Trayvon Martin Case

[Chico23231]

Joe you ever practice in Va?

[JoeRedskin]

Nope. Not licensed to practice there.

[JoeRedskin]

FYI - GZ's forensic expert is testifying. Very good stuff. Rat, you'll like it - he just blows off anything unprovable through the scientific method ... the guy is practically robotic.

Doctor details how Martin bled to death | HLNtv.com

1:51 p.m. ET: Di Maio says he can't say if the gun was pulled out of the holster by Zimmerman, just that there was a shot to Martin's chest.

"You can't tell that by any scientific method," said Di Maio.

1:54 p.m. ET: Di Maio can't say for sure what angle Martin was positioned at on top of Zimmerman, just that Martin was over Zimmerman when he was shot. He doesn't believe the two were standing at the time of the shooting, based on the evidence. He agrees that Martin could have been pulling away from Zimmerman when he was shot.

...

2:25 p.m. ET: "I’m not going to base my opinions on the witnesses because witnesses are wrong all the time," said Di Maio. He says he bases his opinions on the evidence and facts.

2:28 p.m. ET: West is describing the testimony of another witness who said Zimmerman was on top and Martin was face-down when the shot was fired.

"No sir, it's not possible," said Di Maio. West says this is another example of a witness who had good intentions but got it wrong.

2:29 p.m. ET: Di Maio says another eye witness's testimony, John Good, is consistent with the evidence. Good said Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shot was fired, in a "ground and pound" type of position, striking Zimmerman.

Solid witness. Based on the responses, he seems a much more credible guy than Bao. Also, prosecution's cross not bad - limited and not going for any big points. Just some helpful puzzle pieces they can use in their closing.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I have never doubted "there is enough to convict". People have been convicted of much worse on much less. On the other hand, I strongly disagree that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt as to:

(1) Who initiated the conflict; and
(2) Whether Zimm's claim of self-defense was reasonable.

As with Chico, it's hard to consider your opinion as anything other than a foregone conclusion based on your initial and continuing characterizations of the individuals in this matter, your seeming refusal to look critically at your initial conclusions and your acceptance of several speculative assertions as fact coupled with your complete disregard for other facts, admitted into evidence, that are favorable to GZ.

Without completely changing the known facts, it seems to me that, for you and Chico at least, there is not, never has been and could never be, any scenario under which there could be any doubt as to what happened and how it happened on the night in question. Rather, IMHO, you have consistently filled in the speculative blanks based on your perceptions and assumptions of the individuals involved.

The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO, MUST do the same thing to convict.

I have always been open to a guilty verdict on either charge. Based on what I have seen, however, the State's has failed miserably at eliminating all reasonable doubt on the key elements the enumerated above.

In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.

The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk. You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense

Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

FYI - GZ's forensic expert is testifying. Very good stuff. Rat, you'll like it - he just blows off anything unprovable through the scientific method ... the guy is practically robotic.

It's been a fascinating case, I have enjoyed watching the Defense do their thing, except for that opening.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.

The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk. You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense

Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense

He had a broken nose and bruises don't bleed and your really reaching calling what Zimmerman did stalking. Also you can creata a situation and claim self defense.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.

Wrong, wrong, wrong wroooong. Wrong wrong wrong wrooooong. [Y'all know the clip].

I already covered this once, so let's review:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is initially on Z to assert but, once asserted and a prima facia case made, it is up to the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.

Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
...

Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.

So, to be sure, I looked it up. As I assumed, Florida law is essentially the same:

"In a criminal prosecution the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State and, as a result, when self-defense is properly at issue, the state effectively has the burden to prove that defendant was not acting in self-defense during the commission of the criminal act."

Originally Posted by saden1

The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk.

Again, ignoring your assumptions of facts not proven and your speculative characterizations ...

ZIMMERMAN DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT . Innocent until proven guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt. Lordy, how many times do I have to restate this simple, fundamental principal of our legal system.

By the way, and to preempt any silly assertions that "Well, GZ's self-defense isn't 'properly at issue' because he hasn't proved it" remark from saden or someone else - if the State thought that a prima facia claim of self-defense claim wasn't generated by the evidence, they would have brought a murder 1 charge against GZ. By bringing the murder 2 charge instead, the State acknowledges that the evidence has generated a self-defense claim but they assert it was not valid. As such, they must now prove its invalidity BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Sorry for "yelling" but the wilfull ignorance being exhibited in this thread is getting me testy.

Originally Posted by saden1

You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense.Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense

Again, you're assertion that GZ "create[d] a situation" glosses over the key issues of the case that are in dispute. Further, the claim of self-defense is not "peripheral" - what an idiotic statement. It is central to the events of that evening and sufficiently in dispute so as to be acknowledged by the State's indictment.

All you are doing is restating your initial bias and speculation and throwing in an extra helping of ignorance ... but, hey, that's sounds like an excellent basis to put people in jail.

[RedskinRat]

What a beat-down!

May I suggest, saden1, you quit while you're behind? You're looking more and more like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

This is almost as much fun as the actual trial.

[JoeRedskin]

Here's the Florida pattern jury instructions on the issue:

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent, one, imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or, two, the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another.

* * *

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant, as to each material allegation in the information, through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

emphasis mine.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am saying noway he walks, either it's a mistrial or guilty. I'll take that $25 dollar bet...if he walks you win, he is convicted of manslaughter or above I win, if it's a mistrial it's a wash.

Can I get in on the action?

Same as above, except for $50.

[NC_Skins]

One of the comments from a article about the trial.

The reason the defense is only going to take half the time is because the prosecution did half the work for them.

Reading the stuff Joe has said up here, I think that guy's comment hit the nail on the head.

[JoeRedskin]

As an aside, today I was assigned my third tort defense case of the year involving a teenager crossing a major highway at a non-intersection and being struck and killed. Their ages were 14, 16 and the most recent a 17 year old homecoming queen. Each was tragic, each involved bad decision making by several people and each was avoidable by the teen. In each case, criminal charges against the driver were considered and rejected. In the case of the 14 year old, the driver was prosecuted for a DUI and spent 3 months in prison but was not charged with manslaughter b/c the police believed the accident to be unavoidable i.e. even had he not been intoxicated he would have hit the child.

Martin's death was a tragedy, people want someone to blame. Is Zimmerman civilly liable? Maybe. A wrongful death claim will be filed (just as it was in OJ). In that case, Zimmerman will bear the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

I only bring this out to demonstrate that death and tragedy happen. Often. Too often. Not all result in show trials. You think the mother of the 14 year-old killed by a drunk driver had no problem being told "Sorry ma'am, we know your son was killed by a drunk driver but, unfortunately, it was your son's own fault"? I guarrantee you she did.

Here, the question is do we know enough to imprison an person. As society, we have said that, regardless of the tragic results, we will not compound tragedies by acting out of vengance. Instead, and in order to temper our need for vengance, we have a system that is designed (although it does not always work that way) such that we will allow 99 guilty men to go free rather than subject one innocent man to imprisonment. It often leads to deeply unsatisfying results but it is, to me, the right way for a society to mete out punishment. Otherwise, mob rule, lynchings and vigalantism will become the substitute for "justice".

Further, there is recourse for those harmed by others, we as a society may not punish a suspected criminal but they can be sued by the person they have wronged. Often such suits are pointless b/c the suspected criminal has no assets, but, in a case such as this, there is the opportunity for real recourse through civil action.

Sorry for the rambling. A beautiful young woman was killed b/c several people (including her) made bad decisions. It simply saddens me and gets me all philosophical.

Hug your kids everyday. At least twice.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Is Martin civilly liable? Maybe. A wrongful death claim will be filed (just as it was in OJ). In that case, Martin will bear the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

You meant Zimmerman, JR?

[JoeRedskin]

^^ Yes. Thanks. Will edit for correction.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wrong, wrong, wrong wroooong. Wrong wrong wrong wrooooong. [Y'all know the clip].

I already covered this once, so let's review:



So, to be sure, I looked it up. As I assumed, Florida law is essentially the same:

"In a criminal prosecution the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State and, as a result, when self-defense is properly at issue, the state effectively has the burden to prove that defendant was not acting in self-defense during the commission of the criminal act."



Again, ignoring your assumptions of facts not proven and your speculative characterizations ...

ZIMMERMAN DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT . Innocent until proven guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt. Lordy, how many times do I have to restate this simple, fundamental principal of our legal system.

By the way, and to preempt any silly assertions that "Well, GZ's self-defense isn't 'properly at issue' because he hasn't proved it" remark from saden or someone else - if the State thought that a prima facia claim of self-defense claim wasn't generated by the evidence, they would have brought a murder 1 charge against GZ. By bringing the murder 2 charge instead, the State acknowledges that the evidence has generated a self-defense claim but they assert it was not valid. As such, they must now prove its invalidity BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Sorry for "yelling" but the wilfull ignorance being exhibited in this thread is getting me testy.



Again, you're assertion that GZ "create[d] a situation" glosses over the key issues of the case that are in dispute. Further, the claim of self-defense is not "peripheral" - what an idiotic statement. It is central to the events of that evening and sufficiently in dispute so as to be acknowledged by the State's indictment.

All you are doing is restating your initial bias and speculation and throwing in an extra helping of ignorance ... but, hey, that's sounds like an excellent basis to put people in jail.

Prove might have been the wrong word to use, perhaps show would be more appropriate. I am saying a self-defense claim is an extraordinary claim and as such there is a greater burden on the defense than in a typical criminal trial. The prosecutor has 5 angles of attack that the defense must show there is a reasonable cause to doubt each point of attack.

As for murder 1 we don't need to go there because it doesn't apply in this case.