Zimmerman's Low Burden of Proof on the Issue of Self Defense

Akron Law Café -- ^ | April 13, 2012 | Professor Will Huhn

[kabumpo]

The word urban means city. By definition, all cities are urban.

[Gaffer]

Well, I guess I should have clarified a little...it actually says “no shooting in the subdivision”....I guess I could technically ‘carry concealed’ but not ‘shoot’.....

My subdivision isn’t the only one in Georgia that does this.

[SeminoleCounty]

If Judge Nelson does not grant dismissal after State finishes their part....Nelson has been bought. I say this as statement of fact

You can see why local State Atty Norm Wolfinger did not want to prosecute....and planned grudgingly to take it to a Grand Jury

[SeminoleCounty]

Miami and Sanford will light up...definitely

[SeminoleCounty]

On Casey Anthony....blame the incomptent prosecution team. They overcharged...and went to the media with every little piece of info. When the govt does that in a criminal case...it is a signal the case is not strong

You are right on OJ....that was Black Racism with his acquittal

[USS Alaska]

If he had a CCW permit, why would he need 'permission from the police to walk with it in his own neighborhood. No reason for it at all - it isn't the police's business as long as he obeys the law. The real question is to ask is "Did his Home Owner's Association in their administration of any binding neighborhood covenants allow carrying of weapons inside the neighborhood outside of his home"..... My deed covenant has this restriction.

Your home owners association has no legal right to restrict my 2nd Amendment right to carry.

[Gaffer]

See #20

[Redmen4ever]

Self-defense as an affirmative defense with a low burden of proof. Correct. There is no question that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. This is not and was never contested. It was admitted by Zimmerman when he called 911 to tell the police he killed Trayvon almost immediately after doing so. But, here comes the affirmative defense, has the defense shown that it reasonable to believe that Zimmerman used deadly force in self defense? Clearly, it has. In fact, given the case thus far, the only contradiction of Zimmerman’s story is the female pal of Trayvon insofar as she identified the voice screaming for help as Trayvon’s. This evidence wasn’t obtained by law enforcement until after the attorney for the Martin family intervened. Without this evidence, it is clear why there was no indictment until after the intervention. But, her testimony was thoroughly impeached in cross-examination. She has repeatedly demonstrated a willing to lie, including under oath. That is, she doesn’t hold telling the truth in high regard. But, even if she hadn’t been impeached, all the other evidence we have seen thus far corroborates or at least is consistent with Zimmerman’s story. At this point, I don’t think the defense will call Zimmerman to the stand.

[Redmen4ever]

Does the prosecution need to show that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, or at least initiated the fight, to seek a conviction on Murder in the Second Degree? Your point is well taken. But, no, the prosecution could show that Zimmerman badly over-reacted to a fight once it got started. For example, let’s say Trayvon initiated the confrontation, doubling back on Zimmerman, and saying to him, “Why you following me for?” I think this is, at this point, not in controversy. Let’s even say Trayvon initiated the fight, although I don’t think we have any knowledge of who started the fight other than Zimmerman’s report to the police. And, let’s say that during the fighting, Trayvon opened a can of whoop ass on Zimmerman, concerning which the prosecution only contends that Zimmerman wasn’t already beaten seriously, but the prosecution is simply not credible on this point. But, let’s say that Zimmerman then got on top of Trayvon, had him under control, got his gun out and pointed it at Trayvon. There’s really no evidence of this. But, supposing this was the case, then if Zimmerman then shot Trayvon, execution style, that would be Murder in the Second Degree. Now, I’ll address your point. If Zimmerman wasn’t being beaten so badly, and could have maybe wriggled out from under Trayvon, and - miscalculating the probability that he would sustain fatal or serious injury - shot Trayvon, then it would be some level of Manslaughter.

[ReaganÜberAlles]

I’m thinkin that Zimmerman should take the stand and state his case. Normally I wouldn’t think that but in this degenerate, race charged culture I think he has to stand up there and state his case.

[Gay State Conservative]

Unless I'm misunderstanding him (distinctly possible) the legal analyst for Orlando's Channel 9 (whose feed I've been watching) seems to be saying that the prosecution is carrying the day so far.That may just be wishful thinking from a typical Maoist Obama-loving lawyer...or maybe,having seen the jurors,he gets the sense that none of them can be mistaken for rocket scientists (a la the OJ jury).Or maybe he's right...maybe the “typical” jury,having heard *this* evidence,would vote to convict.

[Flintlock]

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah..............

Ain’t a—gonna happen.

Obongo’s boys are gonna see that his SON—or lookalike son—is gonna get his jussis!
Da FIX be INNN!! Gonna be NO RIOTS! THASS all that counts.

[left that other site]

last time I checked,
The “Burden of Proof” is on the prosecution.

At least...that is what it was the last time I checked. (SIGH)

[JennysCool]

My take is the media mob WANTS rioting and general craziness if Zimmerman is found not guilty. That boosts ratings and sells papers. So even though anyone paying attention knows the prosecution has been an absolute disaster, they tell the low-information viewer that, "Boy, that prosecution is doing an INCREDIBLY GREAT job! Zimmerman's going to be convicted for sure!" Thus, if Zimmerman is acquitted, the low-information viewer goes apoplectic: "This was a slam-dunk for the prosecution! The fix is in! Where's my baseball bat???"

The James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies has sort of become a primer for today's "journalism." Why wait around for things to happen when you can make them happen yourself?

[Gay State Conservative]

If the judge,in her final instructions to the jury,stresses how low the burden of proof for the defense is in proving "self defense" and "reasonable fear of serious harm" is do we know if the jurors have the intelligence,the courage and the basic decency to understand and accept those instructions? First of all,this judge seems to be working for the prosecution (sustaining *far* more prosecution objections than defense objections) so it's far from certain that such instructions will be forthcoming.

We must remember that the state wanted a mirror image of the OJ jury...how close did they come to getting one?

[Gay State Conservative]

The real question is to ask is "Did his Home Owner's Association in their administration of any binding neighborhood covenants allow carrying of weapons inside the neighborhood outside of his home"..... My deed covenant has this restriction.

Even if he violated HOA regulations it doesn't matter a hill of beans in this case.There's been no suggestion by the state that GZ was violating Florida,or Federal,law and that's all that matters regarding GZ's having been packing.GZ and/or the HOA may be liable to a civil suit by the holders of the patented trademark "Trayvon Martin",however.

[William Tell]

ReaganÜberAlles said: "I’m thinkin that Zimmerman should take the stand and state his case."

I don't have the time to follow the case as closely as I would like.

Zimmerman cooperated fully with law enforcement and videos were made showing his explanation for what happened.

If the prosecution does not show the videos, then it means that the videos do not support conviction. In this case, the defense may not be entitled to enter them into evidence because Zimmerman's statements are self-serving and not subject to cross-examination.

I wonder, however, whether the defense can get witnesses to admit that such videos were made and that such witnesses saw nothing that was incriminating in the videos? Or would even mention of the videos be disallowed?

This issue is why I fully support the notion that one should NEVER talk to the police. Even if you tell the absolute truth, the police may find a credible witness who mistakenly contradicts you and your credibility may be injured in a way which could never happen if you simply say NOTHING.

[RC one]

not ina self defense case. Zim’s guilt is already determined as far as taking M’s life. It is now incumbent upon him to establish just cause i.e. self defense and he does that by raising reasonable doubt.