Alan Dershowitz: I Would Find Zimmerman 'Not Guilty'

Newsmax ^ | 10 Jul 2013 | Bill Hoffmann

[SJackson]

The verdict is in from Alan Dershowitz: if the renowned Harvard Law professor were on the jury hearing the George Zimmerman murder trial, he would find the defendant not guilty.

"I would say there's reasonable doubt. I would say nobody knows who started the initial fight," Dershowitz told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"Remember, it's monumentally irrelevant who's morally guilty here."

Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, is charged with second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager in Sanford, Fla.

Zimmerman, a 29-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer for his community, says he shot Martin, 17, in self-defense during an altercation. But prosecutors charge that Zimmerman profiled the African-American youth as he walked back from a convenience store to the home of his father's fiancée.

"Whether or not Zimmerman was a racist and racially profiled and shouldn’t have been doing it and didn’t listen to police, that's all irrelevant in Florida law," Dershowitz said.

"The case begins when the first blow was struck, essentially. And we don’t know who struck the first blow. We don’t know if Trayvon Martin came out from behind of a dark area and jumped him and got him down.

[wideawake]

Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic

What a bizarre, distancing turn of phrase.

It's as if he were writing "Sharpton, who identifies himself as Finnish" in order to show how unbelievable the subject's statement is to the author.

[plain talk]

Good logical post.

[TangledUpInBlue]

He’ll be found not guilty. The verdict isn’t the problem. It’s the rioting that will be the problem.

[Jeff Winston]

I think this is correct, and it bears repeating:

When an armed man and an unarmed man get involved in fisticuffs, you can pretty much assume the unarmed man started it. There are a lot of reasons for this.

I might modify that to "when an armed man, and especially one who is legally armed..."

Legally armed people tend to be very law-abiding. They don't generally go around starting fistfights.

Armed men who are about to get into a fistfight also don't call the police first.

Armed men don't generally start a fistfight, because they know it could end with them having to use their gun on the other person. I dare say that even if you don't care that much about the other person's life, generally speaking, no legally armed person wants to be known as "the guy who killed so-and-so."

Nor does any legally armed person want the hassle and danger and expense of being arrested and tried for murder.

Finally, if someone with a gun really wants to harm another person, he's not going to use his fists to do so.

[GOPJ]

You’re right on every count Jeff...

[Bob]

With what little the prosecution had in terms of evidence, the prosecutors didn’t need to throw the case. Their most zealous efforts would hardly be distinguishable from throwing it.

[nathanbedford]

"Remember, it's monumentally irrelevant who's morally guilty here."

Dershowitz is correct and understanding this concept is monumentally important to understanding this case. Those in the Martin camp have sought to characterize Zimmerman as morally guilty and therefore he is entitled to use less force to defend himself. In other words, if, they imply, Zimmerman contributed to an atmosphere which resulted in a fight which entitled Zimmerman resort to self-defense he was morally guilty and therefore not entitled to use deadly force. That is to say, the degree of force used was unreasonable in the sense that it was immoral.

When Dershowitz makes his observation that it is irrelevant who is morally guilty he is making the distinction which I have been trying to make in many posts, that the right to employ self defense is independent of these moral considerations. The right to use self-defense depends on the defendant's "imminent apprehension of serious bodily harm" and that apprehension must be "reasonable." But that test of reasonableness has nothing to do with the defendant's morality, it has only to do with whether his assessment of imminent serious bodily harm is accurate in the sense that it is credible. The test of reasonableness is designed to elevate a test from mere subjectivity on the part of the defendant to a standard which jury can assess according to the circumstances in the case having to do with the imminence and seriousness of the harm.

Significantly, once the jury concludes that the defendant had the right to resort to self defense, he automatically has the right to resort to deadly force, regardless of his morality.

I have said this in the context of the jury arriving in a compromise verdict finding Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter because they are led down the false path of morality. The simple fact is that under the law in Florida if Zimmerman is innocent of murder II because he properly resorted to self-defense, then he is automatically innocent of the charge of manslaughter for the same reason.

I have said the judge should charge to this effect to avoid any improper compromise verdict which the jury has no right to make.

[ridesthemiles]

I still am having a really tough time with the term ‘unarmed’ applied to Trayvon Martin.

IIRC, the can of Arizona Iced Tea which he had bought along with the Skittles is a 20 OZ can.

I just browsed my cupboard of canned goods.

I have cans of DOLE crushed pineapple—they are all 20 OZ.

I picked up that can- hefted it a few times & swung it in a motion which would become an overhead blow to someone or something.

Then I asked myself:

IF someone was using that 20 OZ can to hit me about my head & upper body, would I consider that a WEAPON?

Hell, yes!!!!!

[Pollster1]

Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, is charged with second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, who identifies himself as worm food.

[ncpatriot]

If Z is found guilty, I bet America will rise up against the injustice. People will tolerate a guilty person who is found not guilty; but we will not tolerate the injustice of an innocent man found guilty. At least I hope that’s true. Americans need to stand up against our justice system

[SJackson]

I'd say Zimmerman's injuries go a long way toward answering that question.

Doesn't answer who threw the first blow, but certainly who threw the effective blows, and who might have been in fear of his life.

[SJackson]

No, Alan, the case begins and ends with one question: Did Zimmerman have a reasonable belief that he was going to suffer great bodily harm? If so, then he's immune from both civil and criminal prosecution, and it has everything to do with Flordia law.

I haven't had time to spend on these threads as I'd liked, so maybe this has been answered. But it's my understanding that if Zimmerman initiated, on the one hand he could well have felt fear for bodily harm and legitimately defended himself, however the initiating actions could open him to lesser charges based on negligence and/or imprudent action. Of course the prosecution, in their wisdom, didn't address those possibilities. I'm not suggesting Zimmerman is culpable for those actions.

[SJackson]

You're right, who started the fight does matter, though as you state not in the context of 2nd degree murder. And the prosecution has presented nothing to support lesser charges. I don't think there's anything to convict him of. I'm puzzled what there was to charge him, other than national media and Executive Branch pressure.

Do we agree than contributing actions could lead to criminal liability? If Zimmerman started the fight, and came out on the short end, legitimately defending himself isn't murder, but there might be something there. Not suggesting that happened.

If I sell a firearm to someone without documentation, required or not, I could be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

If I sell a firearm to known criminals, who use it to kill anyone from a Border Patrol agent to a Police Chief to hundreds of citizens, many probably criminals, of another nation, I'm guilty of nothing.

Go figure.

[SJackson]

Yes, I don’t remember Zimmerman identifying himself as anything. Some corners of the media identified him as Jewish. I wonder what he identifies himself as, or why it matters.

[SJackson]

He’ll be found not guilty. The verdict isn’t the problem. It’s the rioting that will be the problem.

A different more serious problem should it come to pass.

[SJackson]

You present the moral/legal distinction quite well, though in this situation I don’t see the conflict I suspect Alan might. As to lower charges, though there could be something there in the context of imprudent or negligent action which I don’t see, they weren’t charged, thus depriving Zimmerman of the ability to defend against them. They shouldn’t be an issue.

[SJackson]

I still am having a really tough time with the term ‘unarmed’ applied to Trayvon Martin. IIRC, the can of Arizona Iced Tea which he had bought along with the Skittles is a 20 OZ can.

A few people with an Arizona Tea to put in their sock would have been well armed on 9/11. Able to defeat box cutters. Couple bars of soap works too. Camera on a strap.

[circlecity]

The first blow is the one most likely to land - Martin didn’t have a mark on him. That makes the probability overwhelming Martin threw the first blow. End of story.

[SJackson]

Clearly the probability.

[Redmen4ever]

On the matter of civil liability, the standard is preponderance of evidence (or, who has the most). As we know from the OJ trial, you can meet this standard and not meet the standard for criminal conviction of beyond reasonable doubt. But, what money could they get from George Zimmerman? Even if he were found liable, he’d simply declare bankruptcy and walk away. He wouldn’t even need a lawyer. Just defend yourself pro se and let the other side spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the possibility of nothing.