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.
Gene H,
This wouldn’t be a national issue, it was only after Obama/Holder flashed the Race card in their war against the 2nd amd/gun rights!
Play back the tape
I agree with Mr. Turley’s analysis. There is reasonable doubt here regarding self defense. When the prosecution started its final rebuttal closing argument with how the jury needed to look into the heart of George Zimmerman and see that he was motivated by hatred, it was very clear that even they realize that the evidence for conviction is very weak. Who really knows what is in the heart of any person, and uses such prejudicial judgment about that person to convict him in a court of law?
The case boils down to whether the appearance of evidence exists that shows George Zimmerman had no fear of serious bodily injury to himself, but rather shot Martin with a callous disregard for human life. If a person thinks that it is reasonable to assume that maybe George Zimmerman did fear for his life, then their duty is to declare Zimmerman not guilty. Even if they tend to think it likely that Zimmerman did kill Martin by a depraved mind or through negligence, if they have any reasonable doubt and think it is possible he was defending his own life, they must acquit Zimmerman. It is better that 10 guilty men be set free than 1 innocent man be unjustly punished.
There is already tremendous pressure on the jury to convict Zimmerman. The jurors know that if they render a not-guilty verdict, that their very lives will be imperiled–thanks to the racial politicization of the case introjected by Obama, other Leftists, and the Leftist Media. (Had the exact situation occurred, but Martin were Hispanic and Zimmerman were Black, the story would have received ZERO Leftist Media coverage, and, of course, Obama would have been perfectly happy with that particular result.)
But the decision of the jury is now totally irrelevant. If the jury does decide to follow the law and the evidence and ignore the risks and dangers posed by rendering a not-guilty verdict, Obama and Holder ALREADY have plans in place to go after Zimmerman on Federal charges, just like the Rodney King case, many years ago.
So, Professor Turley, if you have the time, you can already start writing your article about the myth of “double jeopardy,” so you will be prepared for the possibility that the jury does take the chance of following the law and evidence presented.
Why all of your posts intimating that race is important to the crime here when it is irrelevant show you to be a racist, Marv.
And I don’t eat junk food or do miniatures. Sorry.
Ok Gene, Ill play.
HOW am I racist?
I am the one injecting race into this case? LOL Thats rich. You idiots have been implying that GZ was racial profiling all along.
hey watch this and eat me
I’ve got to go with Jude on this, sorry Professorr…. I think Zimmerman is guilty of MURDER………….
Im sorry RTC, what are you trying to say there? Are you implying that just being white means your rich and life is a party?
I wish this was the full skit but I think it displays what you are expressing
Marv,
I’m short on time today.
But I want to say none of us should being doing anything to help Obama/Holder restart that race war crap using this Martin/Zimmerman case.
Instead we should be trying to unite all America’s in fighting against our common enemies that are causing most of the crime & corruption in the US today, Those are the billionaire owners behind the Wallst banks/insurance co’s & their DC puppet policy makers.
There’s 101 million people on some sort of govt food aid today & thats not counting the millions with a govt teat job, 10 mil+ on the charity teat job, the farmers/oil/defense contractor,RE+ housing on the govt teat.
There is NO private sector economy left in the US today, of course there’s going to be crime down in the hoods.
Infowars/Jones did a interview today with with a member of the orginal Black Panthers & both are saying the same as I.
That interview will likely be posted for view tomorrow.
In the mean time here is another artcle:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-black-panthers-unrest-all-over-america-if-zimmerman-acquitted.html
Actually calling a manifest racist views out as being racist is hardly chickenshit, Marv. You appear to be unbalanced and possibly violent. I post under my real name and thus risk exposure to your social maladaptions. Unfortunately for you, I’m not driven by fear any more than I am by name calling.
But let’s talk some facts, shall we?
“Stupid progressive assclowns like you and your other washed up blowhards blouise and rafflaw, sit on here playing the race game since the day Martin got shot and then when it all blows up in your faces you cry injustice.”
Not at all. The primary injustice was that Z wasn’t arrested and properly investigated in circumstances where anyone whose daddy wasn’t a local magistrate would have been arrested and investigated. If there in fact had been insufficient evidence to file charges? I’d have been okay with that. Since sufficient evidence existed to merit filing charges? I just want the trial to be fair. That has always been my position. I’ll let Blouise and rafflaw speak for themselves.
“Meanwhile since the one single crime of a guy who turned out to not even be entirely white, shooting a black guy in self defense, we have had a dozen horrible crimes committed by racist blacks on white people and your only response is to call others racist. Yeah f**k you pal.”
Well if you don’t like being called a racist, why do you keep injecting race into the argument and presentation of evidence? Race is irrelevant to the crime. They could have both been plaid and Z should have been arrested and investigated. And charged too given the evidence.
“People like you are nothing more than ignorant dudley dogooders who think they are superior and better to anyone you dont agree with.”
Why yes I am better than a petty hate spewing irrational racist who seeks to make a legal case about race when it isn’t about race. It’s about a wrongful shooting, a.k.a. a homicide.
“You are arrogant idiots who spend all your time thinking your saving the world when in fact YOU ARE MAKING IT WORSE!!!!!”
Making the world worse for racists? I certainly hope so.
“Want to make it better? SHUT THE HELL UP FOR ONCE. Why dont you try using some real equality for once instead of blaming the worlds woes on ‘white males’”
I don’t blame all the world’s woes on white males. I blame them on sociopaths and psychopaths. They come in all colors, shapes, sizes, creeds and ethnicities.
“You cant keep blaming Bush forever.”
To be certain, I blame Bush for a lot of things, treason not being the least of them. However, I’ve not once blamed Bush for Zimmerman shooting Martin. That’s one thing Bush had no hand in.
“Fact is you dont have the balls to every give equal attention to violent black on white crime. Its not politically correct.”
I’m well on the record here as thinking political correctness is a stupid methodology regardless of if it is practiced by the political left or the political right. The fact is that I give equal attention to all crime, regardless of the race of the perpetrators or victims.
“Most Americans are getting damn sick of your political correctness.”
Take it up with somebody with the PC brigade. Anyone who knows me will gladly tell you political correctness is not “mine”.
“We wish youd choke on it already.”
That’s adorable.
“GD aging flower children. Nothing but a bunch of damn hypocrites. baby boomers do nothing but whine and drain resources and then claim how much better they run the country when all they did was run the damn thing into the ground.”
I’ll take that you mistaking me for being much older than I am as a sign that my demonstration of wisdom beyond my years is somehow threatening to your racist views.
Excellent.
Racism is wrong because it 1) lacks any biological basis in reality. It is a social construct based on minor differences in phenotype. There is only one species of human and that is homo sapiens sapiens. It is also wrong because 2) it is anti-egalitarian and against the principles of equal protection found in the 14th Amendment and the principles found in the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal. You, however, are proving that created equal and equally created are most certainly not the same thing.
“Yeah, GFY.”
I now return you to Rosie and her sisters.
Now lets contrast it with this one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2361936/Husband-shot-dead-wife-15-MINUTES-leaving-jail-locked-threatening-kill-children.html
A husband was shot and killed by his wife just minutes after he was released from jail following an arrest for domestic violence.
Robert Vann Marshall, 34, was arrested on Saturday morning after he allegedly threatened to kill his wife and children.
He was found by police at a motel in Athens, Tennessee with a gun and an array of drugs.
A few hours later, Marshall was released from jail at 1.27pm with a restraining order to prevent him from going near his family.
Ten minutes later, police received a 911 call from Marshall’s wife claiming that he was trying to break into the home and could be armed.
McMinn County Sheriff Joe Guy told WRCB: ‘She retreated into the back bedroom, and at some point fired a shot and he was killed.’
The sheriff added that the woman will not be charged because she acted in self-defense. The district attorney is currently deciding whether the case will face a grand jury.
————–
Id ask if you could see the difference but I doubt your ignorance will let you
HI BOB. You are another idiot. Might be the biggest of them all in fact.
Hey did you see this one?
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Kensington-Woman-Killed-Hours-After-Estranged-Husband-Released-From-Jail-142714545.html
The victim in Tuesday’s fatal shooting in Kensington was killed by her estranged husband just hours after her he was released from jail, where he was being held for violating a protective order, police said.
Philip Gilberti was released Monday. Tuesday morning, he shot his wife, 37-year-old Heather Lynn McGuire, inside her van and dumped her body on Connecticut Avenue. That night, with police closing in on him, Gilberti killed himself at a home in Rockville, police said.
Last year, McGuire got a stay away order on Gilberti, saying he threatened to kill her if he ever caught her with another man. Last week he threatened her at her home on Grandin Avenue and again at a friend’s house in Aspen Hill.
“My children believe he is going to kill me if I do anything to upset him,” she told police over the weekend.
Police arrested Gilberti, but Judge Barry Hamilton let him go.
“We must have stricter bond requirements where there’s a history of domestic violence and take the discretion away from the judges in terms of what they’re able to do in terms of an unsecured bond and putting someone back on the street,” prominent Montgomery County defense attorney Rene Sandler said Wednesday.
As to Mr. Zimmerman’s decision to exercise his constitutional right not to testify: some are suggesting it was not necessary because the prosecution showed so much video of him (i.e., there was nothing to gain because there was nothing he could add to what the jury saw).
Darren Smith,
I am reminded of another adage: better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted.
Right on Marv, who needs class when you just be white. Right?
Marvin,
If you “take your white guilt and shove it where the sun dont shine,” will that ameliorate your apparently severe case of verbal diarrhea?
Perhaps more calcium in your diet, to stiffen your spine? Might help with your pathological fear of black people.
Try crawling out from under the bed for just a few minutes of each day. You might eventually develop the courage to go outside. Or don’t your attendants allow that?
Jes’ sayin’.
Darren,
The dispatcher may have had no legal authority to order Zimmerman to back off, but it was reasonable and prudent advice. Coupled with the training he received, it should have been enough for Zimmerman to realize it was time to move to safety. The onus for avoiding lethal use of force must rest with the conceal/carry permitted gun owner.
Following Martin may not have been illegal, but if he was under the impression he was armed and possibly dangerous, then Zimmerman should have taken steps to avoid a confrontation; in fact, it would have been reasonable since Martin posed no imminent threat. Instead, it appears he made an effort to ensure one took place. Not until then is Zimmerman able to claim Martin was a threat.
gene your response is pathetically impotent much like yourself ill guess.
love your response to all the facts! you curl up in a ball like a chickens**t and play the race card as your only defense. Because you are a one trick pony.Its all you got.
Stupid progressive assclowns like you and your other washed up blowhards blouise and rafflaw, sit on here playing the race game since the day Martin got shot and then when it all blows up in your faces you cry injustice. Meanwhile since the one single crime of a guy who turned out to not even be entirely white, shooting a black guy in self defense, we have had a dozen horrible crimes committed by racist blacks on white people and your only response is to call others racist. Yeah f**k you pal.
People like you are nothing more than ignorant dudley dogooders who think they are superior and better to anyone you dont agree with. You are arrogant idiots who spend all your time thinking your saving the world when in fact YOU ARE MAKING IT WORSE!!!!!
Want to make it better? SHUT THE HELL UP FOR ONCE. Why dont you try using some real equality for once instead of blaming the worlds woes on ‘white males’ You cant keep blaming Bush forever.
Fact is you dont have the balls to every give equal attention to violent black on white crime. Its not politically correct. Most Americans are getting damn sick of your political correctness. We wish youd choke on it already. GD aging flower children. Nothing but a bunch of damn hypocrites. baby boomers do nothing but whine and drain resources and then claim how much better they run the country when all they did was run the damn thing into the ground. Yeah, GFY.
Darren/Mark,
Mistrial is a very reasonable possibility.
“The only evidence is that Martin punched Zimmerman first”
Incorrect.
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.)
There was evidence offered that Zimmerman sucked as a fighter. This might explain why Martin exibited no injuries other than a scratch on one finger. There is a problem in that the ceasing of circulation would inhibit the formation of bruising.
Did Zimmerman just lie there? His arms should surely have exhibited defensive injuries. There’s “sucking as a fighter” and there’s “f*cking comatose”.
A stange fight.
Zimmerman just lay there and allowed what ever beating might have taken place.
Then he pulled his gun and shot Martin directly in the centre – which indicates a cool decision. A panicky shot would more likely have gone in at the side or even missed.
True that, Juris.
To supplement Darren’s point: “not guilty” does not mean innocent. It means not “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” under our criminal justice system. That is a big distinction. It always irks me when I hear: “The defendant was found innocent.”