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,
Your arguments are going no where.
Obama decided to use this case for political reasons when he told the old corp. media whor*s that Martin was just like the son he never had, or some such words.
I didn’t hear Obama tell the press that the old people in Tulsa that had their brains bashed in by some guy were just like his grand ma/pa or in thousands of other cases.
Zimmermans dad’s comments don’t carry anywhere near the weight with the whor* media/public as a prez words do.
Mean while that American hating piece of trash, the modern day Nazi Fascist Obama tortured the He’ll out of Brady Manning, which is a crime against humanity.
But go ahead, keep defending your Fuhrer Obama & the neocon’s can keep defending their Fuhrer Bush.
Sieg Heil, sieg heil, sieg heil
Marv,
please tell me how I brought race into this discussion with any of my comments on this thread?
Gene I am just showing you the hypocrisy of it all.
1. We are sitting here with a case that has been in the national news since day one. Why?
2. At first GZ was being reported as a white man. If he was black this case would never be discussed at all and charges never would have been filed.. So what does that say about the case?
3. Its a case where it can be reasonably argued ‘self defense’. So why is it still national news?
4. look at all those cases of sheer violence that were black on white crime and not one was nationally reported. In fact its as if its taboo to cover them. Why?
5. We might have race riots over a not guilty verdict. If its not about race then why?
Why do you guys not ever call for EQUAL JUSTICE. You claim your for equality when infact you are for INEQUALITY.
The only time anyone cares about making issue of a race crime is when the victim is black. When its a white victim and someone mentions it, they are automatically called a racist. This forum was a prime example of it. So we keep burying this crazy amount of black on white crimes where they are 39 times more likely to attack white people than vice versa. All because of INEQUALITY and it aint the way you think it is either.
As long as people want to keep dragging out the race card anytime theres a black victim I will drag out the 39 times white victim for every single one they can.
Thats seriously messed up. Whats even more messed up is the fact you guys cant even own up to the truth because you know im right but you cant bring yourselves to admit it.
So once again, lets review
the mainstream media has been totally silent on atrocious crimes that have been committed by blacks on whites since the Martin shooting. Here are a few—from among dozens of incidents—that AFP has confirmed.
On February 27, the day after the Martin shooting, two black males in Detroit abducted and killed a white couple. The victims were found bound, shot and burned beyond recognition in an alley. Police are calling it a random “thrill killing.”
On February 28, in Kansas City, Missouri, two black teens attacked a 13-year-old white boy on his front porch as he was returning from school. They poured gasoline on him and set him on fire for no apparent reason, saying “You get what you deserve white boy!”
On March 14, a 20-year-old black man broke into the home of Bob and Nancy Straight in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He raped the 85-year-old Mrs. Straight and then beat her to death. Then he shot 90-year-old Mr. Straight in the face with a pellet gun and broke his jaw and ribs. He died several days later. The thug stole $200, a TV set and their Dodge Neon, which he drove to a nearby house where he went to hide. The police spotted the stolen car in front of the house and arrested him.
On April 1, in Jackson, Mississippi, a 31-year-old black man broke into a house to rob it and found a white woman inside. He forced her to lie on the floor with a blanket over her head as he shot her in the back of the head, execution-style.
On April 5, in Tunica, Mississippi, a 34-year-old black man checked into a hotel with his pregnant 25-year-old white girlfriend and their one-year-old child. The next day the woman was found dead on the floor brutally mutilated and covered with blood, as was the one-year-old child. The knife was in the room.
On April 15, in Las Vegas, a 22-year-old black man raped a 38-year-old white woman and her 10-year-old daughter. He then killed them by smashing their skulls with a hammer.
On top of all these brutal murders there have been a number of “flash mob” attacks across the country where anywhere from half a dozen to as many as a hundred blacks gang up on innocent people and beat them senseless. In at least 12 of these cases documented by this writer, the blacks have cited revenge for the shooting of Martin as the motive for the savageries, although in many cases the victims were also robbed.
One of these attacks occurred in Norfolk, Virginia, where more than 30 blacks brutally beat a white couple as another 70 blacks watched and cheered them on, a typical phenomenon in these black-on-white “flash mob” attacks. Martin’s name came up as the excuse for the brutality. The couple actually worked for the main newspaper in town, The Virginian Pilot, which has direct political ties to the Obama administration. That publication could not even be bothered to report on the attack of its own employees for two weeks—and even then it was only as an opinion piece written by a friend of the couple.
The couple said the police officer who responded acted strangely. After having been viciously beaten, kicked in the face and dragged by her hair, the battered woman was told by the officer to “shut up and get in the car.” He did not record any names of witnesses and said the attackers were “probably juveniles anyway. What are we going to do? Find their parents and tell them?” Pointing to public housing in the area, he said large groups of “teenagers” look for trouble on the weekends. “It’s what they do,” he told the couple.
This case has brought out more racism on this site than any other topic I can recall. I respectfully disagree with Prof. Turley and will stick with my earlier opinion that the evidence will support a manslaughter conviction.
I also want to remind everyone that an “assault” does not technically require any physical contact. Many posters have been operating under the assumption that if Mr. Martin struck the first blow, he was the assailant for purposes of self-defense. I disagree. An unlawful touching is a battery, but acting in a threatening manner toward another person while simultaneously possessing the means to harm that person can constitute an assault under the right circumstances. In this instance, Mr. Martin was walking down a street alone at night, and noticed that he was being slowly followed by an unknown person or persons in an unfamiliar vehicle with no witnesses in the vicinity. I submit that fear was a rational response and that under these facts, a strong argument can be made that Mr. Zimmerman was the “assailant.”
I won’t respond to any of the comments from the Stormfront Statistics Bureau.
And as for all of the concealed carry folks, this case illustrates the folly of arming the nation.
When all is said and done, however, I am grateful that I am not having to serve on this jury.
I don’t have to admit anything, Marv.
Your persistent posting of “black on white crime videos” shows perfectly well that you are attempting to make this a racial issue and prejudice for Zimmerman simply because the victim here was black and because of that must have somehow deserved to get shot because of it. Implicit or explicit, racism is racism.
I know without doubt that neither raff nor Blouise are racists based on both their posting history here and long time out of camera relations with both of them. If they’ve mentioned race, it is in the context of either discussing the whole racist sideshow this trial has engendered or in debunking racist memes propagated by people such as yourself.
And as long as we’re talking honesty too, which is more honest? The implicit racist who hides behind the (im)plausible deniability of vague language (a common tool of the propagandist) or the explicit racist brave enough to own his own biases and hatreds?
As the saying goes, “Chickenman, Chickenman! He’s everywhere!”
So if we’re talking about honesty and admissions, let’s talk about implicit racism and the denials of overt racism inherent in such a propaganda tactic used to promote a false sense of reasonableness to an otherwise unreasonable ideology.
I like talking about propaganda methodologies and tactics. Know quite a bit about it, actually. Some would say that I’m a subject matter expert on the topic.
You might want to search this blog for the term “propaganda 10” before deciding you’d like to explore this further.
http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/humanitarian-group-wants-charges-dropped-against-o/nYn5w/
“and play the race card as your only defense.”
Marv,
Possibly prejudice on my part but anytime anyone uses “play the race card” I suspect racism. The history of slavery and racism in the U.S. has had consequences, however unpleasant an idea that is for someone to understand. “Play the race card” diminishes that history and make people of color into racists.
As for this case from the start I said manslaughter, wavered towards 2nd degree murder via Malisha’s persuasive arguments, but end with the same conclusion, this is manslaughter or a grave miscarriage of justice.
Marv,
Please be civil….. Nal made the suggestion…. There are a few rules…. One of them is the professor owns the blog….. There is a poster that thinks they own the blog…. They may be rude, socially unacceptable and combative. ….. It’s like any playground…. Everyone has a bully….. This is ours….they will never admit that they are wrong or incorrect….. It is someone else fault…. Rule 2….,
I usually agree with Prof Turley, but in this case, I cannot. I have a lot of problems with his analysis since one would have to say that any person who is in a fist fight has the right to resort to deadly force since they can under Turley’s ideas can reasonably fear for their lives under any and all circumstances. I think this is an absurd proposition, which gets back to my concern about an all woman jury who have little experience in street fights. It makes it harder to apply reasonable standards and conduct.
My hunch is that Prof Turley himself has little experience in such situations as an adult too. It is obvious to any person that the screams heard on the 911 call were that of Martin as he saw the gun and realized he was going to die. The gunshot followed immediately after the second scream and it makes NO sense for Zimmerman to scream at that point since he had 9mm worth of help at hand. Martin’s attack had also CEASED at that point and probably had for a number of seconds since Zimmerman had enough hands free to get his gun. So Zimmerman had NO REASONABLE fear of death or bodily injury. The defense has to prove that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. For example, a ten year old hits an adult man who trips and falls down. The child starts hitting the man while he is down. Does that mean the man can pull a gun and kill the kid because he had a fear of death or serious bodily injury and that the prosecution must disprove that he had that fear? Now if the child had a GUN, a knife, or other weapon, THEN it may well be a valid defense. It is the same here.
The injuries must reflect that fear absent any weapon or great disparity in size and force. Thus Zimmerman had lots of other options that he could have used but chose otherwise, His injuries are so slight that it is laughable that he could seriously argue fear of death. It is even worse that any reasonable person could take him seriously.
RTC:
I am in full agreement with you and several others such as Larry that Zimmerman should have just held back and let the the city handle the call, maybe keeping some distance just enough to watch where Martin was going so as to direct the police there. But, is this imprudence enough to show that a man is guilty of a homicide or a murder? (or at least partial evidence) I don’t agree it is. Maybe it goes to show frame of mind, but if that was the only standard anyone reporting a crime and confronting someone they reasonably believed to be involved in criminal activity might be subjected to a prosecution if something want wrong afterward.
Again, I have commented on this blog before that this is the type of “stupid stuff” that is Zimmerman’s actions in getting too overly involved in the situation, that mushrooms out of control and people get hurt or in deep trouble. There is something to be said about just saying “heck with it” and walking away before it gets out of hand.
Gene i was man enough to admit i had you confused with bob and apologize I expect the same of you. But I guess that goes to your character.
btw either you have to admit that i am not a racist or you have to call all the protestors and blouise and rafflaw racists for bringing race into the case.
Yeah, Marv. We do have some rules around here.
Marv,
Only two hyperlinks allowed per comment. Remember to be civil.
I don’t owe you anything, Marv.
Your promotion of the notion that this is somehow related to black on white crime is not only irrelevant to the case on the merits at bar here, it’s manifest racism by implication.
But I do invite you to hold your breath waiting for that apology.
Oky1,
Actually the “race card” was first played by Zimmerman’s father on March 15, 2012 when n a letter to the Orlando Sentinel, Robert Zimmerman, George Zimmerman’s father, writes that George has been unfairly portrayed as a racist, and that George is Hispanic and grew up in a multiracial family.
Obama made his statement on March 23, 2012 by speaking out publicly for the first time on the growing controversy over the shooting of Trayvon Martin, saying that the incident requires national “soul-searching.”
That arrow of time thing can be tricky, but except for under exceptional physical circumstances, it only moves in one direction.
why is it you dont call them racists for bring race into the case but the moment I say anything about race in pointing out how many horrible race crimes have happened lately I am racist…simply because the cases I point out are black on white crimes.
thats called hypocrisy. I think you owe me an apology for it too
Btw Gene, im man enough to apologize. I had you confused with Bob here.
Like I said though how am I the one injecting race when it was brought up many times before I said anything about it? Does that mean ALL the protestors and blouise or raflaw are racists since they brought up race before me?
Ralph,
Being that the original media coverage was driven by the police giving a walk to someone who would have been arrested and investigated but for their father being a local magistrate, I’m going to call bullshit on that.
Now did the media subsequently gin up interest by playing into the racism angle (when it is unimportant to the case itself)? Sure they did. But the MSM media is all owned by either right wing corporations (FOX – News Corp, CBS – Viacom, ABC – Disney) or amoral corporations playing both sides of the aisle (NBC – General Electric, CNN – TimeWarner). Even the arguably once “leftist”/liberal Huffington Post (an aggregator more than a reporting house) is now owned by AOL/TimeWarner.
The idea that the MSM is “Leftist” is a myth.
They all bow down to money, regardless of who holds the cash. That makes them corporatists. Which in turn makes them fascist puppets.
Enjoy your day.
Marv,
Can I please be the biggest idiot of them all? No maybe about it.
“Who’s the bull goose loony around here?”
I’m an old hippie and a baby boomer.
I feel vindicated, knowing that an adolescent racist such as yourself disapproves of me. GD? Is that like, god damned, or something superstitious like that?
Does your obviously white god sky-daddy approve of the way you address your elders?
Keep talkin’. Haven’t been this entertained all morning.
GFY? Sex with someone you love?
Taking advantage of yourself, again?