shot to death and the killer went free. “This was a totally unnecessary shooting,” he says. It began with a drunken argument in a bar which was resumed later that night on the side of the road. One man was walking, the other was a passenger in a car. The car stopped, the argument began again, the man on the side of the road leaned into the car window, and was shot to death. The Florida Supreme Court ruled the shooter was “standing his ground.”
Trayvon Martin witness casts doubt on shooter’s self-defense claims
Fox News
March 29, 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/trayvon-martin-witness-casts-doubt-on-shooters-self-defense-claims/
Excerpt:
SANFORD, Fla. – Further doubt emerged Thursday over the circumstances of Florida teen Trayvon Martin’s murder, as the mother of a young witness said her son was “pressured” by police and another onlooker cast doubt on killer George Zimmerman’s claims.
An unnamed witness speaking on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” said the entirety of the scuffle he saw between the two took place on grass, challenging Zimmerman’s claim that Martin had smashed his head against a sidewalk after punching him in the face — causing him to shoot the 17-year-old dead in self-defense.
In reference to the size difference between 28-year-old Zimmerman and Martin, the witness described the fight as being between a “larger man” and a “boy.” While the witness said he was not able to see who was on top of the other as the two scuffled, he said “there wasn’t a lot of movement” immediately before he heard a gunshot.
Zimmerman “didn’t appear hurt” as he walked away, he added, and he didn’t see any blood on him.
Meanwhile, the mother of a 13-year-old who also witnessed the killing told the New York Daily News that when Sanford police interviewed her son eight days after the incident, they “pressured” him to give more detail than he recalled.
The youngster, Austin Brown, had been referenced by police as having seen Martin on top of Zimmerman during the fight, but his mother, Cheryl, said he saw only one person lying on the grass and could not identify them.
“He kept telling them he couldn’t see anything because it was too dark,” she said. “He said he couldn’t see the race or anything. He never saw a second person.
rafflaw,
I already told you that the Stand You Ground Law is not applicable here. Knowing that, why would you ask me if that law applies to Martin?
I don’t think you bothered to take the time to read and understand the Stand Your Ground Law. Why don’t you do that, and then come back and tell us why you think that law would apply to either party?
Wow, according to some of the early comments by PJ, if you’re covering your head with a hoodie while someone watches you, then you’re automatically trying to hide your identity, which is justification to chase you down and confront you…
And news article today, Sanford Police Dept will immediately arrest anyone bothering city workers. Wow. Boy they sure step it up for the city workers and yet choose not to arrest for cold blooded murder or perform a full blown investigation of a murder.
Try to flesh out the truth and risk immediate arrest. Kill someone and just say it was self defense, no problem.
The Video has people jumping through hoops for those on the right they are saying don’t believe you lying eyes,the 911 tapes they are trying to say don’t believe your lying ears.
A repost:
“eniobob
1, March 29, 2012 at 6:03 pm
PJ
“Zimmerman didn’t claim that he felt “threatened” while following Martin. When did the onset of Zimmerman’s fear for his life begin? Most likely when Martin was on top of him. Would you expect Zimmerman to then call a “time out” so that he could call 911?”
“The funeral director who prepared Trayvon Martin’s body for burial told a TV anchor that Martin had no injuries to his hands or arms that would indicate a fight had occurred.”
http://www.kctv5.com/story/17286084/trayvon-martins-autopsy-still-under-seal“
PJ,
Zimmerman was following Martin so why wouldn’t Martin have justification to use deadly force to defend himself?
PJ,
The right wing group ALEC is responsible for pushing the Florida type Stand Your Ground laws. Just who finances ALEC and the Republican legislators who attend their “seminars”?
If one does manage to teach a pig to sing … the results are pretty humorous
http://gawker.com/5897485/white-supremacist-hacks-trayvon-martins-email-account-leaks-messages-online
“PJ just crossed the line.”
Crossed the line?
We’ll have to apply the Singing Pig Rule to PJ:
Singing Pig Rule:
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
PJ just crossed the line.
Elaine M.
“was shadowing him”
shadowing? What do you mean by “shadowing”? As a retired school teacher, I would expect you to know that words have meaning. I am interested in finding out what the word “shadowing” means to you. What source do you use to define that word? Or is it just a word that makes what Zimmerman was doing seem more intense?
What was the distance between Martin and Zimmerman while he was “shadowing” him?
id707,
No education intended so no exam! I was setting up for my shadow scenario.
Dead-black-kid-walking will continue to happen all over this country if this death is not thoroughly investigated.