Isabelle
Verified registered nurse
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 8,691
- Reaction score
- 1,698
And if defendant isn't guilty? Is that good too?
It's up to the courts to decide.
And if defendant isn't guilty? Is that good too?
With all due respect, that link does not say what you have asserted it says. Yes, Hornsby is quoted as questioning the SA's failure to address the SYG issue; it does not address burden of proof in an affirmative defense.
We may expect a criminal defense attorney to argue that the defendant's word should be taken as fact unless clearly contradicted, but a prosecutor will just as certainly argue otherwise.
Even if the investigation was done, I am not so sure it should have resulted in an arrest and a charge. For prosecution to convict Zimmerman, they will have to prove Zimmerman did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't see anything in that arrest affidavit that indicates prosecution got the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.
"The moment George Zimmerman fired that shot is the key question in this entire case," Hornsby said. "Did he reasonably believe he had to fire that shot to defend himself? And the fact (Corey) completely left that out, begs the question, does she not have any evidence to refute his version of the events?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_...-case-against-zimmerman-questioned/?tag=stack
It's up to the courts to decide.
There is a blog that explains it really well but apparently it can not be linked to.
But prosecution will have burden of proof, not the other way around, if this gets to trial.
"Then the burden would be on prosecutors to prove Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt a tougher standard than preponderance of the evidence."
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/defense_taking_stand_Hsd7TZOxwWPTLoctw71izM#ixzz1s3dENyVL
You are talking about a different thing. Zimmerman can request a hearing where he has a burden of proof by preponderance of evidence. If judge doesn't feel Zimmerman has met his burden of proof the case will go to trial, in which prosecution will have the burden of proof. This hearing is an extra protection for Zimmerman and the judge can find Zimmerman immune from prosecution if Zimmerman meets his burden of proof there. But it's not a trial.
So we should put a not guilty person on trial just because of public pressure? Is that what you are saying?
Hadn't he already called 911 twice? Didn't the police arrive at the scene within minutes or less of when the shot was fired? Honestly, when I first heard that witness saying he asked her to call 911 I asked myself why he would to that. SPD was already well on their way.
So we should put a not guilty person on trial just because of public pressure? Is that what you are saying?
IIRC, he had called the SPD on their non-911 line. But regardless, he knew an ambulance was now needed, not just the police. He should have called back. (But I am open to the possibility that everything happened so fast that GZ wasn't able to collect his wits.)
With all do respect, that's how it works because of SYG in FL.
"Thats not the case in Florida, where a legal provision prohibits police from prosecuting and even arresting an individual who claims a justifiable homicide under the stand your ground law, Rolnick said. The burden of proof in Florida lies with the prosecution, she said."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/apr/11/trayvon-martin-tragedy-reverberates-nevada/
Ca is different from FL because of SYG law.Let me grant you that the NY Post article does indeed say what you are asserting. I don't necessarily believe that is correct.
I admit I know about affirmative defenses under California law. The "justifiable homicide" defense mentioned in the Post article would be such a defense and the burden would fall on Zimmerman.
Let me see if I can find some reference to a Florida exception to that principle.
I totally agree with you. Chit happens. I think the only reason people question TM's dad that night is because that very day Trayvon was suspended for 10 days and for the third time. So some might wonder why the kid was even allowed out the door that night. And why dad just assumed he went to the movies. He was suspended that day and they had no problem with him going off to the movies, with out asking or telling anyone, after telling his kid brother he was going off to get him candy? I am not bashing, just explaining why some might wonder about it. If my 17 yr old says I am coming right back with candy, and I am just walking to the store, then I don't go to bed assuming everything is fine, if he never comes back that night. I know a few people will yell at me for asking these questions, but I am responding to a post in which the questions were already asked.
Your friends son was in his own hometown, so it made more sense that he had found a ride with a friend somewhere. And he wasnt grounded.
Well, true, it's not the same as the actual trial where the state has to prove he committed the crime of 2nd degree murder.
But, if GZ requests and has the hearing on SYG defense and loses and goes to trial, that defense is out and the prosecutor handles the trial as usual to prove the crime he is charged with. The prosecutor does not have to prove or disprove SYG in the trial because it is no longer an allowable defense.
Well, true, it's not the same as the actual trial where the state has to prove he committed the crime of 2nd degree murder.
But, if GZ requests and has the hearing on SYG defense and loses and goes to trial, that defense is out and the prosecutor handles the trial as usual to prove the crime he is charged with. The prosecutor does not have to prove or disprove SYG in the trial because it is no longer an allowable defense.
Sorry, Reader, but almost all sources agree that a "justifiable homicide" claim (SYG in slightly different wording) remains available to the defendant even if he fails to meet his burden in the special SYG hearing.
So we should put a not guilty person on trial just because of public pressure? Is that what you are saying?
How are you so sure there is no guilt here? What if GZ was truly guilty? I don't get what you are trying to say? Should we take GZ's word alone and be done with the case? No thorough investigation? What about the detective that wanted to arrest and charge GZ? So, you are saying, that anyone that kills another can can they did it in self defense and that should be the end of it. I don't think so!
ETA: the majority of those incarcerated will tell you that they are not guilty!