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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
jjenny said:
Well in some cases public pressure led to actually innocent defendants being arrested in charge.
Click to expand...

I know, and I am glad there is a group that fights for these people who are imprisoned falsely. But, there has to be a process.
 
jjenny said:
Well in some cases public pressure led to actually innocent defendants being arrested and charged. And even if defendant isn't innocent, defendant does have a right to a fair trial. And how is that going to be accomplished in the case of Zimmerman?
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't GZ receive a fair trial?
 
jjenny said:
And if defendant isn't guilty? Is that good too?
Click to expand...

If the defendant is found not guilty in a court of law, that will be "good" in my book. I might not agree with the verdict, or I may depending on what new evidence comes to light at trial, but I will be satisfied that the legal system did its job.

I believe that is all most who have followed the case have wanted from the beginning. JMO etc.
 
jjenny said:
So we should put a not guilty person on trial just because of public pressure? Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

How do you know the person is not guilty without first going through a trial? Just because he said so?
 
IzzyBlanche said:
If the defendant is found not guilty in a court of law, that will be "good" in my book. I might not agree with the verdict, or I may depending on what new evidence comes to light at trial, but I will be satisfied that the legal system did its job.

I believe that is all most who have followed the case have wanted from the beginning. JMO etc.
Click to expand...

Well said.

:)
 
jjenny said:
Ca is different from FL because of SYG law.

At trial, the burden of proof will be on prosecution. Prosecutor will have to prove Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.

"Only then can she take the case to a jury, in front of which she will face a high legal burden to prove that the killing wasn't in self-defense."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/news-guide-qa-trayvon-martin-shooting-16120440#.T4oA9dnwGSo
Click to expand...
The prosecution may have the burden of proving it was an unlawful killing aka 2nd degree murder aka not self defense-but if the defendant wants to get self defense in the jury instructions ( his affirmative defense)-he has got the burden of presenting some evidence -any evidence that it WAS self defense. If the defendant does not show any evidence whatsoever that it was in self defense the jury would not even be able to consider it.

IOW, in most cases the defense does not have to present anything. They can let the prosecution prove or not prove their case and it can go straight to the jury.

But in an affirmative defense the defense absolutely has the burden of putting on a case to show their position otherwise it doesn't make sense. KWIM? So the burden is also on the defendant- maybe to a different degree but they have a burden none the less.ETA: the prosecution may have a higher standard to reach-but they both have to prove to their respective degrees.
 
Nova said:
jenny, I'll allow there is considerable confusion over the SYG law. Most have described it as badly written. But we still have to consider the sources when we invoke these links.

The link you reference above is a panel discussion in Nevada by activists who are opposed to SYG in principle. 1. I'm not sure they are actually experts on the law; 2. they may be expected to present the law's ramifications in the worst possible light.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that there is considerable confusion over how SYG applies at trial and, in particular, its interplay with a standard justifiable homicide defense. I am very accustomed to reading the dense and virtually indecipherable lol, and while I haven't devoted an extraordinary amount of time to it, I think I would've been able to draw a clear conclusion by now if there was one to be drawn. The question in my mind it whether it remains an "immunity" statute at trial and, if so, whether the preponderence burden on the defense in the SYG context changes after a preliminary hearing. I guess we shall see...
 
OT watching TLC, Teens who Kill. Covering the case of Rachel Wade/Sara Ludemann. Rachel claimed self defense, it wasn't proven.
 
jjenny said:
Sure does. If Zimmerman can not convince judge by "preponderance of the evidence" that he acted in self defense, the judge will allow prosecutor to take the case to trial. Zimmerman can again use self-defense at trial, and a prosecutor has to prove Zimmerman did not act in self-defense (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Click to expand...

It is slightly more complicated than that, jenny, but upon further research I think I owe you an apology: Florida does seem to be an exception to the standard rules of affirmative defenses used elsewhere.

Here is a detailed discussion from a Jacksonville law firm. (Mods, I hope this is okay. It isn't MSM, but it is an expert source and therefore, IMO, better.)

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html


As I understand the discussion there and assuming the defendant can't get a judge to dismiss the case under SYG before trial, the defendant still has the affirmative defense of "justifiable homicide" available to him. Under Florida law, the initial burden is on the defendant, but the burden is relatively low (and may not even require the defendant to take the stand). Once the defendant meets his affirmative defense burden, then the burden seems to shift back to the prosecutor to DISprove justifiable homicide beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether GZ's mere say-so is enough to meet his burden remains unclear, however, per the sites I've found. Some even assert that nobody really knows how all these burdens will play out because none of them has been tested by appellate courts.

Totally jmo now: I won't be surprised if the prosecution argues that GZ's pursuit of TM despite the dispatcher's instruction proves that GZ intended to detain TM until police arrived. That might be construed as kidnapping, a felony which would negate any SYG claim. Again, this is just my speculation as to how they may try to circumvent any SYG problems.
 
Isabelle said:
Oh yeah, mega money is really gonna help them. Only those who have lost a child can understand that NOTHING makes it better. It NEVER goes away. I couldn't understand why my mother and sister couldn't get over the death of their respective children, I know now and regret not being more supportive.
Click to expand...

:grouphug:

I never want to know your pain :( Don't regret, you didn't know the depths. It is a club nobody wants to join. :hug: Prayers for you and yours.
 
jjenny said:
Ca is different from FL because of SYG law.

At trial, the burden of proof will be on prosecution. Prosecutor will have to prove Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.

"Only then can she take the case to a jury, in front of which she will face a high legal burden to prove that the killing wasn't in self-defense."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/news-guide-qa-trayvon-martin-shooting-16120440#.T4oA9dnwGSo
Click to expand...

BUT in the trial, GZ and his lawyer can only use the regular self-defense law, not SYG.
 
Frank Taaffe gets it right at 1:42 in this video. Wonder if that was his nickname for old George.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_IWjzYK6c"]Trayvon Martin Case: George Zimmerman's Neighbor Speaks Out - YouTube[/ame]
 
JBean said:
The prosecution may have the burden of proving it was an unlawful killing aka 2nd degree murder aka not self defense-but if the defendant wants to get self defense in the jury instructions ( his affirmative defense)-he has got the burden of presenting some evidence -any evidence that it WAS self defense. If the defendant does not show any evidence whatsoever that it was in self defense the jury would not even be able to consider it.

IOW, in most cases the defense does not have to present anything. They can let the prosecution prove or not prove their case and it can go straight to the jury.

But in an affirmative defense the defense absolutely has the burden of putting on a case to show their position otherwise it doesn't make sense. KWIM? So the burden is also on the defendant- maybe to a different degree but they have a burden none the less.ETA: the prosecution may have a higher standard to reach-but they both have to prove to their respective degrees.
Click to expand...

J, do you get the sense that the burden of proof for an affirmative defense is lower in Florida than in California? I've been a juror on a "self-defense" case in CA and while the defense's burden wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it seemed reasonably strict.

But I'm finding sites in Florida (mostly from criminal defense lawyers) that make the defendant's burden sound very low. Maybe that's just a marketing tool, but the Florida statute does say that once the defendant meets his burden, the State's burden returns in full force.
 
Nova said:
Why surprised? It took a great deal of p.r. to get enough national attention to Trayvon Martin's story that the Florida attorney general was forced to take action.
Click to expand...

Hi Nova.
There is more ways than one to skin a cat... and pulling out the racial card is just one game, there are others.
I always believe this "To the dead we owe only the truth"
I have seen the media has done a great job swaying public opinion... I always loved the facts and never just follow blindly...I want to know what really happened before I follow any direction. Let’s not fabricate a case - it has been sensationalized without us knowing all the facts. We do not know Trayvon, we do not know what Zimmerman felt as he sized him up BUT I sure know that feeling of thinking someone is up to no good. I sure do know that I have to trust my mistrust, and if I see something I cannot ignore it.
I want to give Zimmerman a chance to clear himself. IF he can. But I do not want to play revenge and bury him without fully knowing. That is not just.
MOO :moo:
 
EVERYONE CHECK YOUR GPS

Race discussion

l
l
l
l
l
\/


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

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168453"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
 
jjenny said:
Nope, that is not correct. Prosecution will have to prove at trial Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.
Click to expand...

Several legal experts have discussed this earlier in this thread. Their information is very different from your opinion. Are you a Florida attorney?
I will go back and find the.posts about this.
Respectfully, JMO.
 
Good discussion on the case and the SYG defense, and Richard Hornsby is interviewed:

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

Excerpts from Hornsby:

If he decides there are no challenges worth making before the arraignment, he'll file a written plea of not guilty, and that arraignment will actually be waived, and it will never be held by the judge. Then after that, the next major thing I think the public will get to see is there will likely be a hearing on the Stand Your Ground motion, the defense - what we call an immunity hearing, where George Zimmerman will have to present evidence to establish that he was legally defending himself.

And if he establishes that by a preponderance of the evidence, then the judge will be required to dismiss the charge.
Click to expand...

Is it successful? No, I would not say that people are filing these motions left and right and winning. You know, I've filed maybe 15 motions, Stand Your Ground motions to dismiss, since the law has been implemented, and I've only won two or three of them at the - you know, in front of a judge. Because, again, the judge has to believe the defendant's version of the events and believe the defendant was reasonably defending himself.

And many times, if you have, you know, a defendant and a victim come in, and they're both equally credible, it's sometimes hard for the defendant to meet that burden. The judge says, well, I think a jury should decide this.

You know, the big issue in George Zimmerman's case is, of course, Trayvon Martin isn't around to tell his side of the story, and so the prosecutor is going to have to tell Trayvon Martin's story through circumstantial evidence and things of that nature.
Click to expand...
 
Nova said:
J, do you get the sense that the burden of proof for an affirmative defense is lower in Florida than in California? I've been a juror on a "self-defense" case in CA and while the defense's burden wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it seemed reasonably strict.

But I'm finding sites in Florida (mostly from criminal defense lawyers) that make the defendant's burden sound very low. Maybe that's just a marketing tool, but the Florida statute does say that once the defendant meets his burden, the State's burden returns in full force.
Click to expand...
Hi Nova. Yes that is my understanding of it as well. I think what would be very helpful would be reading the jury instructions because that would basically lay it all out for us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 80 more.
Total: 3,553 (members: 81, guests: 3,472)

Online statistics

Members online
81
Guests online
3,472
Total visitors
3,553
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,116
Messages
17,963,485
Members
228,687
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top