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.
Probably time for the supporters of Killer George to kick back and enjoy
their FAUX news/propaganda celebrities and stop trying to divert attention away from posts which call into question the questionable BS of one GZ.
randyjet at 9:25 pm “I just got a look at the photos of Martin lying dead on the grass. I was shocked since the position of his legs show clearly Martin was STANDING when he was shot!”
The only photo I’ve seen of Martin lying dead is one taken after the police and/or EMTs had turned him over and tried to resuscitate him. If you’re looking at the same photo, then I don’t think it’s possible to draw any conclusions about how the shooting occurred based on Martin’s body after it had been moved.
Allysa, If Martin was still straddling Zimmerman, the impact of the 99mm would have knocked him over backwards. I am unaware that the cops or EMTs place people FACE DOWN to work on them. By the time the cop got there, i believe he said he tried some CPR which would NOT require any change from the position shown in the photo. By the time the EMTS got there, Martin had been dead quite awhile and I do not recall what they said they did. it is obvious from the photo that they did not try to use the paddles on a dead body to restart his heart since it had to have been obvious it was futile. Martin’s shirt was still buttoned. I agree that it was later that the photos were taken, but I can see no indication from the position of his legs that he was straddling Zimmerman at the time he was shot. His knees were NOT spread at all, nor were the legs straight out as I would expect them to be had they worked on him since there was no need to do that to determine he was dead already.
Marv, I would suggest you park your racism at the door.
“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!”
In actuality, there’s a lot of doubt about this kid’s story.
Regardless, in this case, the black kid is dead. Unless you feel this is somehow justified, I’d stick with the case.
Mr. Turley, you’re making a lot of assumptions, including that Zimmerman was consistent. In actuality, he was not consistent.
The dispatcher told Zimmerman to back off, but Zimmerman told the police he was told by the dispatcher to observe him from a hidden position.
He stated that Martin bashed his head repeatedly on the cement, yet the injuries were minor–a couple of small cuts, only.
He stated Martin was on him and was holding him down. Yet he was able to get his gun, which was holstered in his back?
He stated in a TV interview that he didn’t know about Stand Your Ground, yet he had taken a college course that covered the concept.
There’s the statement of his friend, Rachel. She was an unattractive black woman who was irritable with the defense attorney. Therefore she’s not credible…is that it?
Yet she was consistent on the important parts of the testimony. As for her attitude towards the defense attorney, well, we saw the judge get more than a bit cranky with him, too, didn’t he? He’s a condescending prick towards women.
And I imagine that he had harassed her repeatedly while taking a deposition. Probably wanting to make her antagonistic towards him in court, and prejudice the jury against her. Good lord, man, you’re an attorney–you didn’t think of that?
Ultimately, in the end, it was Zimmerman’s actions that led to Martin’s death. He’s a bully, and a coward, and what’s worse, he had a gun and a fantasy about being a hero, because a man like him will never be a hero. Martin’s death was avoidable.
Manslaughter is appropriate.
Until I saw the photos of Martin’s body lying in the grass and looked at the position of his legs, I would have agreed with you. It is clear that Martin was STANDING when he was shot. That means that Martin was NOT a threat to Zimmerman at the time he was shot, and in FACT it was Martin who screamed when he saw the gun. He screamed twice as he jumped up and was backing away. THAT makes it second degree murder, NOT manslaughter.
Probably time to enjoy the weekend and wait and see what the jury has to say.
Randyjet, yes.
I was leaning towards manslaughter until I saw the photos of Martin, and it was very obvious from that photo, Martin was shot while standing. His legs could not have wound up in that position unless he had been standing. Since we know for a medical fact, Martin could not move after he was shot, it is clear that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Martin to have been straddling Zimmerman when he was shot.
Dr. Turley,
If Trayvon Martin were your son, would you feel the same way?
Mike A, appreciate your post. I want to say also that I don’t even MIND if we’re a nation of busybodies. But when you put a loaded gun in the hand of an insufferable ignorant arrogant obnoxious busybody and let him kill somebody because he doesn’t think he has enough information on that person to let him live, then I get to objecting.
I just wish everyone would follow the direction that this case leads, and see our future, not just the future of young Black men who have ALWAYS had to over-justify their right to exist, but ALL OF OUR rights, measured up against the rights of people like Z to interfere with our normal lives as we choose to live them.
Without any apology I admit a bias against Z but I still think the law is with me on whether he is a murderer or not. I don’t even think he’s a homicider; he’s a murderer. In fact I’m close to thinking it was REALLY first-degree because he admits to pulling his gun, getting WRIST CONTROL over Trayvon Martin, aiming to make sure he didn’t hit his left hand with the bullet, and THEN FIRING. People have been put to death by the State of Florida for less.
(If Z were charged w/first degree and convicted and sentenced to death I would be actively opposing his execution — constantly and vigorously.)
Carterbo, they requested an inventory of the evidence, perhaps there was some confusion in the reporting of that. Thanks.
Bullshitistan? That’s right next door to Alsoranistan. Isn’t it, Dredd?
But, but, but . . . that would be reasonable and require acknowledging that political polarity is a mutl-axial phenomenon!
Ralph Adamo 1, July 12, 2013 at 7:43 pm
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…
===============================
You are all over the globe, conflating the “left” of 1902 with the “right” of 1942 and the “progressives” of 1642.
I suggest that instead of all the vomit, you simply take Darren’s suggestion.
This is the U.S. and so you would better serve your agenda if you just explained things in the context of the U.S. Constitution and laws.
All that other doublespeak is from Bullshitistan.
Darren Smith 1, July 12, 2013 at 8:14 pm
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.
=============================
Bingo.
I just got a look at the photos of Martin lying dead on the grass. I was shocked since the position of his legs show clearly Martin was STANDING when he was shot! I had assumed Martin was on top of Zimmerman or bending over him when he was shot, but this photo says otherwise. So that means that it was Martin who was screaming twice and had undoubtedly jumped up when he saw the gun. Zimmerman then had to come up and move towards him and kill him. THAT is second degree murder.
Lottakatz – I believe what RWL wrote with regards to there being a verdict is bogus.
Nice little trap for GZ and a way for the judge to toss a bone to the defense
counsels.
What the judge SHOULD have done is ask GZ – WithOUT the presence of his lawyers, and WITH the jury present/
weather.
RTC,
I just got home from the Loop. I stretched my lunch hour into two to get as much of this day in as possible. So, at least we can agree on the whether. This case makes me want to read “The Bonfire of the Vanities” again. I have to say, I think the professor is spot on.
“Under that charge they needed to show Zimmerman had the intent to kill…”
That completely false. Fl law 775.082 does not require intent to kill at all.
I cant respect the opinion of someone claiming the law exonerates Zimmerman when they clearly do not know the law.
Michael Val,
I stand corrected. Thank you for making that clear
Sorry Marv,
what I was hurriedly trying to say was that you’re putting your racism on full display by bringing all sorts of statistics of crimes committed by blacks and examples of crimes committed by blacks on whites, none of which relates to the issues at hand in this case, except that Zimmerman stereotyped this kid because he was black. I’ve got kids – and I’m white – who act goofy some times. I’d hate for somebody to focus on them and decide they must be up to no good, and then shoot them for it. I think that’s basically what this came down to.
But mostly, I was giving you sh*t because you were lashing out in a particularly vulgar manner – it came across a full blown cybermeltdown.
I was in a hurry because it’s a beautiful day here in Northeastern Illinois and I’ve been outside for much of it. Now, I’m going back out to enjoy a tremendous evening and I’ve got some serious beer to drink. Hopefully, the weather’s just as fine where you’re at, or will be when you read this; why not enjoy summer and chill awhile. And love somebody.
The issue of racism has consistently been raised by RZ, Jr. but sunk to a new low when RZ, Sr. released his book.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/george-zimmerman-father-african-americans-racist_n_3447025.html
excerpt:
Robert Zimmerman has released a book about the case against his son, George, who is standing trial for the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. In it, he shares his views on “how and why” his son has been charged with murder .
“Florida v. Zimmerman: Uncovering the Malicious Prosecution of my Son, George” was released as an e-book Wednesday. The description reads simply: “This book describes how and why my son, George Zimmerman, has been charged with the crime of murder.”
Racism has been an overarching issue since Martin, who was unarmed, was shot and killed on Feb. 26, 2012. Many believe Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, targeted the teen that night in Sanford, Fla., because of Martin’s race. Zimmerman’s father, however, disagrees with the portrait that has been painted of his son.
“As an adult, George continued to judge everyone as individuals, as he does today,” Zimmerman writes in the prologue. “Many of George’s closest and most trusted friends are African American. Although the FBI interviewed dozens of George’s friends, neighbors, co-workers, and acquaintances, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that George is absolutely not a racist in any sense of the word.”
In fact, he thinks the racism is coming from elsewhere.
In the chapter, “Who Are The True Racists,” according to Think Progress, Zimmerman uses words like “pathetic,” “self-serving” and “disgrace” when describing the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP and Martin’s funeral director, among others. He says he believes they are promoting a racist agenda in the United States and around the Martin case.
Visit Think Progress to read the full excerpts.
He also says that because U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder chose to investigate whether Martin’s killing violated federal civil rights laws, the FBI didn’t have “adequate resources to investigate clearly identified potential terrorist [sic] in the Boston area.” Now, “tragically, we have suffered the consequences of Mr. Holder’s politically motivated decisions,” he wrote, according to Think Progress.
As I posted earlier, in Houston there was a similar case though with far less deadly results. Former Congressman Craig Washington was at his office on New Year Day and saw a car parked in his parking area on his property. It was around 8pm at night and dark, so he went out to ask what they were doing there. He found two white kids and told them to leave his property. He waited and saw that they were still there and called the cops. After about 30 minutes the cops had not shown up, so he went back out to tell them to leave again. The kids saw him coming, started the car, drove at him trying to run him down. He drew his gun and fired, stiking the car a number of times. The car drove off and got away.
Next day, HPD told Craig he was to be arrested for shooting at the car. He was arrested and charged with a felony, despite the fact he claimed self defense. So we have a black man defending himself on his OWN property claiming self defense against a person with a DEADLY weapon, yet HE is arrested immediately on the word of the mother who got her car back with bullet holes in it. So if that difference is not stark, i cannot think or anything that is. They were going to trial, but Craig took a plea bargin and charges were dismissed. Had Craig killed those white kids, he would be on death row now an and not given bail or anything else Zimmerman got.