Since the first charging of the case involving George Zimmerman, I have respectfully disagreed with many friends (including on this blog) about the case which I believed was clearly over-charged as second degree murder. The trial has only magnified those concerns and I believe that the jury will acquit Zimmerman and would be correct in doing so. The reason is simple: reasonable doubt. Putting aside the understandable anger and the heavy overlay of social and racial issues in the case, an objective review in my opinion leaves reasonable doubt on every element of the charge, even the lesser charge of manslaughter which the court has allowed the jury to consider. First, let me begin by saying something that should not have to be said. I am not accepting Zimmerman’s account and I do not know what happened that night. I am not condoning Zimmerman’s actions. Rather, I am looking at the facts and I cannot see a single material fact on the elements that does not create a reasonable doubt as to what occurred. We don’t make social judgment or guesses on verdicts. While many have criticized Zimmerman for following Martin, citizens are allowed to follow people in their neighborhood. That is not unlawful. It was also lawful for Zimmerman to be armed. The question comes down to who started the fight and whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.
The facts on these questions are no more clear today than they were on that tragic night. Zimmerman’s account has been met by an alternative account from the prosecution. However, there is no objective basis to clearly reject one over the other. In other words, they remain in equipoise and that is not a sufficient basis for a conviction.
I was frankly astonished that the prosecution did not have any stronger evidence and, as I mentioned earlier, I believe that the court failed to address the withholding of evidence from the defense.
Many people were highly critical of the prosecution for putting on what seemed like a case for Zimmerman. The reason is that there was not a strong case for conviction on the basis that Zimmerman did not “reasonably believe” that the gunshot was “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to himself. Various witnesses said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said that they believed that he was the man calling for help. He had injuries. Not serious injuries but injuries to his head from the struggle. Does that mean that he was clearly the victim. No. It does create reasonable doubt on the question of the struggle.
There is also no evidence as to who threw the first punch or committed the first physical act in the struggle. I do not understand how, under the standard jury instruction, a juror could simply assume Zimmerman was the aggressor. Zimmerman was largely consistent in his accounts and his account was consistent with some witnesses. After 38 prosecution witnesses, there was nothing more than a call for the jury to assume the worst facts against Zimmerman without any objective piece of evidence. That is the opposite of the standard of a presumption of innocence in a criminal trial.
Rather than charge manslaughter, the prosecutors seemed to yield to the political pressure and charge second degree murder. Under that charge, they needed to show Zimmerman had the intent to kill and did so with “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” They fell substantially below that mark. Witnesses said that both men used derogatory terms, including Martin’s reference to Zimmerman as a “cracker.” The first witness for the prosecution was in my view a disaster and admitted to previously lying under oath. The prosecution witnesses largely portrayed a consistent account from Zimmerman and even favorable views of him from some witnesses.
In the end, the only way I could see a conviction would be to discard the standard of a presumption of innocence and embrace the invitation of the prosecution to assume every fact against Zimmerman despite conflicting testimony from witnesses, including the prosecution’s own witnesses. Even for manslaughter, the jury had to find that George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin but was told that “a killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.” The jury instruction on deadly force states in part:
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
This lesser charge still brings the jury back to the question of who started the fight and how the fight unfolded.
The prosecution consistently overplayed its hand in a desperate attempt to overcome its own witnesses. For example, with an officer stating repeated that Martin’s Dad said no to the question of whether it was his son calling for help, the prosecution insisted that he was saying “no” as a type of denial of reality in hearing the tape. His dad said that he had to hear the tape about two dozen times to change his mind. Even after being criticized by many experts for overcharging the case, the prosecution proceeded to make a demand at the end of the trial that the jury be able to convict Zimmerman on a different crime: third degree murder based on child abuse. The judge wisely rejected that demand but allowed the jury to consider manslaughter as a lesser charge.
The instruction on reasonable doubt given to the jury is as follows:
George Zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe George Zimmerman is innocent. The presumption stays with George Zimmerman as to each material allegation in the Information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
To overcome George Zimmerman’s presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which George Zimmerman is charged was committed and George Zimmerman is the person who committed the crime.
George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words “reasonable doubt” are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of George Zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman guilty.
Here are all of the jury instructions.
There is, in my view, no objective basis for an abiding conviction of guilt on either second degree murder or manslaughter. The prosecution’s case remains more visceral than legal in effectively asking for a presumption of guilt. Zimmerman should be acquitted on that basis.
Darren (and Dredd), I will take you up on your suggestion that I use the more generalized “Authoritarian,” rather than Leftist, or I may use my substitute expression, “Brutalitarian.” But please indulge me if I may slip from time to time into recitivism, or I use it for satiric purposes.
Lottakatz
I restored it, somehow the spam filter scarfed it up.
Darn, lost another posting to WordPress.
Don’t worry Oky1, the white supremacists have them outnumbered. How do you feel about that? Whose “security force” are they?
From Wikipedia:
As of 2009, the NBPP claimed a few thousand members organized in 45 chapters, while independent estimates by the Anti-Defamation League suggest that the group is “much smaller” but is nevertheless able to attract a large turnout of non-members (some of whom “may not even realize what this group actually stands for”) to its events by focusing on specific issues of local interest
***
Since the mid-20th century, the KKK has also been anti-communist.[11] The current manifestation is splintered into several chapters with no connection to each other; it is classified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.[12] It is estimated to have between 5,000 and 8,000 members as of 2012.[3]
___________________
BTW, Stormfront, the online spin-off for white nationalists and bigoted loonies of all stripes, that was started by an himself an ex Grand Wizard of the Klan and prominent Neo-Nazi, gets about 40,000 regular visitors a day. 90,000 a day to the entire site but 40,000 to their core boards. for 5$ a month or 50$ a year you get certain benefits including access to a “special, private forum”. Yea, I bet it’s “special”.
Also from Wikipedia:
Neo-Nazi alliances and Stormfront
In 1995, Don Black and Chloê Hardin, former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke’s ex-wife, began a small bulletin board system (BBS) called Stormfront. Today, Stormfront has become a prominent online forum for white nationalism, Neo-Nazism, hate speech, racism, and antisemitism.
Piers Morgan is insufferable.
If by that, do you mean “Do I think Alex Jones is nuts?”, then yes.
That being said, just because you’re a paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t out to get you.
Zimmerman LIED about being unaware of the Stand Your Ground law. It was revealed the class he aced discussed it thoroughly.
Although he was a neighborhood watch volunteer, he LIED about not knowing where he was in his own neighborhood. He patrolled that community regularly, knew exactly where he was and that there were no surveillance cameras in that particular area.
So many of his hyper-exaggerated nuisance calls had been taken by dispatch that they recognized his voice without him having to identify himself.
He lied about so many things that his lawyers knew he’d likely crack on the stand.
Someday the tape of the anguished screams for help will be analysed with pinpoint accuracy. It’s safe to wager they won’t be shown to belong to the proven liar with the gun.
**
Did you watch the Jones video I posted, Oky?
You do realize most people think he’s a raving lunatic, right?
**
Gene H,
Most people make about $10 an hour, live in a big city getto or live in ghetto type conditions, think the govt has the authority to mass medicate the gen pop. by putting the Rat Poison Sodium Fluoride in their water supply there by mass poisoning the citizens, that it helps their 8 year old’s teeth & believe it’s a good idea to have the govt force their kids to take toxic vaccines.
Most people Gene? Jones has documentation to back up what he knows to be true or to support his suspicions of what’s true.
And I’m sure you know the ole saw, in thinking the other guy is the lunatic is often just a matter of which of the fence you’re on at the nut house. 😉
Replace CNN’s Pez Head Morgan with Jones for 3 months & get rid of electronic voting machine/clean up the auditing system of them & then all can see which way the boat leans.
And yes, I thought the video you posted of Jones was fine.
Are you most people Gene? (Smile)
I meant to say: whether or not your teenage son is in agreement with your understanding of street smarts when facing stalkers.
@Vincent Jankoski: The only evidence is that Martin punched Zimmerman first.
@Marv: Evidence now shows that George Zimmerman had a broken nose, black eyes.
NOT True.
@SlingTribuchet: There is evidence that Zimmerman got struck/punched.
There is no evidence that Martin was the first to strike. (Unless you accept Zimmerman’s word for that.)
True.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
Trayvon did not punch Zimmerman. IF Zimmerman had a broken nose, it was as a result of the recoil from his gun when he shot Trayvon. Zimmerman got a bloody nose as a result. Zimmerman had Trayvon by the shirt(s) in the attempt to detain him, hence Zimmerman’s DNA on Trayvon’s clothes and the clothes being “away” from Trayvon’s chest when Zimmerman shot him. I believe Zimmerman took his gun out from behind and under his shirt and jacket when he confronted Trayvon, both are standing, grabbed Trayvon, “Why-are-you-following-me?”/ “What-are-you-doing-here?”. Trayvon is trying to get away, trying to defend himself from Zimmerman, and it is Trayvon who is crying for help, and begging “No, please, don’t”. John Good’s “testimony” of “pound & ground” is so not believable.
RandyJet,
I agree, no one really knows who started the physical confrontation. That’s why the police were hesitant to bring charges. It’s also why I think the charging in the case is unethical and largely a result of political pressure.
RWL,
You don’t know me or what my legal practice consists of (criminal defense and civil rights with as client base that is largely African-American) I hate it when other people feel compelled to do some version of the “some of my best friends are…,” dance. Because people are free to run there mouths off on anonymous blogs without perfect knowledge of who they’re addressing. I’ll resist the temptation to call you an idiot, I think you’re just another passionate anonymous poster.
Having said that, I’m not a hypocrite. No one wants their child profiled. I also would not want my son to sucker punch someone who was following him at night. And no, I’m not sure that is what happened. Zimmerman may have started a physical fight. But there is no evidence of this other than a statement to a dispatcher that he was tire of “assholes” burglarizing his neighborhood.
I agree Zimmerman is a bit of an idiot. If you really think he’s crazy, your sensitive nature would lead me to believe you think he should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
You are a hypocrite, because you wouldn’t want someone to use the same line of reasoning that JRook stated on your son if he was in TM’s shoes (grave), but you are ok with it for another parents’ child….You made those comments when you agreed with JRook’s line of reasoning. If you are a lawyer or in the legal profession, then you should be cognizant of who and what statement(s) that you are in agreemen with.
Seamus said: “I also would not want my son to sucker punch someone who was following him at night.”
What would you want him (your son) to do? Run? Shoot the person following him, if he has a weapon on him? Or look for the nearest object that he could use as a weapon to defend himself? I can’t wait to hear the street smarts that you are about to give us, and whether or not your teenage son (since we all know how well teenagers follow our ‘being a nice guy image will help you when confronting danger’ instructions play out) Please share!
I told you that if he is not convicted of manslaughter, then he should be placed in a pysch ward for the next 15 years of his life.
seamus While it is impossible to KNOW who started the physical confrontation, we can make educated guesses based on evidence and common sense. We DO know Zimmerman’s initial INTENT for a FACT. He wanted to stop Martin from getting away. Thus what is the most probable action of Zimmerman? Would he simply want to find out what Martin’s business was? He had that opportunity because he could have called out to him, but instead chose to STALK him and follow him. He cut off Martin on his way home. Zimmerman LIED about having first said he was ambushed by Martin, then changed his story to he or Martin closed the distance to each other face to face. THEN we have the problem of HOW did a bigger man like Zimmerman wind up on his back in a face to face confrontation? In high school I did wrestling in PE class and it is damned hard to get your opponent down from that position. I have been sucker punched on the jaw by a guy my same size and I did NOT go down, nor fall on my back. So the only way for that to happen is if Zimmerman was off balance, THEN it is easy for him to go down. The way he got off balance was he was grabbing Martin as he was leaving, and Martin then turned and unexpectedly attacked. Now THAT is something I CAN believe and it comports with common sense and experience.
We also KNOW Zimmerman had a violent streak since he was charged with assaulting a police officer. We also KNOW Zimmerman is a liar on many fronts. He lied and changed his story on the fight, what he was doing, and I don’t know if this was allowed at trial, but he LIED about his money to the court and the hundreds of thousands of dollars he had in his account. So to give any credibility to anything he says is beyond absurd.
As for the political motivation or the racism involved in this. There is a less lethal case but similar case that happened in Houston to former Congressman Craig Washington and a very well respected lawyer by almost all sides. He is also black. This case involved self defense claim by Washington, yet he was arrested and charged with a felony for shooting at a car that tried to run him down on New Years Day on HIS OWN PROPERTY. This was also at night, but the two white kids were not even arrested or charged for their crime. Had Craig killed them, he would be on death row now given Texas courts. There was NO two weeks or better waiting to arrest and charge him. So why is it that in this case, a black man being assaulted with a deadly weapon, a car, is immediately arrested for shooting at a car that was trying to kill him? Then we have a dead unarmed kid who was in a public area where he had every RIGHT to be, and the perp is not even held or considered as a crook. THAT is obscene in the disparate treatment of both shooters.
Did you watch the Jones video I posted, Oky?
You do realize most people think he’s a raving lunatic, right?
And good morning.
Actually, if you believe everything the State said in their closing argument it should be 1st degree murder. (But I don’t think even they believe everything they argued)
JRook,
“Martin was walking in a neighborhood (lawful).
Zimmerman was driving in the same neighborhood (lawful).
Zimmerman got out of his vehicle (lawful).
Zimmerman followed Martin (lawful).
Zimmerman met up with Martin and asked him what he was doing in that neighborhood (lawful).
Martin punched Zimmerman (unlawful).
Martin got on top of Zimmerman (unlawful).
Martin continued to punch Zimmerman (unlawful).
Martin slammed Zimmerman’s head into the pavement (unlawful).
Zimmerman shot Martin (the answer should be obvious).”
I think your flow chart is helpful in cutting through a lot of the vitriol that surrounds this case. I don’t think the comment about the obviousness of the shooting is even necessary.
The only thing needed to complete the flow chart is as follows:
Did Zimmerman reasonably believe he was facing death or serious injury when he fired?
If “yes”, then it should be an NG.
If “no”, meaning that he either didn’t believe that at all, and was essentially hunting Trayvon as the State and many have suggested, then it should be Guilty on 2nd Degree Murder;
or, if Zimmerman did not have a “wicked heart” but his fear of serious battery or death was unreasonable, then it should be manslaughter.
seamus, the problem is that you left out the assault Zimmerman did to start the fight. That is my belief, but the FACT is that we have NO idea WHO started the altercation. So absent that, the rest is superfluous and is also false since it assumes Zimmerman was a passive person who did nothing in self defense other than pull his gun. If Martin had been constantly hitting Z, we would have seen a LOT more damage than was in evidence. Thus at some point the attack was not going on enough for Z to reach around and get his gun.
As somebody said, according to Zimmerman, Martin was an octopus since he was doing so much, and one would have thought that Zimmerman was handcuffed or tied up. The FACT is that Zimmerman must PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that he had a reasonable fear for his life. Absent a weapon, that is simply not the case. Asking the state to have to prove that Zimmerman did NOT have a fear for his life is simply impossible. It therefore leads to absurd scenarios such as a bar fight happens, one guy is knocked to the floor, he pulls a gun and shoots and kills the other fighter. It is impossible to PROVE that the person who killed the guy did not have a fear for his life. Thus if that is your standard, the use of deadly force is effectively justified in all cases.
JRook & Seamus,
You 2 are both hypocrites. You both know that you wouldn’t want your son or daughter followed at night, and you wouldn’t use that line of reasoning! You both know that if your son or daughter was in Trayvon Martin’s shoes (or grave), then you would be supporting the prosecutor’s motion for 2nd (or even 1st) degree murder.
As I’ve said earlier, Zimmerman has a couple of screws loose for following a young, ‘suspicious’ black male (not knowing if he is armed), at night, and on foot. He is lucky that he is alive for his stupidity. And for this stupidity he should either receive manslaughter or be placed in a psych ward for the next 15 years.
A thanks goes to bettykath for the “Disorder in the Courts” piece. A good piece of humor to erase the visual from the charter member of conspirator theorist, that knucklehead at info-bs. And also thanks to anonymously posted for the Charles Blow article.
I don’t have the 26 min to watch this this morning, but it looks interesting to me,
Breaking: Michael Hastings Body Cremated, Now Missing!
Of course JRook,
Obvious…. UNLAWFUL….
Good Morning Gene H 😉
Welcome to the world where people start with the answer based on their ideology and then back into the questions and the facts. The following rather simplistic view of the events is a great example. Problem is with the inserted, rather key defendant provided event that Martin punched Zimmerman. For all the “talking point” lemmings who want to hold on to stand your ground as strong as their gun. Martin has an equal right to stand his ground and an equal right to self defense. In country, at least up until the NRA and gun manufacturers have bought off state legislators to pass stand your ground laws, an individual who is loosing a fight does not have the right to shoot and kill the other person. Particularly a fight that arises from a confrontation they initiate. There is more than enough evidence that Zimmerman is equally responsible for the fight, which makes his actions equally unlawful up until the point of the shooting. At that point he is guilty of manslaughter. To see it otherwise is to think with you ideology and not your brain.
Martin was walking in a neighborhood (lawful).
Zimmerman was driving in the same neighborhood (lawful).
Zimmerman got out of his vehicle (lawful).
Zimmerman followed Martin (lawful).
Zimmerman met up with Martin and asked him what he was doing in that neighborhood (lawful).
Martin punched Zimmerman (unlawful).
Martin got on top of Zimmerman (unlawful).
Martin continued to punch Zimmerman (unlawful).
Martin slammed Zimmerman’s head into the pavement (unlawful).
Zimmerman shot Martin (the answer should be obvious).