Dan Abrams does an excellent job of explaining why a conviction in the George Zimmerman trial is going to be very difficult to obtain. I’ve talked to a lot of people about this case, as well as engaged many people here in the comments section. The overwhelming sense I get from people on the left is that Zimmerman must be convicted because his actions led to an innocent boy’s death. Justice demands that Zimmerman be held responsible. I know I feel that way, too, but I can’t hold the jurors to that standard. In other words, I hope he is convicted, but I will not argue that the jurors made a mistake or were indifferent if they don’t convict, particularly for the strongest charge of Second Degree murder.
The one area where I differ from Mr. Abrams a bit is on the question of manslaughter. He thinks the defense has raised a reasonable doubt sufficient to grant a self-defense excuse for pulling the trigger. I hope that is not the case. Losing a fight that you initiated doesn’t preclude a self-defense acquittal, but the bar should be very high. The reason the Second Degree murder charge is imperiled is that it requires a finding that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” The prosecution relies on Zimmerman’s words on the non-emergency phone call in which is called Trayvon Martin an “asshole” and a “fucking punk (or coon)” and clearly assumed he was a criminal. To me, that could be sufficient evidence, but the fact that an actual fight occurred and that Zimmerman sustained injuries makes it difficult to argue that he set out to kill. However, the manslaughter charge does not depend on proving Zimmerman’s state of mind. Instead, it merely relies on the finding that Zimmerman did not face the prospect of grave bodily harm or death.
The defense correctly pointed out that you don’t have to wait for a life-threatening blow to exercise your right to prevent one, but this is where Zimmerman’s actions prior to the fight become important. He could have identified himself as the Neighborhood Watch captain and defused the situation. His argument that he did not have the opportunity is contradicted by the earwitness testimony that a conversation preceded the fight. By confronting a stranger in a threatening manner, he invited a fight. And sometimes you just have to take your beating.
Expert witnesses testified that Zimmerman’s injuries were “insignificant.” The jury should exercise some discretion here. While it is defensible to grant a blanket self-defense excuse, the facts of the case only weakly support the idea that Zimmerman was facing the risk of grave bodily harm or death. Balanced against that is the fact that he initiated a confrontation, was losing the fight, and used a gun to correct for his mistake. He knew the police would be there in moments, as they in fact were.
This also assumes many things that may not be true. It is possible that Zimmerman was punched in the face and was initially taking some punishment, but then overpowered Trayvon and pinned him under him. This gets to whose voice it is on the 911 call crying out desperately for help. It sounds like a young voice to me. There is testimony from family members on both sides of the debate. If the jury is convinced that the voice is Trayvon’s, then even a Second Degree murder charge is warranted. Certainly, under those circumstances, a manslaughter charge is warranted. If the jury has doubts, they need to look at the totality of the situation and judge whether Zimmerman faced so much peril that he couldn’t wait another minute for help to arrive.
In my opinion, a total acquittal would be an injustice, although one that could be defended under the existing law. But a manslaughter conviction could also be defended under the law, without it being an injustice. Considering how close of a call this is, I’d err on the side of justice.
And, again, if I were convinced, based on all the relevant evidence, that the voice on the tape was Trayvon’s, I’d have to conclude that he was executed, and a murder conviction would be justified.
In a case like this one, that hinges on the details of the evidence, it’s hard to take seriously the opinion of anyone who has not actually been in the courtroom for the trial.
The indisputable facts indicate that Zimmerman should face judgment, but not what that judgment should determine.
Seconded.
I don’t like people sitting at home second-guessing the jurors who are in the room, looking and listening to the witnesses from a few feet away.
Jurors make mistakes, but the TV peanut gallery makes more.
Too bad our court system is not about justice and fairness, but about who has the biggest war chest to pay an attorney.
Seems a fair assumption that the list of contributors to Zimmerman’s war chest alone would underscore your point.
Too bad the presumption of innocence ends at death.
Too bad our society tolerates gun ownership for any and all.
I was on a jury for a criminal case – 2 months ago – where it was pretty easy to tell that, if convicted of the 2 counts against him, the defendant would go to prison for 20 years, maybe more.
Though there was a lot of it, it was all circumstantial evidence, and I felt a HUGE responsibility to get it right because I know many people have been wrongly convicted on circumstantial evidence. I didn’t trust that anyone was telling the whole truth – not the defense attorney, not the FBI agents whose story I felt had a big hole in it, certainly not the co-conspirators who had both changed their stories 2 or 3 times. (He was involved, no he wasn’t, yes he was AND not involved, involved, not involved.) I caught the prosecutor in more than one lie and caught both attorneys presenting things as facts that weren’t facts at all.
Right out of the gate, the other 11 jurors were ready to vote guilty on both counts. Did I think he was guilty? Sure. Did I think he had been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt? I was going to make damned sure we went over all the undeniable FACTS before I was willing to send someone to prison for at least 20 years.
I discounted all “statements of fact” that were masquerading as facts, but certainly weren’t facts at all, and there were a lot of them. I discounted all the witness testimony where someone had an axe to grind. Then I looked at what we actually KNEW, and it took 4 hours plus lunch, but the facts I could count on led me to a guilty verdict, and he was convicted on both counts.
Why did I write all that?
Because unless there were some compelling facts presented – that no one reported on – it would not take me 4 hours to be certain of a guilty verdict here. I’m pretty sure I would be voting guilty in this case, right out of the gate.
That the burden is on the prosecution to *dis*prove self defense makes no sense to me. It’s accepted by all parties that Zimmerman killed Martin, after the teen tried at least initially to avoid a confrontation by running away. All the other details depend ultimately on Zimmerman’s word. How is the burden not on Zimmerman to prove he had no choice but to kill in self defense?
Is this an element of Florida self defense law, or standard throughout the country?
Imagine someone with a grudge against his neighbor chooses to confront him on the public sidewalk. He slaps his neighbor in the face – no reasonable person could claim such an attack threatened death or severe bodily harm. After allowing his neighbor to raise a couple of welts on his head in response, the grudgebearer pulls out his licensed concealed handgun and shoots his neighbor to death in “self defense.” The prosecution suspects but cannot prove that the killer planned the encounter to unfold in exactly this way. If Zimmerman is not guilty, how is this hypothetical killer found guilty, and what kind of justice is that?
I think Florida’s Second Degree statute has some idiosyncrasies but the basic concept is universal. Basically, even if you are at fault, you have the right to protect yourself from grave bodily harm or death.
But the point you raise is precisely why the bar should be very high when you instigated the confrontation.
If you are just minding your own business and someone grabs you and starts to beat you up, I think the standard should be lower than when you started the fight.
Otherwise, you’re right, you could intentionally lose a fight you started in order to have a legal excuse to kill.
If zimmerman gets off without even manslaughter, it’s open season.
And in fact it already is open season. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167984117/-stand-your-ground-linked-to-increase-in-homicide
It is always the job of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense only needs to raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury.
Arguing self-defense is a way for the defendant to raise reasonable doubt.
Legally, the defense doesn’t have to do ANYTHING.
After the prosecution’s case is done, the defense can stand up and ask the judge to dismiss the case because the state has not met it’s burden of proof. Obviously that never happens, but that’s how much the system is supposed to be weighted so the State can’t just imprison people at will. Not that it works out that way in practice.
Zimmerman’s lawyers did do that. it’s a standard motion that almost always is denied, but sometimes lightning strikes.
Yes I know it’s standard practice. I was referring to its success rate.
We discussed this before, but regarding the showing of “ill will”, you missed the Mantei’s reference to the Gibbs case.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16696357231026544625
IANAL, but I understand that the courts ruled that the ACT of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger satisfies the ill will requirement. The question of murder 2 will not rest on ill will, since FL law appears to consider deliberate killing ill will enough (as common sense would tell you).
The question is whether or not the jury believes all of Zimmerman’s many stories or whether or not the evidence shows he acted in such a way that even if Trayvon punched him and caused the “very insignificant” injuries, Zimmerman acted with UNREASONABLE deadly force and shot because he wanted to.
On this score, the evidence is clear and has been provided.
From my link:
Pointing a loaded gun at the head of the victim and then firing has frequently been held to be an act “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.” See Keltner v. State, 650 So.2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (finding the act of pointing loaded weapon in direction of someone and firing is imminently dangerous and evinces a depraved mind); Presley v. State, 499 So.2d 64
***
The law is clear. Ill will is most assuredly accounted for in this case and Abrams is wrong.
Booman this is a great summary. As much as we might want to see a conviction, based on what I’ve seen and heard, the evidence is just not there. Perhaps the Martin’s will be able to hold this guy accountable in civil court but I don’t even think that’s a sure thing. It’s unfortunate that the prosecution allowed (basically) an all White jury because if GZ is not found guilty there most certainly will be cries of jury indifference or nullification. The whole case stinks and a little boy is dead.
I’ve thought a manslaughter conviction the likely outcome from the beginning.