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.
For those of this blog who want to see Zimmerman convicted, please be assured that The New Black Panther Party is prepared to administer “justice” for Trevon. And if a lot of White or Asian people are killed in the process, all the better for the goal of “justice”. Obama is prepared to stand aside for this “justice” to unravel, before Holder steps in with his own charges against Zimmerman, if Zimmerman is acquitted.
And good bye, Malisha.
Don’t be a stranger.
Got to agree that as far as manslaughter goes, this was the prosecution’s case to lose . . . and lose they did. And now that the jury has come back, I’ll say that I think Z got away with killing that kid because in overreaching by overcharging, the prosecution created enough doubt to sabotage what would have been a no-brainer if they’d have simply gone with manslaughter. Bad tactics by prosecutors playing to the media instead of sticking to the facts at hand and just doing the job. And the failure to disclose all the evidence? Was shameful, stupid and damaging to the prosecution’s case all in one.
The system is not perfect, however, it’s better than an inquisitorial system or secret courts.
C’est la vie.
I wonder if there will be a civil suit? But mostly I wonder how this will affect the propagation of the odious SYG laws. At this point, I think that could go either way depending upon public reaction to this verdict.
There was a civil suit settled with the homeowners association. I think that the family can go after Zimmerman personally now too, unless the settlement stipulated against it.
I agree with Gene H on this. The effect will be that this is now open season in FL on all the winners in fist fights. So I hope that if you drink in some places that have a traditon of Friday night fights, you better be armed, and shoot the person who knocks you down or bloodies your nose or breaks it, because chances are they will be armed too, and you better pull yours before he pulls his.
As I said earlier, it is simply impossible for the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman did NOT have a fear for his life if that is to be the standard. So the laws need to be changed to stop this stupidity and so it won’t happen again.
A murdering cop wanna be is free to kill again and lie his ass off about it.
Case closed …
Sigh…it all ended too soon. I was hoping the commenters could wring a little more racial hatred out of this.
We’ll have to wait till the next Florida-sanctioned murder.
I’m surprised there was not a compromised verdict…. As I said…… It was for the prosecutor to blow…. The IT guy that disclosed that not all of the evidence was shared…. Was fired Friday by the Florida States Attorneys Office….
11:48 a.m. ET: Ben Kruidbos, the IT director for the Florida State Atttorneys Office, has been fired, according to his attorney Wesley White, who told HLN that Kruidbos received a termination letter Friday.
I’m glad Idealist did not live to see this.
And there it is and here we are and welcome to post-Trayvon America. None of us (you) who stay here will ever be in a different place, other than post-Trayvon America. This is where a Dog can live in a gated community and shoot anybody he calls a “punk” whom he should find there.
And Z will get jobs as security, armed with SYG, for corporations, and liberals will moan and groan about unfairness of the big corporate bullies, blah blah blah.
And you were there, post-Trayvon America just began and it will never end.
I send my fond greetings to those of you with whom I have made a warm intellectual connection on this blog. Good-bye.
lot of what ifs abomb, but i’ll play along.
what if zimmermann didn’t have his gun with him.
the jury wouldn’t be out, he wouldn’t be on trial, and martin would still be alive.
because george wouldn’t have had the stones to leave his truck.
And there it is.
Amazing
Not Guilty…..
And now Zimmerman is retrieving his passport to stay with his relatives in Ecuador.
Malisha,
A few blogs ago, we had this conversation………that if he is found not guilty, then you would do something…..lol…
Gene,
Agree…next case: ex-New England Patriots football player murders his friend (before he murdered his friend, Mr. Hernandaz signed a 5 year contract worth $40 million, including $12 million guaranteed)…..
Wow!!! This is why I believe that this world is filled with mostly idiots! I’m disgusted by the comments I’ve been reading. Most have said that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter at the very least because he followed Martin after police (even though it was just a 911 operater) told him not to. What? If the law of averages apply in this case then unfortunately for Zimmerman the jurors are going to convict, more likely on the manslaughter charge (bullshit tactic by the way) because they are probably thinking stupidly like the majority of you. Lets say Martin was a 30 year old white male who had just raped a women in the complex. Lets also pretend Zimmerman was a black 29 year old community watch leader. Same call goes out to 911 and the same instructions go out from the dispatcher and in the end the same confrontation happens. When the smoke clears same result, one dead with no injuries but the gun shot and one with injuries consitant of being beat up. Later everyone finds out that the guy that’s dead just raped a women earlier, so you are telling me that the guy that killed the rapist wouldn’t be hailed as a hero and are you telling me that they would bring charges to that hero? The answer is hell no! The kid was a punk and thought he could handle Zimmerman and didn’t antisapate that the “cracker” (as Martin described Zimmerman) had a gun. It’s sad the kid didn’t have a enough restraint to not attack someone and just finish walking home, but he didn’t, he wanted to thug it out and he lost.
JRook,
So, who is the one who starts off with ideology and backs into the facts? The guy who opens with a rendition of the facts and reaches a conclusion from those facts or the guy who begins his argument with a gratuitous and irrelevant attack on the NRA and gun manufacturers and concludes that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense?
That the jury is asking for more information about the definition of manslaughter, to me, signals that at least some members of the jury recognize that there is insufficient evidence to convict on a first degree murder charge.
However, as I’ve indicated, this jury is under tremendous pressure to convict Zimmerman, and thus, they are looking for some “compromise” solution to their dilemma of doing the right thing or risking race riots, personal threats on their safety, and so forth. That a jury today cannot simply follow the law and do the right thing without this enormous pressure demonstrates that this nation is in great trouble, and in danger of losing its Constitutional Soul, if it has not already done so.
But the fact is that manslaughter doesn’t fit the Zimmerman-Martin encounter either:
manslaughter n. the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called “malice aforethought” (an evil intent prior to the killing). It is distinguished from murder (which brings greater penalties) by lack of any prior intention to kill anyone or create a deadly situation. There are two levels of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter includes killing in heat of passion or while committing a felony. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when a death is caused by a violation of a non-felony, such as reckless driving (called “vehicular manslaughter”).
Examples of voluntary manslaughter:
1. Eddy Hothead gets into a drunken argument in a saloon with his acquaintance Bob Bonehead, and Hothead hits Bonehead over the head with a beer bottle, causing internal bleeding and death.
2. Brent Burgle sneaks into a warehouse intent on theft and is surprised by a security man, whom Burgle knocks down a flight of stairs, killing him.
Both are voluntary manslaughter. However, if either man had used a gun, a murder charge is most likely since he brought a deadly weapon to use in the crime. The immediate rage in finding a loved one in bed with another, followed by a killing before the passion cools usually limits the charge to voluntary manslaughter and not murder, but prior attacks could convince a District Attorney and a jury that the killing was not totally spontaneous.
Example of involuntary manslaughter:
1. Lenny Leadfoot drives 70 miles per hour on a twisting mountain road, goes off a cliff and his passenger is killed in the crash. Leadfoot can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
🙂 ck this very short video!
Crash Prank Reveals How Corporate Media Reads Mindlessly from Teleprompter Scripts
Prison Planet.com
July 13, 2013
http://www.prisonplanet.com/crash-prank-reveals-how-corporate-media-reads-mindlessly-from-teleprompter-scripts.html
Jurors requested better explanation of manslaughter.
Response agreed by attorneys and sent back by the judge.
“The court cannot engage in general discussions, but may be able to address a specific question, regarding clarification of the instructions regarding manslaughter. If you have a specific question, please submit it.”
**lottakatz 1, July 13, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Don’t worry Oky1, the white supremacists have them outnumbered. How do you feel about that? Whose “security force” are they? **
I posted that Jones video today because of it’s interview of a member of the original Black Panthers & his & Jones promotion of non- discrimination & non- violence.
I support those type views.
** Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center **
Who are these groups really?
When I was younger I was introduce by a fellow businessman to a well dress man in a suit tie. He seemed respectable on the surface.
Some time went by & I find out the guy was a claimed to be career mafia.
ADL/SPLC, they seem respectable on the surface, but I don’t have a clue as to who the really are.
Except for SPLC, OS seems to like them, a plus for them & then there’s the unanswered questions raised about them in the documentary: A Noble Lie.
Have you noticed all the biggest crooks running Walls/DC all wear nice suit & ties.
I guess every one that wears suits & ties wants to look like the biggest crook.
Now I try to keep my suits & ties in closet.
Dredd, have you been to Bullshitistan? I would prefer that United Nations headquarters be relocated to that nation. Also, I hear that Anthony Bourdain is doing a feature on the cuisine of Bullshitistan, though I’m not sure why.
Ralph,
Congratulations on attempting to use proper poli sci terminology.
Seriously. That was totally snark free.