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.
Ralph:
Perhaps it might be more helpful and less contriversial for those here if you instead used instead of the word “Leftist” you instead use maybe “Authoritarian” or something like that. It might allow you to continue to convey to us your ideas but might make it easier for some to accept. Just a suggestion.
Bettykath
Good. Thank you for letting me know.
RWL, Carterbo, WoW, that was fast.
Mike Appleton 4:07 pm: “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.
**
In fact, if you’re a cop a “dehumanizing” stare is considered an assault and you can be arrested for it as a news article (the links to it were posted a few days ago) recently revealed. /s
RWL I believe made the statement a day or so ago (I can’t find it, sorry) that even if you are being pursued confronting your pursuer, even physically, is a reasonable response rather than appearing weak and susceptible to being someones [b****. Really? “b****”] victim.
I’m going to agree with Mike A and RWL on this point. The definition of self-defense in the deconstructed legal manner is not necessarily the real-world definition. Case in point: women’s self defense.
About 15 years ago the conventional wisdom for the way for women to deal with someone that was following them changed from a purely defensive and relatively passive manner to a more aggressive and proactive manner. Instead of evasion by finding a well lit area that hopefully had people around or open business’ to retreat into it changed to doing those things BUT, if that wasn’t the case in the immediate area then also cross the street and go back the way you came to see if you were being followed and get a look at the person person you thought was following you. Then don’t be an easy victim.
If you were in fact being followed confront the follower by (turning around,) making eye contact and screaming “NO” and then start screaming “FIRE”- people in homes or apartments are loath to get involved with a robbery or rape attempt but screams of “fire” will send people to their phones to call 911 before they even look out their window. Also have your keys in your hand in such a way as to stab at the probable assailant’s face and eyes- go for the eyes or throat. (I’d say, get in the first lick too, as soon as they’re within reach.)
And never get in the car, ever.
Following/stalking/hunting someone down as Z did to TM is an act of aggression. Since when does someone not have the legal right to walk somewhere without having their progress impeded by someone wanting to know what they are doing ‘there’ or ‘here’. That’s creepy and would make me think I was confronting someone that was unhinged. Why would I dialogue with someone that followed/stalked me and wanted to know what I was doing? Is this guy on drugs and thinks he’s king of this patch of grass or what?
But for Z’s aggressive and threatening actions nothing would have happened. TM was in self-defense mode. Z’s actions were unreasonable and threatening. I would not be inclined to vote Z as not guilty of manslaughter, at the least.
Darren, the judge asked GZ about whether or not he wanted to testify when the jury was out of the room.
I find it interesting to see the many references to the CIA and its influence and power over the Media, as though to refute my point that the media is Leftist. Let me be absolutely clear on what I mean by Leftist. By that term I mean centralized, singular control under the direction of business oligarchs and their government agents. Some also refer to the concept as “New World Order” or “One World Government.” It does not matter. They are the same thing, and I just use the simple, convenient, and accurate term Leftists. Many of you would like to argue that what you call right-wingers are, for example, against gun control, whereas left-wingers would be for gun control. That is a canard. Hitler, a so-called right winger, was FOR gun control, and Mao, a so-called left-winger, was ALSO FOR gun control. Leftists are against liberty because liberty works against their impulses to control everything that they can.
With regard to the media, one of my favorite quotes about it is this one, attributed to former CIA Director William Colby: “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” Now, there is some reason to doubt that Colby actually said this, but having looked into William Colby’s life, there’s no question that he was the most vocal CIA director in history, and he said lots of things that I’m sure were very troublesome to the people who really control things, or at least the ones who report to the people who really control things. Colby drowned under various suspicious circumstances. And I have no doubt that he was murdered.
Similarly, to ensure that reporters and journalistic “investigators” are kept in line and follow orders so that only the messages the real owners of the Media want are presented, every now and then they make an “example.” Such an “example” is the relatively recent murder of Michael Hastings, the journalist who wrote for Rolling Stone Magazine, and whose work resulted in Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s “firing”–although they don’t call it that. Some of those high up in the elite power structure don’t like such meddling. Remember what happened to JFK after he fired CIA Director Allen Dulles? Well, in Hasting’s case, a guy who normally drives like a “Bubby” suddently finds that his Mercedes accelerates and goes out of control and explodes even before hitting a tree, that was largely undamaged.
The members of the Media got the message immediately.
Anyway, here’s a look back at William Colby and the kinds of things he would say that got him in hot water, or under cold water–permanently:
How about Zimmerman had his gun out, because he was afraid, and encountered Martin. Martin reacted and got shot.
Wav that makes NO sense at all. It makes as much sense as Zimmerman screaming for help as he pulls his gun and murders Martin. If he had his gun out, there woud have been no fight at all. There is NO question that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. One DOES have to ask how is it possible for a lighter kid to get a much bigger man on his back. The ONLY way for that to happen is for Zimmerman to be off balance when Martin hit him or tackled him. My take is that they confronted each other, Zimmerman wanted to know what Martin was doing, Martin told him to F#ck off and turned to leave. Zimmerman grabbed his arm to restrain him, Martin came around and either hit Zimmerman or hit him with his body. It is near impossible for a smaller guy to knock a bigger man on his back with a punch or even a shove. Try it with some of your friends and see what happens. Get a friend in a wresting match and see how hard it is to get him down from a standing position facing each other.
Malisha, I agree completely. I also think we need to not lose sight of the fact that the reason for Mr. Martin’s presence in the neighborhood was none of Mr. Zimmerman’s business. I frequently walk outside of my home late at night. We’ve become a nation of busybodies.
RWL wrote:
“Uh Oh! The jury reached a verdict, but they decided to wait until the morning to deliver it (or to sleep on it)? This should be interesting!”
A quick scan of the MSM sites don’t state this. They all have jury in recess and deliberation to continue tomorrow.
In some jurisdictions the judge is required to ask the defendant if he waives his right to testify. I am surprised that none of the million or so legal experts who have commented on the trial have pointed this out. Even if the judge is not required to do so, it is the better practice. By asking the defendant to expressly waive his right to testify, the judge is preventing a convicted defendant from arguing on appeal that he wanted to testify but his lawyers wouldn’t let him. This practice also protects the defense counsel from a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, although Mr. West apparently did not realize this when he lodged his objection. The jury is not present when the judge makes this inquiry of the defendant, even though it will soon be obvious to the jury that the defendant has not testified.
Vincent,
Agree! If you’re facing 10-15 years in prison as a wanna be cop, wouldn’t you want to not only get on the witness stand, but also be crying in front of the media about how sorry you are?
Unless, your story of self defense is bs…….?????
Why should someone have to be a leftist to object to the kind of thing Z actually obviously did?
WHERE is the neighborhood where YOU would like someone who doesn’t even have a college degree decide to pick off one or another of your teen-aged kids because he thought they were suspicious?
Any of you have kids? Think of it. Your kid decides to go to the store. Somebody with a loaded gun thinks she’s suspicious. Do you want him to be able to follow her, in the car and then on foot, and the get out and demand answers from her about what she’s doing? If she doesn’t answer or if she tries to get away from him is it OK for him to shoot her dead? With a hollowpoint bullet? That OK with anybody?
Because if it’s supposed to be OK for Trayvon Martin’s family, it damn well SHOULD be Ok for every last one of US and that’s YOU TOO. Everyone. Somebody who can get a CCW permit can spot, mark, chase down, and interrogate YOUR KID. If your kid resists, that gun-toting judge and jury can kill YOUR KID. If that gun-toting wannabe cop happens to get scared of YOUR KID. Gig’s up, kid’s dead, no fault no foul, after all, the guy got scared and was defending himself.
If that’s OK with you I don’t want to live near you. EVER.
I believe if somebody did this to Professor Turley’s DOG he would be demanding justice. I demand justice for Trayvon Martin.
Uh Oh! The jury reached a verdict, but they decided to wait until the morning to deliver it (or to sleep on it)? This should be interesting!
Our justice system sucks (or is it the people who are involved in it…including legal experts). Everyone (including the pro-Zimmerman crowd who believes he is not guilty of 2nd degree and/or manslaughter) knows that if their son was in Trayvon Martin’s shoes (or grave), then, they would be calling for Zimmerman’s head, regardless of the facts, circumstantial evidence, reasonable doubt bs, etc. Just as the Zimmerman family is supporting him, regardless of what crime he has committed (we know plenty of parents and/or family members who will support their child/family member regardless of what crime committed).
Knowing this, then what does this say about our justice system? Justice is not blind, but she utilizes prejudices, stereotypes, discriminatory cues from society as to who, what, how, where, and when to follow a law(s)?
As I stated before, Zimmerman must have a screw or 2 loose to follow a young, black male, at night (especially, when he thinks that this black male is acting suspicious, dangerous, and up to no good). What was he (Zimmerman) planning to do? Physically detain him until the police arrive? Ask him (Trayvon Martin) what is he doing in this area, since I (Zimmerman) am not a cop, not on duty as a neighborhood watch officer tonight, and don’t know if you (Martin) have a weapon, but need to ask you if you can share some of your skittles?
Oh, and by the way, Mr. Martin, I (Zimmerman) have completely disregarded my training as a neighborhood watch officer, and the police dispatcher’s command for me to stay in my vehicle, to stalk you, regardless if you are carrying a .357 or not, because you are acting suspicious, and I need to stop you, before you commit a crime?
For this alone, Zimmerman should claim self defense by reason of insanity, and be committed to the nearest psych ward for 10-15 years…..
Oh boy, Mike Appleton, had Z testified, it would have been a blood bath for him.
1. Did you say you fell down the first time he punched you?
2. Did you say you went to get an address on the street where you lived?
3. Did you say you were still on the phone with Sean when you arrived at that house with the address?
4. Is this a picture of that house?
5. Did you tell the dispatcher that address?
6. Did you …
Nevermind. It would have been one “I don’t remember” after another but the final story would have been the same as it was by showing the four recorded interviews: there were TWO people involved in that incident. One of them is dead and the other one is a liar.
I am curious about one issue here. The judge in the Z case, I watched on the news, had Zimmerman stand up and make statements as to whether or not he chose to take the stand and testify on his defense, to which some of of you mentioned was contentious.
I thought that was improper of the judge to do that because it might be seen as prejudicial on the jury with regard to the “if he had nothing to hide, he would have testified.” type of misconception people hold.
Someone told me years ago that in our state, such a statement as to ask the defendant about whether or not he chose to testify would not be allowed in front of a jury. Is that the case elsewhere? I ask because I am not sure of this.
Hello Seekers,
A Star was born today. Name: John Guy. I was right about the comet, and I’m right about this.
Prosecutor John Guy’s rebuttal closing argument was brilliant, in every respect, and it might turn out to have been, at last, just what was needed to
secure a conviction of George Zimmerman.
Mr. Guy’s future is guaranteed to be successful, and it will be well deserved. Move over Jose Baez. John Guy is going to be the next lawyer
hailed as one of the best in the land. Regardless of the jury’s verdict.
Gene H,
If you have time between de-Marv elous ing Marv the racist, I have one censored comment to Ralph which will normalize his views of the “leftist” media.
I just remember an incident in my own community from some time ago. A man in a truck, a stranger to the neighborhood, was driving very slowly with apparent interest in a child walking on the sidewalk on her way home. It was only a few seconds but in that time, his description and that of his truck were noted and he was watched. The girl’s mother was notified about the incident as were most of the rest of the community. We were all on watch for him to return. Fortunately for him, he did not. No, we don’t have a formal neighborhood watch, we have a neighborhood.
Ralph Adamo 1, July 12, 2013 at 3:13 pm
… the Leftist Media …
=================================
I wonder how the surreptitious government agencies that own the media would like being called lefties:
(Mocking America). Tooling for the treasonous is getting more and more popular isn’t it?
Ralph Adamo 1, July 12, 2013 at 3:13 pm
… the Leftist Media …
=================================
That is a very old, very tired, and very Nixonian false meme:
(Origin Of The “Liberal Media” Meme). Is the past really so good that you have to live in a 1958 Buick?
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/12/in-black-sanford-a-place-to-gather-and-wait-for-a-verdict-2/ “Many here complained that police harassment has increased since Trayvon’s killing.”