17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #25

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Karmady said:
Thanks. It's crossing my mind that the decision not to have a GJ may have something to do with the minor's testimony. I know it was put out there that AC never uses the GJ for cases like this, so I had just accepted that. But now I'm wondering whether the decision to charge murder 2 instead of manslaughter and not use the GJ for it may have been based on some issue with the gf. Like maybe her parents aren't wanting to put her through that. This way the charges are exclusively in AC's hands (murder 2 v. manslaughter), the girl doesn't have to testify at the GJ and AC still has all of her cards in hand to get a manslaughter plea and avoid the girl ever having to testify at all. Just a thought that crossed my mind....jmo, etc. I think it is key if AC had any input in issuing the supoena in the first place.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you except hearing those reporters talk on a hot mike when they didn't know they were being listened to - opened my eyes.

I believe she took this decision on herself, instead of using a GJ, because she has a long term goal of political gain. I think she took this case on to further her political career, and I think the governor gave it to her as a gift (the words of the reporter, actually). And I don't think there's anyway a GJ would have supported a charge for murder 2 - it's unclear whether they would have gone for even manslaughter.

And I think he will avoid trial by proving - by a preponderance of the evidence - that he was Standing His Ground.

And then I think the reaction will be worse than if they hadn't charged him in the first place.

But with any luck, what's really important, is that Corey will get the political mileage she is going for.
 
jjenny said:
According to cbs none were murders. But that would only make SYG harder to prove since the other side is alive and presumably able to tell their side of the story.
Click to expand...

BBM


I'm confused. I thought your whole point was that the defense didn't need to tell their side of the story. That it was up to the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defense. :waitasec:


So, just how do you think this will play out if it does go to trial? GZ has been charged with 2nd degree murder. We know Trayvon is dead. AFAIK, NO ONE is disputing that GZ pulled the trigger and shot him. Who is going to even going to suggest that he was acting in self-defense?
 
Here's another quote from Mr. Hornsby from this link/interview that explains how SYG changed the law:

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/12/150507016/challenges-for-attorneys-in-the-zimmerman-case


HORNSBY: Well, first, I'd like to - here's the thing, the Stand Your Ground law actually modified three different statutes in Florida, and it did three different things. One, it did remove the duty to retreat whenever you're confronted with violence against you. That's the primary one that everybody talks about. The second thing it did is it implemented the pretrial hearing that we've been discussing for the last 15 minutes that allows a judge to dismiss it after hearing all the evidence.

The third thing it did, which is one thing I do think needs to be changed, is it stated that a law enforcement officer can't arrest a person unless they determine that the deadly force used was unlawful or the force used was unlawful. And that seemed to be the thing that created all the outrage in this case is that George Zimmerman was never arrested. The way it used to be is that if you killed somebody, you were arrested, period. And then you could go before the judge, you know, and assert your affirmative defense and, you know, establish why you were justified in killing somebody or committing any crime for that matter that involved violence against somebody.
Click to expand...
 
beach said:
BBM


I'm confused. I thought your whole point was that the defense didn't need to tell their side of the story. That it was up to the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defense. :waitasec:


So, just how do you think this will play out if it does go to trial? GZ has been charged with 2nd degree murder. We know Trayvon is dead. AFAIK, NO ONE is disputing that GZ pulled the trigger and shot him. Who is going to even going to suggest that he was acting in self-defense?
Click to expand...

I never said defense doesn't need to tell its side of the story. But the burden will be on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defense story is not true.
 
JeannaT said:
I would agree with you except hearing those reporters talk on a hot mike when they didn't know they were being listened to - opened my eyes.

I believe she took this decision on herself, instead of using a GJ, because she has a long term goal of political gain. I think she took this case on to further her political career, and I think the governor gave it to her as a gift (the words of the reporter, actually). And I don't think there's anyway a GJ would have supported a charge for murder 2 - it's unclear whether they would have gone for even manslaughter.

And I think he will avoid trial by proving - by a preponderance of the evidence - that he was Standing His Ground.

And then I think the reaction will be worse than if they hadn't charged him in the first place.

But with any luck, what's really important, is that Corey will get the political mileage she is going for.
Click to expand...

I don't think our two takes on it are necessarily inconsistent. I think AC thinks she will get past the preliminary hearing or possibly even get a plea to manslaughter before that. I think she knew she wasn't going to get more than manslaughter from the GJ so why not take it out of the GJ's hands, charge murder 2 and be a hero, then make man look like a compromise as part of a plea deal saying that the gf and/or the family don't want to go through a painful trial, etc., etc. -- which could possibly be true, of course, idk.
 
jjenny said:
And the difference between regular SYG and self-defense would be what? SYG is a self-defense law.
Click to expand...

That's true, jenny, but I still haven't found anything that says whether the defense's burden of proof is the same in both cases.

At the SYG hearing, the burden is probable cause. (ETA as Jenny has pointed out elsewhere, the burden is actually "preponderance of evidence", which is lower than probable cause.)

But the same statute simply says the defense must present evidence to prove his affirmative defense (and then the burden reverts to the prosecution, as you pointed out pages ago).

How much evidence is enough? I can't find anything in the statute or model jury instructions that specifies.
 
Reader said:
Here's another quote from Mr. Hornsby from this link/interview that explains how SYG changed the law:

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/12/150507016/challenges-for-attorneys-in-the-zimmerman-case
Click to expand...

That's the thing though. The commentary I've read recognizes that this puts LE and the prosecutor in a catch-22 b/c they have to take a gamble that their probably cause assessment is correct and that the defendant has no SYG defense by a preponderence BEFORE the judge makes that determination at the preliminary hearing. The judge can still completely disagree that the defendant was not immune from arrest and, in that case, the charges are dismissed, there can be no civil liability on the part of GZ and, imo, he would then be entitled to statutory damages.

I've mentioned I think that has a LOT to do with why they didn't arrest him in the first place. jmoo
 
Nova said:
That's true, jenny, but I still haven't found anything that says whether the defense's burden of proof is the same in both cases.
At the SYG hearing, the burden is probable cause.

But the same statute simply says the defense must present evidence to prove his affirmative defense (and then the burden reverts to the prosecution, as you pointed out pages ago).

How much evidence is enough? I can't find anything in the statute or model jury instructions that specifies.
Click to expand...

This makes me feel better! Thank you lol Honestly, I get the impression from reading all the non-linkable info that the lawyers are deliberately skirting the issue because they don't know the answer for sure either!
 
beach said:
BBM


I'm confused. I thought your whole point was that the defense didn't need to tell their side of the story. That it was up to the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defense. :waitasec:


So, just how do you think this will play out if it does go to trial? GZ has been charged with 2nd degree murder. We know Trayvon is dead. AFAIK, NO ONE is disputing that GZ pulled the trigger and shot him. Who is going to even going to suggest that he was acting in self-defense?
Click to expand...

There is actually a SYG hearing where the defense will try to get the case thrown out. In that hearing the DEFENSE has to show beyond a preponderance of the evidence that GZ was standing his ground.

Preponderance of the evidence is the same standard used in civil cases (like when OJ was found liable for the murders of Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman).

It looks like the SYG law is defense-friendly... But the defense will have to present some sort of evidence that Trayvon started the fight, instead of Zimmerman.

And because Zimmerman has some injuries that may have came from Trayvon, doesn't mean that Trayvon was the initial aggressor. So it will be interesting to see what the defense has up their sleeve.

If they want the case thrown out, they have got to show more that GZ has some injuries. I think GZ's only hope of getting the case thrown out, is if he testifies and a judge finds him credible.
 
jjenny said:
I never said defense doesn't need to tell its side of the story. But the burden will be on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defense story is not true.
Click to expand...


See below. This is where the confusion lies for me.


jjenny said:
No, on the prosecution (legally). They have to prove otherwise. He does not have to take the stand.
Click to expand...


You are correct, no defendant can be forced to testify, per the US Constitution.


Keeping in mind that opening and closing statements are not evidence and the jury will be instructed that they cannot be considered during deliberations, other than GZ himself, who is going to tell us what happened that night? I am aware of witnesses who heard and saw things AFTER the altercation was already in progress, but who is going to tell us that GZ was in eminent fear for his life?
 
JeannaT said:
No, she couldn't have affected the outcome.

But I believe this paints kind of a different picture of what actually was going on - what Trayvon was telling her, and the brief conversation she overheard.

As she tells the story, any girlfriend would have been in a terror panic after hearing that. The fact that she didn't react like a girl terrified for the safety of her boyfriend colors my perception of what actually took place, and what actually she overheard.
Click to expand...

i have sons who are 18 years old and therefore, girls of similar age are a constant. girls are not like they used to be. my personal experience convinces me that today's girls/young women are much harder, less emotional, and generally, quicker to anger and even more violent.

further, my sister is married to a very dark-skinned black man. in over 20 years i have definitely noticed that he was raised to mind his own business, respect the boundaries of others, and not invite drama. for this reason, i believe it is quite possible that even if gf mentioned something to her parents, their natural reaction would have been to tell her to mind her business unless and until she had far more to go on than one phone call. why? because, as african american adults, they likely understand that every african american youngster will reach a day when they're face to face with racism. generally, the evidence of those encounters is invisible, though certainly painfully felt. neither this gf nor her parents could have possibly predicted that this time, a life would be lost.

imo...moo...etc...
 
George Zimmerman expected to take the stand in Trayvon Martin murder case, legal observers say...

There is no way around it,” Derek Byrd, incoming president of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told msnbc.com. “I personally believe he would have to testify. It’s not like a case where there were three other witnesses. Who else is going to say he was fearing for his safety when he shot Trayvon Martin?”

Nellie King, a Palm Beach-area defense attorney who is president of the association of defense lawyers, agreed.

“Zimmerman is the only person who can re-enact what took place that night,” King said.

Much more at the link..

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...n-martin-murder-case-legal-observers-say?lite
 
Nova said:
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.)
Click to expand...
One witness said GZ was pacing with his head in his hands. I believe he was collecting his wits then and at that point GZ was only concerned about what was going to happen to him, and not at all about the person he'd just killed.
 
Karmady said:
Thanks. It's crossing my mind that the decision not to have a GJ may have something to do with the minor's testimony. I know it was put out there that AC never uses the GJ for cases like this, so I had just accepted that. But now I'm wondering whether the decision to charge murder 2 instead of manslaughter and not use the GJ for it may have been based on some issue with the gf. Like maybe her parents aren't wanting to put her through that. This way the charges are exclusively in AC's hands (murder 2 v. manslaughter), the girl doesn't have to testify at the GJ and AC still has all of her cards in hand to get a manslaughter plea and avoid the girl ever having to testify at all. Just a thought that crossed my mind....jmo, etc. I think it is key if AC had any input in issuing the supoena in the first place.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but given the confusion re SYG even among supposed experts, I speculate she didn't want to turn a grand jury loose with a bad law.
 
jjenny said:
I never said defense doesn't need to tell its side of the story. But the burden will be on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defense story is not true.
Click to expand...

Only after GZ meets his burden, which remains unidentified here.

Let's be fair. I readily conceded the part of your account that research revealed to be correct (eventual prosecution burden); but you have a way of phrasing it so it sounds as if the defense has no burden at all; GZ simply makes up whatever he wants and then dares the SA to disprove it.

If that's true, then it really is open season for murderers in Florida.
 
Bumping the link to Sound Off.

imamaze said:
SOUND OFF Private Forum Companion Thread
Anyone feeling overheated or wishing to discuss the demonstrations, political, religious or racial aspects of the Trayvon Martin case, please check out our new forum in the private area of Websleuths accessible only to Websleuths members, called SOUND OFF.
Warning: Be sure to read the Required Read sticky post. Link to Trayvon Martin Sound Off
Click to expand...
 
Karmady said:
This makes me feel better! Thank you lol Honestly, I get the impression from reading all the non-linkable info that the lawyers are deliberately skirting the issue because they don't know the answer for sure either!
Click to expand...

Either they don't know or they ALL know because it's a standard part of affirmative defense law that everybody learns at law school.

If the defendant doesn't meet his burden, then the jury never even gets an instruction about the affirmative defense. So maybe the burden isn't spelled out the way other aspects are, the ones that become part of jury instructions.

But I'm just guessing. It's probably written somewhere and I either didn't see it or didn't recognize it when I did see it.
 
Nova said:
That's true, jenny, but I still haven't found anything that says whether the defense's burden of proof is the same in both cases.

At the SYG hearing, the burden is probable cause. (ETA as Jenny has pointed out elsewhere, the burden is actually "preponderance of evidence", which is lower than probable cause.)

But the same statute simply says the defense must present evidence to prove his affirmative defense (and then the burden reverts to the prosecution, as you pointed out pages ago).

How much evidence is enough? I can't find anything in the statute or model jury instructions that specifies.
Click to expand...
They need enough to convince a judge and jury of doubt. No more no less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 142 more.
Total: 4,028 (members: 143, guests: 3,885)

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
3,885
Total visitors
4,028
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,659
Messages
17,957,130
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top