He's Gonna Walk...

[EXTXOILMAN]

Interesting analysis done by a clear thinking liberal.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++

Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why
ANALYSIS by DAN ABRAMS
July 7, 2013

I drew a legal conclusion on "Good Morning America" Saturday that would have surprised the Dan Abrams who covered the George Zimmerman case leading up to, and shortly after, his arrest.

Now that the prosecution's case against Zimmerman is in, as a legal matter, I just don't see how a jury convicts him of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
So what happened? How can an armed man who shot and killed an unarmed teen after being told by the police that he didn't need to keep following him, likely be found not guilty of those crimes?

I certainly sympathize with the anger and frustration of the Martin family and doubt that a jury will accept the entirety of George Zimmerman's account as credible. But based on the legal standard and evidence presented by prosecutors it is difficult to see how jurors find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.

They have the burden to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" that the gunshot was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to himself. That is no easy feat based on the evidence presented in their case. Almost every prosecution witness was called to discredit the only eyewitness who unquestionably saw everything that occurred that night, George Zimmerman.

The essence of Zimmerman's account is basically as follows:

He spotted Martin, became suspicious, called police, was told he didn't need to follow him, was only out of his car to give the authorities an address, was jumped and then pummeled by Martin and as he was being punched and having his head knocked into the ground, Martin went for Zimmerman's firearm and Zimmerman shot him once in the chest.

The prosecution, on the other hand, called 38 witnesses to try to show: Zimmerman was a wannabe cop who regularly reported black strangers in his neighborhood; initiated and was at least at one point, on top during the encounter; that Zimmerman's injuries were minor and that many aspects of his accounts to the police and media were inconsistent and/or lies.

For a moment, lets put aside the fact that many of the prosecution witnesses seemed to help Zimmerman in one way or another.

As a legal matter, even if jurors find parts of Zimmerman's story fishy, that is not enough to convict. Even if they believe that Zimmerman initiated the altercation, and that his injuries were relatively minor, that too would be insufficient evidence to convict. Prosecutors have to effectively disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. So what exactly would that mean based on the facts as we know them?

Let's take a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario whereby jurors don't believe Zimmerman when he says he wasn't following Martin (the lead detective who seemed to find Zimmerman's account credible had a problem with this part of Zimmerman's account).

Let's also assume they believe Zimmerman approached Martin and it is only because Zimmerman was tailing Trayvon Martin that a fight ensued. First of all, the fact that there was a fight at all makes a murder conviction difficult. To win a murder conviction, they have to show he had the intent to kill and did so with "depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will."

While prosecutors argue that Zimmerman's statements to the 911 operator about the "f------ punks" always "getting away," shows ill will, most legal analysts felt from the beginning that with a fight, a murder charge was overreaching.

Manslaughter is far more likely to create debate in that jury room (there could also be even lesser crimes they consider, where they could find him guilty of something).

Zimmerman's injuries alone -- his broken nose and cuts on the back of his head -- are objective evidence to support his account that he shot Martin as he was being pummeled.

Just as important is the testimony of neighbor John Good, who lived directly in front of the location where Martin was shot. He very precisely (but reluctantly) testified that he saw the lighter skinned man in the red jacket on the bottom of the scuffle with the darker skinned man with the darker clothing on the top in a "mixed martial arts position." He said he now believes that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

But wait, another witness said she thought Zimmerman was likely on top. Put aside the fact that Good's home is the closest to the incident and that her testimony didn't seem nearly as credible or definitive as Good's, that doesn't change the legal reality that one does not negate the other.

The prosecution has the burden to prove the case and so if there is reasonable doubt, the defense wins. Good's testimony in conjunction with Zimmerman's injuries are likely enough to cast reasonable doubt on the key question, which is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed he needed to shoot Martin to prevent "great bodily injury."

Of course, the jurors could also accept all or the vast majority of Zimmerman's account, making an acquittal that much easier.

What about the fact that prosecution witnesses have testified that his injuries were not that significant? While interesting (and debatable), the only relevant legal question is what was Zimmerman thinking or fearing at the time, not what already occurred.

In many self defense cases the person who shoots a fatal bullet suffers no injuries at all and instead argues he or she protected himself or herself from injury by shooting the attacker.

So wait, let's take a step back. If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes.

If these jurors have questions or doubts about whether, at the moment he fired the fatal shot, Zimmerman "reasonably" feared that this was the only way to stop from getting beaten further, then they have to find him not guilty.

To be clear, if we were talking about Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting. That law, which can protect a shooter from even going to trial, wasn't designed for someone who starts a fight and then loses the fight he initiated.

Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different. Now no matter how it started, if Zimmerman shot Martin because he reasonably believed it was the only way to protect himself from "great bodily harm" then he is not guilty. That's the law.

With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...2#.Udo2GbEo4eg

[Jackie S]

The flaw in any reasonable thinking in this scenario is this is a politically motivated prosecution from day one. The local police dept and DA did not indict because they looked at the law and the evidence and knew there was not a case.

But that did not stop the poverty pimps, race baiters, polititians and the major news outlets from inflaming the issues and demanding something be done, regardless of the circumstances.

The jury, regardless of what they told the lawyers during selection, know this. The probably have a fear that their lives might even be in danger if they do not convict on something, even though that we all know now that the prosecution has presented nothing to support a conviction.

Jury nullification happens when a jury acquits, even though the State proves it's case, because they believe the law to be unjust in a particular case. What we might have here is a reverse of that, a jury willing to convict, even though the State has not proven it's case, for fear of the mob mentality that will surely be fueled by the very poverty pimps, race baiters, polititians, and major news outlets that instigated the whole thing to begin with.

[EXTXOILMAN]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The flaw in any reasonable thinking in this scenario is this is a politically motivated prosecution from day one. The local police dept and DA did not indict because they looked at the law and the evidence and knew there was not a case.

But that did not stop the poverty pimps, race baiters, polititians and the major news outlets from inflaming the issues and demanding something be done, regardless of the circumstances.

The jury, regardless of what they told the lawyers during selection, know this. The probably have a fear that their lives might even be in danger if they do not convict on something, even though that we all know now that the prosecution has presented nothing to support a conviction.

Jury nullification happens when a jury acquits, even though the State proves it's case, because they believe the law to be unjust in a particular case. What we might have here is a reverse of that, a jury willing to convict, even though the State has not proven it's case, for fear of the mob mentality that will surely be fueled by the very poverty pimps, race baiters, polititians, and major news outlets that instigated the whole thing to begin with.

That's spot on, Jackie. Riots all over the country have basically been guaranteed by the same agitators if the verdict doesn't come out the way they want.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The flaw in any reasonable thinking in this scenario is this is a politically motivated prosecution from day one. The local police dept and DA did not indict because they looked at the law and the evidence and knew there was not a case.
While I agree there is certainly an aspect of political motivation in this prosecution, there is also a dead unarmed teen--it is nowhere near as cut & dried as you portray it. And if you are familiar with that part of central FL you would realize that the police there are very politically motivated as well. This is the rural south, circa 1950s. The same central FL where it is the police is a family business, and racially/economically based policing is always a distinct possibility. It truly is the Good Ol' Boy south. I am not saying that is what happened in this case, but anyone who lived in that region or had the "good fortune" of being pulled over in a racially selective speed trap in Sebring, Avon Park, Lake Placid, etc., will certainly have that thought leap to the front of their mind.

Jury nullification happens when a jury acquits, even though the State proves it's case, because they believe the law to be unjust in a particular case. What we might have here is a reverse of that, a jury willing to convict, even though the State has not proven it's case, for fear of the mob mentality that will surely be fueled by the very poverty pimps, race baiters, polititians, and major news outlets that instigated the whole thing to begin with.
Hopefully that will not happen no matter what the verdict. But nice of you to already determine
GUILTY = fear of mob violence
NOT GUILTY = honest verdict

The problem with getting a fair, widely accepted verdict is--as others have pointed out--the jury is being required to assess the thoughts inside Z's head at that moment, and only one side can be heard. Unless Zimmerman were to blatantly convict himself on the stand--which would be seriously dumb--the jury is being made to speculate. That plays right into the "reasonable doubt" issue.

I think he was a macho vigilante fool. I don't think he set out to kill anyone, but he was the major cause of a person being dead when there was no good reason for it if he had only done what he was trained to do, and told to do. I think manslaughter is about right, but I doubt he will be convicted because of the reasonable doubt issue on his intent. In essence he will serve about a year and receive a substantial fine that goes to his lawyers.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Old-T

The problem with getting a fair, widely accepted verdict is--as others have pointed out--the jury is being required to assess the thoughts inside Z's head at that moment, and only one side can be heard. Unless Zimmerman were to blatantly convict himself on the stand--which would be seriously dumb--the jury is being made to speculate. That plays right into the "reasonable doubt" issue.

I think he was a macho vigilante fool. I don't think he set out to kill anyone, but he was the major cause of a person being dead when there was no good reason for it if he had only done what he was trained to do, and told to do. I think manslaughter is about right, but I doubt he will be convicted because of the reasonable doubt issue on his intent. In essence he will serve about a year and receive a substantial fine that goes to his lawyers.

In FL, the death of a minor via manslaughter is a minimum of 30 years, btw. Not a lawyer, just heard that on the news.

[Yssup Rider]

You guys will be so happy if he walks. Hope you don't like Skittles ... The MOB will be coming for you.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

In FL, the death of a minor via manslaughter is a minimum of 30 years, btw. Not a lawyer, just heard that on the news.

That by itself may be sufficient for a jury to feel very queasy about convicting. Personally I think 30 years would be too much for macho stupidity. Of course I also think zero is too little.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You guys will be so happy if he walks. Hope you don't like Skittles ... The MOB will be coming for you.

Hopefully not. Mobs are almost never the right answer.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Old-T

That by itself may be sufficient for a jury to feel very queasy about convicting. Personally I think 30 years would be too much for macho stupidity. Of course I also think zero is too little.

The crux: Unless the jury is educated, they will never know what the minimum sentence is. No one, including the judge is allowed to tell them. Another FL law.

[Old-T]

You are just reaffirming what I learned when I lived in the hell hole that is central FL: I'm glad I don't live there any more. Now the jury is supposed to sign blank checks? Yep, it does sound like FL.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You guys will be so happy if he walks. Hope you don't like Skittles ... The MOB will be coming for you.

Throughout the months that this scenario has been playing out, we have all said, "wait for the trial, the truth will come out in a court of law"

Well, that has now happened. We have all heard the exact same testimony. If this was just an everyday case with no sideshow, the judge would have probably directed a verdict of not guilty.

We are a nation of laws, not mob rule. That law dictates the responsibilities of the prosecution in order to establish guilt and obtain a conviction. In this case, they did not meet that.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

In FL, the death of a minor via manslaughter is a minimum of 30 years, btw. Not a lawyer, just heard that on the news.

The lower age aggravates the manslaughter for which one can get life in Florida. The bottom line is (on the issue of "over-reaching" on the indictment of 2nd degree murder) the State did not have to charge Zimmerman with "murder" to get a life sentence, when it is available for aggravated manslaughter (based on age), even though Martin is on the "border line" at 17 years.

The flaw in the manslaughter charged is the "negligence" ... one cannot intentionally shoot someone in self-defense and be "negligent" of shooting the same person at the same time. .. In that context the terms are mutually exclusive.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

We have all heard the exact same testimony.

Actually "we" haven't. I would be willing to bet a decent sum of money (to be held by a trustworthy person) that NO ONE posting in this thread or this board in this Forum has heard ALL OF THE TESTIMONY .. or THAT ALL have heard the "exact same testimony" ... and there is other "evidence" to consider rather than "testimony."

But, having said that, if such were true, the disagreement on here shows that based on the "highlights" of the evidence that has been revealed in favor of one side or the other ... there is a REASONABLE DOUBT" ...

... since all of us are "reasonable" people on here and there are doubts one way or the other.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You guys will be so happy if he walks. Hope you don't like Skittles ... The MOB will be coming for you.

That is such a foolish statement. You and others keep harping on the fact that he was unarmed and only had a bag of skittles. He was shot because he was beating the crap out of GZ. What part of that do you not understand? GZ did not break the law by following him. TM is the one who turned this into a criminal act and that is why he is dead. Is this a tragedy? Yes, but one that TM is responsible for. We can all feel for his family and the loss they must endure but TM is the one who turned this into a violent act and thus caused his own death. Continually bring up skittles is just stupid.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The flaw in any reasonable thinking in this scenario is this is a politically motivated prosecution from day one. The local police dept and DA did not indict because they looked at the law and the evidence and knew there was not a case.

But that did not stop the poverty pimps, race baiters, polititians and the major news outlets from inflaming the issues and demanding something be done, regardless of the circumstances.

The jury, regardless of what they told the lawyers during selection, know this. The probably have a fear that their lives might even be in danger if they do not convict on something, even though that we all know now that the prosecution has presented nothing to support a conviction.

Jury nullification happens when a jury acquits, even though the State proves it's case, because they believe the law to be unjust in a particular case. What we might have here is a reverse of that, a jury willing to convict, even though the State has not proven it's case, for fear of the mob mentality that will surely be fueled by the very poverty pimps, race baiters, polititians, and major news outlets that instigated the whole thing to begin with.

an arrest warrant cant be issued because 1 or 10 individuals, groups etc etc BITCH about the scenario ..