Click the Drop!
It may seem like a drop in the ocean
But even small monthly donations
Will keep Free Republic running smoothly
Sponsors will contribute $10
every time a new monthly donor signs up
Posted on 04/12/2012 9:52:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Judging from a sidebar in today's New York Times, there is some confusion about how Florida's self-defense law applies to George Zimmerman's case. The law, as amended in 2005, states that someone who justifiably uses force in self-defense "is immune from criminal prosecution." Under a 2010 decision by the Florida Supreme Court, that means Zimmerman has a right to a pretrial hearing where he can get the second-degree murder charge against him dismissed if he can show, by "a preponderance of the evidence," that he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent Trayvon Martin from killing or seriously injuring him. In other words, he has to convince a judge it is more likely than not that his use of force was lawful. But if he loses that motion, he can still argue at trial that he acted in self-defense, and the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not.
By contrast, the Times leaves the impression that Zimmerman has no hope of acquittal if his motion to dismiss is denied:
The case will almost certainly include a pretrial hearing to determine whether the state’s Stand Your Ground law, which grants broad protections to people who claim to have killed in self-defense, applies; if the judge finds that Mr. Zimmerman acted appropriately, the case will end there. If the judge decides that the protections of the law do not apply, the case will go forward.
At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School. That could lead to a fallback position for the jury — if allowed by the judge — of a lesser verdict of manslaughter should the jury decide that Mr. Zimmerman sincerely but unreasonably believed that he was appropriately using lethal force to defend himself, which is known as "imperfect self-defense."
Manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years, does seem like a more appropriate charge than second-degree murder, which carries a potential life sentence and requires "a depraved mind regardless of human life." If Zimmerman broke the law, it was probably because he overreacted in the heat of the moment, so the murder charge seems like a stretch. But contrary to the implication of the Times article, a manslaughter conviction is not the best that Zimmerman can hope for if his case goes to trial. The jury could conclude there is reasonable doubt as to whether he acted in self-defense, in which case he would be acquitted. That standard is not some weird quirk of Florida law. As Northern Kentucky University law professor Michael J.Z. Mannheimer points out, "this is true in virtually every State."
Furthermore, the Times conflates two different aspects of Florida's self-defense law. If Zimmerman's account of his fight with Martin is true, he had no opportunity to safely retreat, so the right to "stand your ground" (the "broad protections" mentioned by the Times) would not apply. In this case the unusual aspect of Florida's law is not the self-defense argument Zimmerman is making but the fact that he gets to present it before trial, along with evidence to support his version of the shooting.
In mandating that procedure, the Florida Supreme Court noted the legislative intent expressed in the preamble to the 2005 law: "The Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution." The court explained that the "immunity" promised by the law was meant to provide extra protection for people who use force in self-defense:
While Florida law has long recognized that a defendant may argue as an affirmative defense at trial that his or her use of force was legally justified, section 776.032 contemplates that a defendant who establishes entitlement to the statutory immunity will not be subjected to trial. Section 776.032(1) expressly grants defendants a substantive right to not be arrested, detained, charged, or prosecuted as a result of the use of legally justified force. The statute does not merely provide that a defendant cannot be convicted as a result of legally justified force.
But to reiterate, that defense is still available even if Zimmerman does not have enough evidence in his favor to avoid a trial.
Addendum: On the issue of second-degree murder vs. manslaughter, Florida's standard jury instruction for the former crime requires that the act leading to the victim's death "is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent," which does not seem to fit the publicly known facts of the shooting, although it might make sense if it can be shown that Zimmerman shot Martin out of anger rather than fear. As Mo points out in the comments, Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, today described the shooting this way: "I believe it was an accident. I believe it just got out of control, and he couldn't turn the clock back." That does not sound like second-degree murder.
She should have said, Justice for Trayvon and Zimmerman. And she certainly had enough time to get her public statement right before going on camera.
It's not just Zimmerman on trial of course. It's the "stand your ground" law (I'll bet Fla. changes it in the legislature), and many will claim that we need new "hate crime" laws in Fla., other states, and at the federal level.
I think we have too many thought crime laws already.
Silly, that particular Mob opposes the death penalty.
But they do like to see those who they identify as racists (ie Republicans) going to jail.
I wasn't thinking of trusting a jury, once I see both sides present their cases I will be my own jury.
Leftists, ie communists, don’t see non-communists as even human, or as worthy of life at all,
so their opposition to the death penalty probably wouldn’t extend to us.
Since blacks are already covered by the federal ‘hate’ crime it is hard to make that argument.
Convicting him of a hate crime will be very difficult unless they have a witness that can show specific evidence that race was his motive, based on his observed statements.
Also a good point. I'm just not sure a change of venue would improve rather than damage the man's chances in this case.
In the Casey Anthony trial they imported the jury from here in Pinellas County and still held the trial in Orlando.
I like that approach because the charging district has to handle the expenses of security instead of pawning it off on some supposedly “unaffected(clueless)” community.
Still a change of venue is likely as even the judge could be a target when Mr. Zimmerman brings a pre-trial motion to dismiss which is guaranteed to be held. Trust me. ;-)
She looks like she got her makeup tips from a John Waters’ film.
Yes, and I hope they remember to keep their mouths shut. Because if other jurors find out they’re leaning to acquit they’ll be thrown off the jury...ala OJ.
Not entirely. The actual recordings of Zimmerman's 911 calls are available.
Only if you can get a Korean jury...
If the DA has her way, he'll get a North Korean jury right there in Florida, eager to please the Dear Leader in D.C.
That comment alone should see Zimmerman released due to prejudicial prosecution.
As you state, she has as much duty to find Zimmerman not-guilty, as she does to find him guilty.
Frankly I want Zimmerman to get justice, whatever is proven. If he’s found guilty legitimately, I will be glad to see it. Same goes for him being found not-guilty.
How about, “...justice for Zimmerman”, you wanker b-—h?
The 90 year old war veteran husband was beaten and his jaw broken. He was shot in the face numerous times with a BB gun and sent to the hospital in critical condition.
The 85 year old partially blind wife was RAPED and then BEATEN TO DEATH.
Can you just imagine the pain, the humiliation, the horror that dear old lady experienced being gang raped by that pack of feral animals?
(the autopsy states she was raped. Don’t think all of these animals didn’t all participate)
And can you imagine the pain, the horror of that dear old husband having to witness this?
There’s a lot more involved here than a home invasion and robbery.
WHERE ARE THE CHARGES OF A RACIAL HATE CRIME??
90 year old husband’s jaw broken and shot in face with a BB gun numerous times?
85 wife year old semi blind wife RAPED and BEATEN to death??
Why does it take a foreign press to enlighten America as to this henious crime?
Where is the outrage?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117695/Brutal-home-invasion-Oklahoma-couple-ends-65-year-romance-meeting-blind-date.html
__________________________
Have they caught the rest of the gang of feral blacks who raped, tortured and murdered this elderly woman? Are they even looking? Not a word about it in the media.
You can always make a bad law worse.
Convicting him of a hate crime will be very difficult unless they have a witness that can show specific evidence that race was his motive, based on his observed statements.
I agree, and the Sharpton/Jackson/black panther mob could use that to push for "stronger" hate crime laws, at least in some states.
And doing so would be crazy, but that's how we got "hate crime" laws in the first place.
LOL!!
Any prison sentence is likely to be a death sentence for George Zimmerman.
Very good post, but I question that part. I suspect the gov and AG were afraid that a grand jury might decide there were no grounds to indict, and were afraid of the mob reaction. So they appointed a special prosecutor to make sure there was a quick indictment to quiet things down (for now).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.